BATF is reclassifying previously legal firearms

[PAMedic=F|A=]

The democrats heavily fund the libertarian party. Why don't the republicans play the same game?

Because funding the green party would be funding known terrorist organizations like weather underground and elf?

[USMC3531]

?????? The affordable care act was pushed through during his first term in 2010. Btw.... if he had pushed for gun control instead of health care during his first term things would probably be a lot different today because the Dems had control of the house and a filibuster proof senate.


Edit to add: Btw...... the argument you make is basically you would rather have a Bloomberg in his first term than a Trump in his 2nd term. No offense but it just does not make sense to me.

Sorry I confused the dates, it passed his first term but the bs parts didnt kick in till the 2nd

[USMC3531]

AND... when the adults in the room pointed out that this was not legal and was a bad idea, he backed away from it just as fast as he brought it up in the first place. This is where the NRA and some other folks on our side who have his ear are worth something.

It wasnt "the adults in the room" his team told him if he kept it up with gun control he wouldnt get reelected.

[Krichardson]

He shouldn't have even needed to be told that.

[GunLawyer001]

He shouldn't have even needed to be told that.

There are plenty of examples of govt actions where the "due process" comes later, and the courts are OK with adequate post-deprivation due process.

Every search warrant was issued without the participation of the suspect. The IRS seizes bank accounts every day without a hearing ahead of time. Every arrest on the street occurs without first having a hearing in court.

"Act first, with due process later" is nothing new, in circumstances where there's no time to stop some perceived bad act. The IRS seizes your money first, because otherwise you'd drain your accounts and hide it. And if some crazed loner is about to shoot up a school, then scheduling a hearing for 30 days in the future just might not be adequate.

If some homeless friend of that homeless church shooter had called the cops and said "my buddy is nuts and he's got a shotgun and he's talking about killing some random folks at this church", would you want the cops to do something, or wait until afterwards and just bring the body bags?

I'm not saying that I support these laws as they are usually written, I'm saying that THE IDEA is perfectly defensible by pro-gun people.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

There are plenty of examples of govt actions where the "due process" comes later, and the courts are OK with adequate post-deprivation due process.

Every search warrant was issued without the participation of the suspect. The IRS seizes bank accounts every day without a hearing ahead of time. Every arrest on the street occurs without first having a hearing in court.

"Act first, with due process later" is nothing new, in circumstances where there's no time to stop some perceived bad act. The IRS seizes your money first, because otherwise you'd drain your accounts and hide it. And if some crazed loner is about to shoot up a school, then scheduling a hearing for 30 days in the future just might not be adequate.

If some homeless friend of that homeless church shooter had called the cops and said "my buddy is nuts and he's got a shotgun and he's talking about killing some random folks at this church", would you want the cops to do something, or wait until afterwards and just bring the body bags?

I'm not saying that I support these laws as they are usually written, I'm saying that THE IDEA is perfectly defensible by pro-gun people.

I feel confidence MY track record on this forum would show I do not consider these violations acceptable.

However, given the reaction people have to my point of view, I have to agree with the

that THE IDEA is perfectly defensible by pro-gun people.

is certainly true.

To be clear. If an offense is not serious enough to justify a person in the use of force/violence to prevent it from occurring, it is not worth an arrest without a warrant. Because every arrest is the threat and ultimately the application of overwhelming force by the government. A simply jay walking, burnt out tail light or welfare check can and has lead to situations where innocent, or people guilty of insignificant offenses end up dead.

[fallenleader]

There are plenty of examples of govt actions where the "due process" comes later, and the courts are OK with adequate post-deprivation due process.

Every search warrant was issued without the participation of the suspect. The IRS seizes bank accounts every day without a hearing ahead of time. Every arrest on the street occurs without first having a hearing in court.

"Act first, with due process later" is nothing new, in circumstances where there's no time to stop some perceived bad act. The IRS seizes your money first, because otherwise you'd drain your accounts and hide it. And if some crazed loner is about to shoot up a school, then scheduling a hearing for 30 days in the future just might not be adequate.

If some homeless friend of that homeless church shooter had called the cops and said "my buddy is nuts and he's got a shotgun and he's talking about killing some random folks at this church", would you want the cops to do something, or wait until afterwards and just bring the body bags?

I'm not saying that I support these laws as they are usually written, I'm saying that THE IDEA is perfectly defensible by pro-gun people.

tis a fine, yet complex, line we walk between our rights and enforcement of laws.
my knowledge is limited but the founders may have assumed people would police themselves and authorities would be involved post event to deal with finding people, gathering evidence and eventually charging a person who is beyond a reasonable doubt the culprit.
they may never have envisioned a nation where one would be charged with mis-filing (intentionally or not) a form with a bureaucracy and forced to surrender all of their assets. where a unelected agency would have to seize those assets to ensure they were not taken so the person could be charged and those assets seized by the state to line their coffers.

[GunLawyer001]

tis a fine, yet complex, line we walk between our rights and enforcement of laws.
my knowledge is limited but the founders may have assumed people would police themselves and authorities would be involved post event to deal with finding people, gathering evidence and eventually charging a person who is beyond a reasonable doubt the culprit.
they may never have envisioned a nation where one would be charged with mis-filing (intentionally or not) a form with a bureaucracy and forced to surrender all of their assets. where a unelected agency would have to seize those assets to ensure they were not taken so the person could be charged and those assets seized by the state to line their coffers.

The Framers never imagined that the central government would have any police powers at all. They expected that the army and navy would handle the military stuff and maybe enforce the tariffs, but they would have given up and gone home if they'd been shown the 2019 United States Code, or the Code of Federal Regulations, or the history of the FBI.

The Framers were shaking off tyrants, they weren't planning to create a new one.

They knew and expected that the States would create and enforce some criminal laws against murder and robbery and rape and such, they would have called us damned liars (or lyers) if we told than that Congress was creating "hate crimes" and banning light bulbs (what are those?) and vaping (same question).

[BobFromBucks]

The dems took over VA because of all the garbage that commutes to DC from there.

And, the eastern panhandle of West Virginia has seen DC commuters move in and buy up property and homes since the mid-eighties. I suspect at some point, they will have a lot to say about WV elections. It only consists of a few counties but I'm guessing it is gearing up to wag the dog.

From a lookup on the web, "While the rest of the state collectively shrinks, the D.C. bedroom community region — hundreds of miles away from the state’s traditional power bases — is younger, better educated and growing."

And, that article was four years ago.

[fallenleader]

The Framers never imagined that the central government would have any police powers at all. They expected that the army and navy would handle the military stuff and maybe enforce the tariffs, but they would have given up and gone home if they'd been shown the 2019 United States Code, or the Code of Federal Regulations, or the history of the FBI.

The Framers were shaking off tyrants, they weren't planning to create a new one.

They knew and expected that the States would create and enforce some criminal laws against murder and robbery and rape and such, they would have called us damned liars (or lyers) if we told than that Congress was creating "hate crimes" and banning light bulbs (what are those?) and vaping (same question).

out of rep