Member 53328
- Messages
- 9,059
- Reactions
- 19,931
Believe whatever you want. Haha.The Second Amendment Sanctuary law is built upon the Sanctuary Cities law, which seems to work very well
Fantasy land.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Believe whatever you want. Haha.The Second Amendment Sanctuary law is built upon the Sanctuary Cities law, which seems to work very well
I'm just glad that I live in a State with a Second Amendment Sanctuary law
The Second Amendment Sanctuary law is built upon the Sanctuary Cities law, which seems to work very well
I haven't looked really deeply into sanctuary cities/states, but my basic understanding is that, until recently, they had no authority to interfere with fed activities and being a "sanctuary" (in varying degees based on what laws they put in place) simply ranges from not providing assistance or information, not providing logistic support, not allowing use of state resources or facilities, etc. to any fed activity within their states.Fine, but have there been cases where the Federals were actively prevented from enforcing Federal laws in these Sanctuary cities/States like drug enforcement and border/ICE enforcement?
I keep hearing people talk about this 88 day rule. That any Form 1 has to be denied no matter what if it takes more that 88 days to clear. Does anyone know if this is an actual rule written down somewhere that the ATF can not have discretion on? I know a GOA lawyer said he talked to some unnamed ATF agents but that is all hearsay at best. Not to knock the GOA guy too much but it is just some dude saying an unsourced thing.So re the end of the world stuff, let me see if I understand:
#1 issue is the crazy 88 days which seems like it's the end of the world but actually is just some procedural deal that won't affect anything.
#2 is the 922r issue which apparently is real and will screw up everything and atf is witholding publishing the rule in the Fed register due to this?
Is that where we stand at the moment (note, I'm purposely ignoring all other issues, major and minor, for this post)?
It doesn't matter if braces were a work around or what the user's thoughts were. The ATF sent letters saying they were approved. For a decade or so theses were openly and legally being used.ATF " yes it is designed to be a brace and it is not a stock."
ATF " yes even putting it to your shoulder from time to time is not making it a re-designed stock, it is still a brace."
ATF "yes just about any brace is now a stock and you are in violation of the law."
me " hmmmm should i take the potential bait? or do i just spend the $200 to SBR the ones i really want and remove the brace?"
Reality " the brace was a SBR workaround you know it they know it ATF finally reutilized it, so
remove the brace till all the krap settles.
leave the brace on till all of the krap settles.
get your "free" stamp and all the potential trap that it might or might not be.
remember the Atkins accelerator? first not a MG then because of a spring ATF said it was an MG
flip flop
9th circuit court after the ban, yes an individual can still make an MG for them self's as long as it does not effect interstate commerce,
get's all the way to SCOTUS, SCOTUS says "sure sounds great except a few things let's send it back to the 9th,
9th no you can not make an MG any more period.
flip flop
9th mag ban is un constitutional, 9th few months latter, Mag ban is perfectly ok.
flip flop
and on and on
It does seem to be unsourced. Best I could find that related to 88 days is the FBI's deletion of open (unresolved) BG checks if they aren't resolved by day 88; but whether it does or doesn't result in the ATF auto-denial, I do not know, because supposedly now the ATF is doing their own BG checks for NFA submissions and not the FBI anymore.I keep hearing people talk about this 88 day rule. That any Form 1 has to be denied no matter what if it takes more that 88 days to clear. Does anyone know if this is an actual rule written down somewhere that the ATF can not have discretion on? I know a GOA lawyer said he talked to some unnamed ATF agents but that is all hearsay at best. Not to knock the GOA guy too much but it is just some dude saying an unsourced thing.
Dont worry about that. Total clickbait. If the background check part goes past 88 days "someone at the ATF" said they'll stop the check and consider it failed. BGC's normally take a few minutes at the longest not 88 days.I keep hearing people talk about this 88 day rule. That any Form 1 has to be denied no matter what if it takes more that 88 days to clear. Does anyone know if this is an actual rule written down somewhere that the ATF can not have discretion on? I know a GOA lawyer said he talked to some unnamed ATF agents but that is all hearsay at best. Not to knock the GOA guy too much but it is just some dude saying an unsourced thing.
They use the same database with their own examiners .It does seem to be unsourced. Best I could find that related to 88 days is the FBI's deletion of open (unresolved) BG checks if they aren't resolved by day 88; but whether it does or doesn't result in the ATF auto-denial, I do not know, because supposedly now the ATF is doing their own BG checks for NFA submissions and not the FBI anymore.
But that is not the ATF. The ATF uses their own people to perform BG checks. And the 3 day rule doesn't pertain to NFA items as far as I can find. I could be wrong that's why I am asking in here to see if other have more data. I plan on making my decision based on the evidence that is out there.There are articles and reports of how many BG checks the FBI didn't complete over the last few years with the statement that the FBI deletes the open/unresolved BG checks at 88 days to make way for new ones, and thus a small but not insignificant number of BG checks are never completed for whatever reasons. Some FFL will honor the 3 day rule, some won't, and will tell the customer to try again with new 4473?
Right, I'm saying that it's likely where the "88 day auto denial" rule comes from, although the ATF and FBI both use the same database, so I ain't sure how the 88 day FBI thing is applicable to the ATF with regards to NFA items. Yes I am aware that the 3 day Federal rule doesn't apply to NFA submissions.But that is not the ATF. The ATF uses their own people to perform BG checks. And the 3 day rule doesn't pertain to NFA items as far as I can find. I could be wrong that's why I am asking in here to see if other have more data. I plan on making my decision based on the evidence that is out there.
And I completely agree with your point of most people making too big of a deal out of this thought of self incrimination. There are laws set in place limiting when it can be used against you when you are directly following rules set for you to be legal.Right, I'm saying that it's likely where the "88 day auto denial" rule comes from, although the ATF and FBI both use the same database, so I ain't sure how the 88 day FBI thing is applicable to the ATF with regards to NFA items. Yes I am aware that the 3 day Federal rule doesn't apply to NFA submissions.
Yep the atf reversed course a total of 4 times on this as I understand it. Each time was based on politics, not public safety, and not the law.It doesn't matter if braces were a work around or what the user's thoughts were. The ATF sent letters saying they were approved. For a decade or so theses were openly and legally being used.
Now, politics to, "do something " overrides something legally decided (with receipts). It's messy because it's wrong. Making something legal (with receipts) illegal should be hard. This is what we're seeing.
There are "protections" from self incrimination when you are complying with federal law, but that is also predicated that the protective law will be obeyed and does that protection actually extended to compliance with an agency "rule" vs. "federal law" compliance(??) Prudent questioning remains.And I completely agree with your point of most people making too big of a deal out of this thought of self incrimination. There are laws set in place limiting when it can be used against you when you are directly following rules set for you to be legal.
Before I make a decisions like this I just try and gather all the info I can.
Yeah. I don't necessarily subscribe to the conspiracy theorists and they are intentionally creating traps for prosecution, but it can beg to question... if the final rule is thrown out and that "requirement to register" condition is removed... does that protection still remain for those that are then considered to have "voluntarily" submitted incriminating information(?)Any questions of self incrimination went out the window for me when this came up.
As far as I can tell, and I'm no lawyer... yes the 5th Amendment and that specific law still applies because at that time you are trying to comply legally even if it may be found unconstitutional; it still has possible force of law/regulations according to the DOJ.Yeah. I don't necessarily subscribe to the conspiracy theorists and they are intentionally creating traps for prosecution, but it can beg to question... if the final rule is thrown out and that "requirement to register" condition is removed... does that protection still remain for those that are then considered to have "voluntarily" submitted incriminating information(?)
I think there is still a defense if you "reasonably believed... at the time" you were complying with a goobermental requirement, but healthy skepticism isn't always a bad thing or completely baseless.
To me that statute is a game changer. That is what allowed for the 68 amnesty. They didn't do it out of the kindness of their hearts.As far as I can tell, and I'm no lawyer... yes the 5th Amendment and that specific law still applies because at that time you are trying to comply legally even if it may be found unconstitutional; it still has possible force of law/regulations according to the DOJ.