Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Investigation Into ATF Revocation of FFLs From Law-Abiding Business Owners
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 3811143" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>I think people are inferring that your point, convoluted as it may or may not be, is that we have individual 2nd Amendment rights, but the government can make regulations against businesses that make it virtually impossible for people to acquire arms or munitions. </p><p></p><p>Now we both know that's not true. Regulations, especially federal regulations, have to pass constitutional muster just like any other types of laws. If they create a financial burden beyond a certain percentage of gross revenues, they require feasibility studies. They have to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Lots of little hoops to make sure they're equitable and lawful.</p><p></p><p>None of that prevents a federal agency's politically appointed "leadership" who are intent on lawfare from abusing the regulations with punitive enforcement. It happens ALL the time. As some have pointed out, some regional offices are better at resisting those initiatives than others. In this case you'd expect to see more rigorous punitive enforcement in regions more hostile to the 2nd Amendment. </p><p></p><p>So like it or not, an FFL in CA, NY, IL or MD is probably going to get much more unpleasant audits than an FFL in Jones, OK. <img src="/images/smilies/wink.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>When discussing anecdotal cases (both pro and con), we can't know for sure the underlying predicates that caused leniency or a hammer to be used. I can tell you from my personal experience on the other side of the table, if you're open and honest with me and my assessment of the situation is that you're trying your best to run an honest, by the rules business, I'm gonna be pretty solidly in your corner trying to help you get it right.</p><p></p><p>If you lie to me, try to hide violations or think I'm too stupid to recognize you're up to some shady ****, well as one attorney put it "the tone of the conversation has changed". Yeah, no **** it's changed Mr. Bald Faced Liar, Esq. </p><p></p><p>I think what people here are honestly concerned about, is the DoJ and it's ability to exercise the incredible power of the Department for political purposes. It's been done plenty of times before and it's not always constitutional or lawful. Sometimes it's a blatant overstep that goes unchallenged. To wit, Operation Choke Point, but there are plenty more like it. So if the BATFE is shutting down a huge amount of FFL licensee's in some misguided effort to reduce the number of guns available to American citizens in good standing? No that is outside the scope of their authority and must be challenged. Hard. </p><p></p><p>Here's a reminder of the power one scorned man holds in his highly politicized hands: </p><p></p><p><img src="https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/org-charts/orgs/images/2021/10/29/org-chart-2021.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " style="" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 3811143, member: 1132"] I think people are inferring that your point, convoluted as it may or may not be, is that we have individual 2nd Amendment rights, but the government can make regulations against businesses that make it virtually impossible for people to acquire arms or munitions. Now we both know that's not true. Regulations, especially federal regulations, have to pass constitutional muster just like any other types of laws. If they create a financial burden beyond a certain percentage of gross revenues, they require feasibility studies. They have to comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act. Lots of little hoops to make sure they're equitable and lawful. None of that prevents a federal agency's politically appointed "leadership" who are intent on lawfare from abusing the regulations with punitive enforcement. It happens ALL the time. As some have pointed out, some regional offices are better at resisting those initiatives than others. In this case you'd expect to see more rigorous punitive enforcement in regions more hostile to the 2nd Amendment. So like it or not, an FFL in CA, NY, IL or MD is probably going to get much more unpleasant audits than an FFL in Jones, OK. ;) When discussing anecdotal cases (both pro and con), we can't know for sure the underlying predicates that caused leniency or a hammer to be used. I can tell you from my personal experience on the other side of the table, if you're open and honest with me and my assessment of the situation is that you're trying your best to run an honest, by the rules business, I'm gonna be pretty solidly in your corner trying to help you get it right. If you lie to me, try to hide violations or think I'm too stupid to recognize you're up to some shady ****, well as one attorney put it "the tone of the conversation has changed". Yeah, no **** it's changed Mr. Bald Faced Liar, Esq. I think what people here are honestly concerned about, is the DoJ and it's ability to exercise the incredible power of the Department for political purposes. It's been done plenty of times before and it's not always constitutional or lawful. Sometimes it's a blatant overstep that goes unchallenged. To wit, Operation Choke Point, but there are plenty more like it. So if the BATFE is shutting down a huge amount of FFL licensee's in some misguided effort to reduce the number of guns available to American citizens in good standing? No that is outside the scope of their authority and must be challenged. Hard. Here's a reminder of the power one scorned man holds in his highly politicized hands: [IMG]https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/org-charts/orgs/images/2021/10/29/org-chart-2021.jpg[/IMG] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Range
Law & Order
Investigation Into ATF Revocation of FFLs From Law-Abiding Business Owners
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom