He did just fine up until the completely incorrect statement that if you have your own firearm serialized you are required to complete a 4473 BGC to have it returned to you.
But sadly par for the course with him
Is he WRONG? Nobody really knows what the state intends, there is no explanation of IF one has to submit to a BGC and fill out a 4473!
If no one knows, that yes, he is wrong saying that it 'will be' required, he should have said 'might be'
Yes. He is wrong. Standard practice is that if something is not specifically required or stated as illegal within a law then it is considered not applicable and legal. Laws are never written to include everything that "isn't" required or deemed "legal" activity.
If its not codified in law, its not required. You cannot be convicted of a crime that does not exist.
Lol hold my beer says the left coast
Not that I disagree, but there is no lack of examples from all across our fine land
I can think of one, very recent famous case of a very famous person.
I don't want to go down the rabbit hole either, but we all know you can be charged with anything depending on if your actions are conservative biased. It happened here locally with the Strickland case, nationally with Rittenhouse. and I will let it go from there.
He lost me with his take on Form 1 suppressors back around Dec 2022
Nope, but it's not an uncommon claim floating around the internet. More exaggeration to inflame folks against the bill, I think. The practice of propagating misinformation for propaganda purposes is not absolutely exclusive to one side of the aisle... although one side certainly does abuse it as their SOP more than the other.
What I find more interesting is how many lawyer channels I find things I question or flat out disagree with, and even more interesting is how many lawyer channels disagree with each other. There's an important lesson on the legal system in that I suspect many don't see, especially those in the "concealed means concealed" group.
I hadnt considered that thought, its possible hes just somehow mistaken or assuming the check is needed. One side I do know is intentionally manipulative of the laws though.
Is it? Or is it maybe a lesson on the types of lawyers that have the time and inclination to develop a YouTube channel?
No one is exempt from the occasional mistake, but yeah. He lost me as a subscriber with the whole July 13th thing. Making a mistake is one thing, but becoming aware of the error and allowing it to stand anyway is irresponsible and bad form, IMHO. Especially when you're talking about issues with potentially serious legal ramifications.
I cant judge their motivations. I'm thankful there are lawyers out there taking the time to provide content on the web, there's a lot to learn from them even if we don't agree with everything.
Yeah well. In a perfect world all lawyers would read the law and apply it impartially, but there are really two very clear types. Those that read the law and apply it impartially with little variation from their colleagues... and those that read the law and then figure out the best way to bend it, read into it different meanings and assign new and creative definitions, of which were never implicated in the text of the law, to try and fool people into believing it means what they want it to mean.
