I am truly shocked that more pro-gun Republicans aren’t speaking out against federal policing in Portland.

The best protection gun owners have against federal restrictions on firearms is the commerce clause.

And Trump has set it on fire.

A THREAD

In the past, Congress created a federal safe schools bill that prohibited handguns near public schools.

The Supreme Court found the law unconstitutional because the federal government lacks policing power.

2/

I agree that our federal government lacks local policing power.

And that the line between policing and regulating interstate commerce can be tricky.

Congress has full authority to do the latter—but not the former.

3/

It’s why we can have federal laws on illegal gun trafficking between the states, but individual states control their conceal and carry laws.

But that’s subject to change if the precedent is set that the federal government does engage in local policing.

4/

You don’t get it both ways.

It isn’t that some federal policing is okay—it’s all or nothing.

That’s why I find it bizarre that Republicans aren’t speaking out about Portland.

5/

They should challenge the constitutionality of having federal police on American streets.

Spoiler: It’s unconstitutional.

6/

But if that act isn’t challenged. If it instead becomes acceptable use of law enforcement. If the federal government is able to police local communities and that becomes the new standard—then what Congress can do under the commerce clause could change.

7/

Right now, what prevents mass federal gun regulation or mass federal domestic violence regulation is the fact the federal government has no policing power.

But if you give the federal government that power—they have it in all respects.

8/

The federal government can re-institute the federal gun safety in public schools legislation.

The federal government can make female genital mutilation a crime.

The federal government can give a private right of action to survivors of domestic abuse.

9/

The federal government can send its police to Portland or Pleasant Hill or Philadelphia.

The federal government can cease to function as a republic, and commence authoritarian rule.

10/

I suspect there are Republicans unaware of what expanding federal policing power means for state-by-state gun laws.

I suspect there are Democrats who know what it could mean and therefore are less inclined to speak out about Portland, confident of a Biden win in November.

11/

It’s rare for politicians to take a principled stand on an issue.

Mine is clear—there should be no federal policing power.

Even if that means no federal standards for safe schools.

And especially if that means no federal police in our streets.

12/

But as you look at other federal officials and what they are or aren’t saying—look also for their hypocrisy.

Their inability to take a principled stance. Their willingness not to govern—but to control.

Because that’s what it’s really about—control.

13/

We already militarize local police departments. You toss in a federal police force and now you have armed tactical units in cities and towns across America.

No need to deploy soldiers.

Authoritarian state complete.

14/

Some GOP politicians are willfully ignorant of the consequences of their actions.

Some know they’re assisting a rising authoritarian + incorrectly assume they’ll be on the inside once it’s over.

Some see what’s happening + are speaking up.

We need more of that.

15/15