National So ATF won't come knocking on our doors?

[foxmeadow]

Her plate carrier shows two projections at the top that look like the ears that you hang a 10-12" round AR500 target from...

Big fake.

 

[RX-79G]

Which mag's did congress ban again? I forget.

New mags over 10 rounds in 1994.

 

[RX-79G]

"Mumbo jumbo", "drinking the kool-aid", "hallucinations", spouting "NRA propaganda", "7 year old", etc... Kettle, meet black.

Typical troll behavior. Dish out disrespect but get butthurt if it comes back their way.

It's not enough to look up a law and quote them if you are misapplying them. If you were paying attention, chevron deference does not apply. Other than the obvious about the criminal penalty issue, several courts have also issued conflicting rulings.. which means what? That the interpretation is ambiguous which requires lenity to apply and is highly likely to be taken up by a higher court for a final determination.

Ignore all and keep quoting chevron deference all you want though. It's a free country.

There is also, obviously, some kind of disconnect if you, as stated, believe the alphabet is simply doing the bidding of the "representatives". Aka, "congress", of which they are not. Congress has not changed the law nor directed the alphabet to make any revisions, clarifications or issued them any new mandates. That's purely the executive branch doing that. Of which they are expressly forbidden from doing. The fact that you are confusing the two, or implying that any elected position makes that person a legislative representative seems to make it pretty obvious your understanding of how it all works is a little sketchy.

(I could be wrong on some. It's pretty difficult at times to make sense of your posts.)

At any rate. It's not really possible to have a "discussion" if salient facts and practical applications are going to be ignored for the sake of maintaining your preferred narrative. Obviously, you're free to feel however your want. You're fully entitled to your opinions, but that doesn't necessarily make them "true" no matter how you try and bend it.

The generally disrespectful way you address me gets returned in kind.

But I don't write an entire post which is nothing but an insult directed at you. Something you do all the time.

Where did I say an elected person is part of the legislature? I made the point that the elected President oversees the ATF, and Congress has the power to change the laws the ATF works under at any time. So when Congress lets the ATF define a stock as a kind of trigger (and numerous other decisions), they are tacitly delegating that authority to the ATF. That isn't a legal concept - it's a description of what is actually going on.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

it's a description of what is actually going on.

And it's odd how many people confuse "This is a description of what is going on" with "This is a position I agree with and support"

If you look out the window and see a tornado ripping up a trailer park and you shout "That tornado is ripping that trailer park apart!" that doesn't mean that you support the destruction of trailer parks by tornados

 

[ilikegunspdx]

And it's odd how many people confuse "This is a description of what is going on" with "This is a position I agree with and support"

If you look out the window and see a tornado ripping up a trailer park and you shout "That tornado is ripping that trailer park apart!" that doesn't mean that you support the destruction of trailer parks by tornados

Are you guys still talking/feeding that troll?

 

[Flopsweat]

And it's odd how many people confuse "This is a description of what is going on" with "This is a position I agree with and support"

If you look out the window and see a tornado ripping up a trailer park and you shout "That tornado is ripping that trailer park apart!" that doesn't mean that you support the destruction of trailer parks by tornados

And if you see a tornado and say "Republicans are ripping that trailer park apart!" you're going to get called out on it. Even if you cite global warming.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

And if you see a tornado and say "Republicans are ripping that trailer park apart!" you're going to get called out on it. Even if you cite global warming.

Sure, but using your analogy, if there is an area that year after year gets hit by tornados more than any other area and you also discover that one particular political party has managed to change zoning laws so that trailer parks can only be built in that area it would be fair game to say "That particular political party has done things to ensure trailer parks get ripped apart by tornados"
That happens (quite fairley I might add) all the time on here with things Democrats have done and it would be hypocritical to say that the same can't be done with things Republicans do.

But maybe that should be changed from "Republicans" which would encompass everyone that considers themself a Republican to something like "The Republican Leadership" (TRL) or "The RNC" or something because there are a bunch of us on here that consider themselves Republicans and I'm pretty darn sure none of us are in a position to effect policy or enact laws and I would hate for people to get upset because the name they identify with matches the name of the ones being criticized for poor policies and laws

 

[RX-79G]

Sure, but using your analogy, if there is an area that year after year gets hit by tornados more than any other area and you also discover that one particular political party has managed to change zoning laws so that trailer parks can only be built in that area it would be fair game to say "That particular political party has done things to ensure trailer parks get ripped apart by tornados"
That happens (quite fairley I might add) all the time on here with things Democrats have done and it would be hypocritical to say that the same can't be done with things Republicans do.

But maybe that should be changed from "Republicans" which would encompass everyone that considers themself a Republican to something like "The Republican Leadership" (TRL) or "The RNC" or something because there are a bunch of us on here that consider themselves Republicans and I'm pretty darn sure none of us are in a position to effect policy or enact laws and I would hate for people to get upset because the name they identify with matches the name of the ones being criticized for poor policies and laws

I didnt say anything about one party or another. Trump got the ATF to kill bump stocks, Biden killed braces. Congress has been in Rep control and Dem control recently. Neither wrote laws about how the ATF functions. This is not partisan.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I didnt say anything about one party or another. Trump got the ATF to kill bump stocks, Biden killed braces. Congress has been in Rep control and Dem control recently. Neither wrote laws about how the ATF functions. This is not partisan.

I know you didn't, but some folks tend to read things that aren't there and I was replying to that

 

[Flopsweat]

I know you didn't, but some folks tend to read things that aren't there and I was replying to that

You realize you're talking to the guy who thinks Chevron Deference applies to criminal law.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

You realize you're talking to the guy who thinks Chevron Deference applies to criminal law.

Who thinks that? Sounds like that troll again. He must be 350 lbs by now the way he gets fed.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

You realize you're talking to the guy who thinks Chevron Deference applies to criminal law.

And you realize that if we tried to go through every single thing that one of us thinks that's wrong we wouldn't get anything done!

 

[Flopsweat]

And you realize that if we tried to go through every single thing that one of us thinks that's wrong we wouldn't get anything done!

It was in reference to your statement "some folks tend to read things that aren't there". He seems to be a member of that group.

 

[Xaevian]

Sure, but using your analogy, if there is an area that year after year gets hit by tornados more than any other area and you also discover that one particular political party has managed to change zoning laws so that trailer parks can only be built in that area it would be fair game to say "That particular political party has done things to ensure trailer parks get ripped apart by tornados"
That happens (quite fairley I might add) all the time on here with things Democrats have done and it would be hypocritical to say that the same can't be done with things Republicans do.

But maybe that should be changed from "Republicans" which would encompass everyone that considers themself a Republican to something like "The Republican Leadership" (TRL) or "The RNC" or something because there are a bunch of us on here that consider themselves Republicans and I'm pretty darn sure none of us are in a position to effect policy or enact laws and I would hate for people to get upset because the name they identify with matches the name of the ones being criticized for poor policies and laws

IKR? Trailer parks should totally be banned. Then there would be no more tornados!

 

[Yarome]

He is saying that the ATF is administered by an elected official . , which it is. The President , as the head of the administrative/executive branch is an elected official. The President appoints an AG and the President is ultimately responsible for the actions of his lower level agencies actions. Congress has nothing to do with the day to day actions of the ATF other than to pass laws and provide funding. The ATF is doing the bidding of an elected official, the President. The Presidnt told them to make bumpstocks machineguns so they did it and wer'e in court abou tit. The President told them to justify how they classified pistol braces as something other than buttstocks and at some point it will go to court as well.

I fully get how it works and what he said. If you read it in context, the discussion was on the separation of powers and he was directly replying to a post:

"Unelected government agencies were not intended to wield such power. The whole point of the elected legislature was that their constituents could hold them accountable. When the American people are discontent with ATF leadership, can they recall them from office like their regular elected representatives? No… that's the point."

His reply to that was:

"The ATF is overseen by elected officials, and the ATF does not have any reputation for bucking the system with their interpretations. They seem to function in line with the will of our representatives. You can bet that the pistol brace decision is not a solo venture by the ATF."

That seems to be implying that what the alphabet is doing is legal because they are overseen by an elected official, and "in line with the will of our representatives".

"Representitives" in context of the discussion and the post he was responding was speaking about congress, not any and all elected officials.

So saying that the alphabet is simply following the will of our elected representatives... "congress"... is where the problem lies.

While some was not factually inaccurate... some of it was (congress never directed the alphabet to do nothing, and the alphabet doesn't regularly buck the system??).... he was either implying that any elected official holds the same power of our elected representatives in congress... or... not actually participating in the conversation or replying to the post he was quoting. Just an unrelated tidbit he thought no one else knew and needed to share(?)

Context matters.

 

[wired]

I fully get how it works and what he said. If you read it in context, the discussion was on the separation of powers and he was directly replying to a post:

"Unelected government agencies were not intended to wield such power. The whole point of the elected legislature was that their constituents could hold them accountable. When the American people are discontent with ATF leadership, can they recall them from office like their regular elected representatives? No… that's the point."

His reply to that was:

"The ATF is overseen by elected officials, and the ATF does not have any reputation for bucking the system with their interpretations. They seem to function in line with the will of our representatives. You can bet that the pistol brace decision is not a solo venture by the ATF."

That seems to be implying that what the alphabet is doing is legal because they are overseen by an elected official, and "in line with the will of our representatives".

"Representitives" in context of the discussion and the post he was responding was speaking about congress, not any and all elected officials.

So saying that the alphabet is simply following the will of our elected representatives... "congress"... is where the problem lies.

While some was not factually inaccurate... some of it was (congress never directed the alphabet to do nothing, and the alphabet doesn't regularly buck the system??).... he was either implying that any elected official holds the same power of our elected representatives in congress... or... not actually participating in the conversation or replying to the post he was quoting. Just an unrelated tidbit he thought no one else knew and needed to share(?)

Context matters.

I think you're the one who's assuming that by representatives he's talking about congressmen when it's pretty clear at least to me that he's talking about someone who got elected to some post somewhere i.e. the president

 

[Yarome]

So when Congress lets the ATF define a stock as a kind of trigger (and numerous other decisions), they are tacitly delegating that authority to the ATF. That isn't a legal concept - it's a description of what is actually going on.

If a bureaucratic agency goes rogue and congress doesn't immediately step on it, it's the same thing as them granting them the authority to do so and agreeing?? Yeah.. that's not how it works at all.

Have ya heard anything about the congressional oversight hearings with the alphabet lately?? How about the bills being introduced to put a stop to the alphabets overreach?? Anything?

 

[Yarome]

I think you're the one who's assuming that by representatives he's talking about congressmen when it's pretty clear at least to me that he's talking about someone who got elected to some post somewhere i.e. the president

He very likely was trying to do just that. Out of context of the discussion or the post he was replying to, but ignoring that... how does that apply as a rebuttal to the post he quoted regarding the division of powers? IE., How does pointing out that the alphabet is simply following orders of an elected executive office negate the fact that they do not have the power to make law.... as the post he was quoting stated.

That's rhetorical...

 

[RX-79G]

In general, our Congress does not spell everything out in the verbiage of law. Government agencies and the courts do that. And that process has multiple kinds of oversight. But Congress hasn't seen fit to bother with the technology branch in a very long time because they usually dont see a point or are getting what they want out of it.

This fuming about the rogue ATF doesnt seem like a reaction to finding out how government works as much as a reaction to how our special interest is specifically being handled this week.


No one got perturbed about states rights or separation of powers when SCOTUS decided Heller.

 

[RX-79G]

It is a little tiresome to hear all the partisan bickering all the time about liberals banning guns. They have a terrible track record for doing so, while Reagan, Bush and Trump had have had some of the greatest impact.

Congress and the Presidency have been sewn up in both the Trump and Bush Jr. eras and they didnt repeal ANYTHING. If your representatives wanted you to have a non-NFA SBR, they would have passed a law on your behalf.


Ask yourself why that didn't happen.