Gun Control 2023 - ATF Shenanigans, States Fight Back!

[Galloism]

I mean, were all in agreement here that this laughable piece of TP Legislation isn't going to survive when challenged in court, right?

I think I’d have to read the bill and references.

But, assuming the characterization true, I wouldn’t be so sure of a court strike down. The firearms in question generally aren’t in common use, and the sillier part (bb guns) doesn’t appear to impact a critical right when regular guns are allowed.

Silly doesn’t mean unconstitutional.

[Grinning Dragon]

I mean, were all in agreement here that this laughable piece of TP Legislation isn't going to survive when challenged in court, right?

I think I’d have to read the bill and references.

But, assuming the characterization true, I wouldn’t be so sure of a court strike down. The firearms in question generally aren’t in common use, and the sillier part (bb guns) doesn’t appear to impact a critical right when regular guns are allowed.

Silly doesn’t mean unconstitutional.

Well if the standard of common use is somewhere around 200K due in part to Caetano v. Mass. then with Bruen(which more or less is the dumbed down version of Heller so the inferior courts could understand the basis of Heller) basically reiterating Heller on the basis of text, history and tradition and that the onus is on the govt to prove this law is constitutional and that banning a wide swath of firearms due to no serial number IMO, would have a hard time surviving as no such law or regulation existed at the time of founding in regards to serialization.

[Tarsonis]

I think I’d have to read the bill and references.

But, assuming the characterization true, I wouldn’t be so sure of a court strike down. The firearms in question generally aren’t in common use, and the sillier part (bb guns) doesn’t appear to impact a critical right when regular guns are allowed.

Silly doesn’t mean unconstitutional.

Well if the standard of common use is somewhere around 200K due in part to Caetano v. Mass. then with Bruen(which more or less is the dumbed down version of Heller so the inferior courts could understand the basis of Heller) basically reiterating Heller on the basis of text, history and tradition and that the onus is on the govt to prove this law is constitutional and that banning a wide swath of firearms due to no serial number IMO, would have a hard time surviving as no such law or regulation existed at the time of founding in regards to serialization.

Ex post facto also would seem to be an issue

[Haganham]

i think the gun movement needs to rally behind making sure nobody can get arrested for using water guns, water guns are firearms too and their use should be decriminalized in all cases

Firearms are fire arms, water is the opposite of fire. water arms aren't fire arms.

Checkmate.

by that logic regular firearms are actually metalarms.

What's wrong with the sheriffs telling the state to go pound sand and ignoring the law?

If you’re not going to follow the laws passed by the legislature elected in a free and fair election you have no business being sheriff.

So sheriffs in Florida should be kicking in doors and taking trans children from their supportive parents?

[Greater Cesnica]

So sheriffs in Florida should be kicking in doors and taking trans children from their supportive parents?

"tHat'S nOt wHat i sAiD"

[Juansonia]

Firearms are fire arms, water is the opposite of fire. water arms aren't fire arms.
Checkmate.

by that logic regular firearms are actually metalarms.

Firearms work by burning gunpowder, and discharging a projectile is called "firing", so firearms are fire arms in two ways more than name.

[The Two Jerseys]

Looks like America's armpit, NJ, went and banned any firearm/BB gun, etc, that doesn't have a serial#, no grandfathering either. As we all know the only reason to require a serial# and have it registered is only for when the day comes to confiscate arms.
New Jersey Politicians Enact Largest Gun Ban in U.S. History


FPC/GOA/SAF and other firearm rights printers are probably going brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Good but you and others don't like it. Tell me if the second amendment is absolute why is no other? Why don't I have the right the to send threatening letters to elected officials and not get arrested?

This was a piss-poor comparison the first time you made it, and it remains so still.

[Kernen]

Looks like America's armpit, NJ, went and banned any firearm/BB gun, etc, that doesn't have a serial#, no grandfathering either. As we all know the only reason to require a serial# and have it registered is only for when the day comes to confiscate arms.
New Jersey Politicians Enact Largest Gun Ban in U.S. History


FPC/GOA/SAF and other firearm rights printers are probably going brrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

Good but you and others don't like it. Tell me if the second amendment is absolute why is no other? Why don't I have the right the to send threatening letters to elected officials and not get arrested?

You should be able to do both.

It's not our fault the Court hates the 1A.

That said there is a limit to the 2A. You just don't like it.

[Kernen]

Of course it won't, we don't believe rights should be lessened without due process or curtailed after debts to society are paid.

My point is that pathos is a shit way to argue for policy changes but you do you I guess.

Same thing, bud.

[Techocracy101010]

Here we have blumenthal & murphy being their usual dumb and dumber dipshit selves and have decided to introduce a bill to strip firearm manufacturers of their 1st Amendment rights, so much for "congress shall make no law"
Blumenthal, Murphy introduce bill targeting gun makers' advertising

Duh, you dumbass, that's the point of advertising. As to targeting kids; well there is a youth firearm market that coincides with youth shooting sports.
So all in all, it's just marketing and what these two are doing is basically unconstitutional.

Then we have the KGB FBI going full retard and basically considering everyone who is for the 2nd Amendment, individual rights, etc a possible "Militia Violent Extremist (MVE)."
Ooo, scary.
Leaked Documents Show FBI’s Definition of a Militia Violent Extremist is YOU!
Fuck the FBI, time to defund it.

Last but not least, the Louisiana house passed their version of a permitless constitutional conceal carry bill with veto proof majority.
Veto-proof majority in Louisiana House approves constitutional carry
I do enjoy the emotional pleas some of these dipshits blather.

What does that have to do with anything? Who gives a shit. So no laws restoring 2nd Amendment rights shouldn't be brought up because of a tragedy? Dumb fucking cunt.

Forgive me, but I'm gonna have to side with the FBI on this one.

For one, "Ammoland" isn't exactly an unbiased source, so I can't really trust their characterization of the FBI's notes.

secondly, the FBI isn't saying anyone who has these monikers/decals/etc are dyed in the will fascists, they're noting these are used by members of extremist groups. Just like Proud Boys and Oathkeepers likes to fly the Gadsden Flag. Is everyone who flies the flag a card carrying member? No. But we should still note that is a flag those groups like to use.

i have some stupid \k\ morale patches ones a s&w anime reference anothers a sexy wendigo and anothers the demented no step in snek logo . I have one thats the sexy no step on snake one too. Sure the feds could say im a boogaloo because i have some stupid anime patches

[Grinning Dragon]

If you haven't heard by now, the USSC in an unanimous decision 9-0 (sacket v.. epa) struck down the epa's overreach. While this case was about land use, its showing a trend in which last year the supreme court struck down a different epa overreach and looks like it's pointing that the court is interested in overturning chevron in the up coming chevron challenge.

Now with the different batfe(arbf) unlawful rules that have been implemented such as, bumpstocks, frames and receivers, pistol brace, forced reset triggers etc., such rules aren't going to survive, given the stance the USSC used in sacket v. epa and said that congress must define and set the parameters, not the agency.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

While I am not in favor of gun control, I am not in favor of a new Lochner era where any environmental or economic regulation that serves a purpose is just struck down.

[Grinning Dragon]

While I am not in favor of gun control, I am not in favor of a new Lochner era where any environmental or economic regulation that serves a purpose is just struck down.

We cannot have govt agencies willy nilly making up rules, redefining laws, etc, that sole job is on the legislative branch to define and said govt agencies must be continually reminded of their place, especially so in a constitutional framework.

[Grinning Dragon]

Yesterday a 2nd injunction was granted against the batfe(arbf) unlawful pistol brace rule, however this one just like the 5th circuit only applies to the plaintiffs.
This was the SAF v. atf in the northern texas district court, there are still two more out there, another one in northern district of texas with a different judge who really likes to stick it to the batfe(arbf) and the one in north dakota.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

While I am not in favor of gun control, I am not in favor of a new Lochner era where any environmental or economic regulation that serves a purpose is just struck down.

We cannot have govt agencies willy nilly making up rules, redefining laws, etc, that sole job is on the legislative branch to define and said govt agencies must be continually reminded of their place, especially so in a constitutional framework.

Those agencies serve a needed function.

It's not just a bunch of shadowy figures with some cartoonishly evil goal to destroy people. It's meant to protect the environment in this case, so people don't just dump pollutants into it.

The constitution does not say that no regulations or agencies can be created whatsoever. Not to mention that the Clean Water Act (which the EPA was enforcing) was passed by Congress. Congress green-lit most agencies as well.

This isn't a "constitutional framework." It's a right wing form of judicial activism.

[Grinning Dragon]

We cannot have govt agencies willy nilly making up rules, redefining laws, etc, that sole job is on the legislative branch to define and said govt agencies must be continually reminded of their place, especially so in a constitutional framework.

Those agencies serve a needed function.

It's not just a bunch of shadowy figures with some cartoonishly evil goal to destroy people. It's meant to protect the environment in this case, so people don't just dump pollutants into it.

The constitution does not say that no regulations or agencies can be created whatsoever. Not to mention that the Clean Water Act (which the EPA was enforcing) was passed by Congress. Congress green-lit most agencies as well.

This isn't a "constitutional framework." It's a right wing form of judicial activism.

I didn't say that agencies couldn't be created or couldn't regulate. I am saying that the USSC is saying that agencies must only apply the law as written by the legislative. In both instances the epa went beyond the scope of what the law allows. All of this nonsense started when the incorrect ruling of chevron that was decided back in the 80s, chevron opened up a Pandora's box, a box that looks like it's going to be closed.
I didn't realize confining agencies to work with in the constitutional frame work was "right wing judicial activism"?

[Dimetrodon Empire]

I have a lot to say in response to this, but this isn't the proper thread for it.

[Grinning Dragon]

I have a lot to say in response to this, but this isn't the proper thread for it.

Well the same reasoning for the epa will most likely be applied to the unlawful actions by the batfe(arbf) since it all rests on the chevron nonsense.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

I have a lot to say in response to this, but this isn't the proper thread for it.

Well the same reasoning for the epa will most likely be applied to the unlawful actions by the batfe(arbf) since it all rests on the chevron nonsense.

To add onto my now deleted post.

I'm someone who believes that the law in question just violates the Second Amendment. So I would agree with the outcome but not the particular legal reasoning behind it.

That being said, I think I am going to fully read the case laws before commenting further. Summaries and snippets tend to omit things.

And I admit that this is not one of the political issues I've been following closely.

I have been mostly following how this court rules on elections, the environment, things of that nature.

[Kernen]

We cannot have govt agencies willy nilly making up rules, redefining laws, etc, that sole job is on the legislative branch to define and said govt agencies must be continually reminded of their place, especially so in a constitutional framework.

Those agencies serve a needed function.

It's not just a bunch of shadowy figures with some cartoonishly evil goal to destroy people. It's meant to protect the environment in this case, so people don't just dump pollutants into it.

The constitution does not say that no regulations or agencies can be created whatsoever. Not to mention that the Clean Water Act (which the EPA was enforcing) was passed by Congress. Congress green-lit most agencies as well.

This isn't a "constitutional framework." It's a right wing form of judicial activism.

No, it isn't. If agencies want to pursue a goal outside their statutory ambit, they need to seek legislative approval via lawmaking. Whether or not the policies are empirically good or bad, agency rule making outside the explicit authority granted by statute and with disregard to statute is inherently undemocratic insofar as it divorces novel policy change from direct legislative action from voted representatives.

The ATF and the EPA are both guilty of this, though at least the EPA can be credited with benefitting the American public.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

What direct, democratic legislative action?

Congress is completely broken. The Senate is even more undemocratic than it was in the early republic due to demographic changes and greater population disparities between states, both senators and representatives both engage in massive amounts of corruption and couldn't give a damn about what the people want. It often has a lower approval rating than cockroaches.

There's nothing democratic about Congress in this day and age.

When it still functioned, it delegated powers to various agencies. While arguably not idea, it's better than the alternative now.

[Grinning Dragon]

What direct, democratic legislative action?

Congress is completely broken. The Senate is even more undemocratic than it was in the early republic due to demographic changes and greater population disparities between states, both senators and representatives both engage in massive amounts of corruption and couldn't give a damn about what the people want. It often has a lower approval rating than cockroaches.

There's nothing democratic about Congress in this day and age.

Isn't the whole idea behind a constitutionally limited govt the very reason to inhibit democratic shenanigans as a check against encroachment on individual rights and privileges?

[Kernen]

What direct, democratic legislative action?

Congress is completely broken. The Senate is even more undemocratic than it was in the early republic due to demographic changes and greater population disparities between states, both senators and representatives both engage in massive amounts of corruption and couldn't give a damn about what the people want. It often has a lower approval rating than cockroaches.

There's nothing democratic about Congress in this day and age.

When it still functioned, it delegated powers to various agencies. While arguably not idea, it's better than the alternative now.

Congressional failure is not an excuse to circumvent the established constitutional system.

Vote for candidates that promise these changes or run yourself, but there system was designed to prevent unchecked unilateral government action like this.

[Dimetrodon Empire]

What direct, democratic legislative action?

Congress is completely broken. The Senate is even more undemocratic than it was in the early republic due to demographic changes and greater population disparities between states, both senators and representatives both engage in massive amounts of corruption and couldn't give a damn about what the people want. It often has a lower approval rating than cockroaches.

There's nothing democratic about Congress in this day and age.

Isn't the whole idea behind a constitutionally limited govt the very reason to inhibit democratic shenanigans as a check against encroachment on individual rights and privileges?

Yes, but to a point. It's not meant to contribute to pointless gridlock.

It was reasonable in the early republic. Now it needs an overhaul.

I fail to see how it even protects rights or even the interests of anybody at this point. Especially in an era where both parties just engage in BS posturing, and the current state of the senate gives certain politicians even more of an opportunity to posture. It doesn't even help the constituents in those small states.

[Kernen]

Isn't the whole idea behind a constitutionally limited govt the very reason to inhibit democratic shenanigans as a check against encroachment on individual rights and privileges?

Yes, but to a point. It's not meant to contribute to pointless gridlock.

It was reasonable in the early republic. Now it needs an overhaul.

I fail to see how it even protects rights or even the interests of anybody at this point. Especially in an era where both parties just engage in BS posturing, and the current state of the senate gives certain politicians even more of an opportunity to posture. It doesn't even help the constituents in those small states.

The Founders very much intended the US system lead to gridlock rather than allowing unilateral acts. The system was specifically designed that way.

It protects rights insofar as it prevents unelected agencies from acting without explicit legislative grant. If the legislature fails, there is a democratic process to avail yourself of. Nobody claimed democracy would result in perfect outcomes.