<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ATF and Wyoming</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/05/11/atf_and_wyoming/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/05/11/atf_and_wyoming/</link>
	<description>Remember, I do this to entertain me... not you.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:05:04 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kristopher</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/05/11/atf_and_wyoming/comment-page-1/#comment-74941</link>
		<dc:creator>Kristopher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2006 17:29:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/05/11/atf_and_wyoming/#comment-74941</guid>
		<description>The BATFE has, since Bush Mk. 1, not ever processed a releif from disability ... for anyone.

Yes, they are not following their own rules, by executive order.

I think that the State of Wyoming should retaliate by declaring all CCW holders to be LEOs, and allow them to purchase post-86 NFA firearms as duty weapons via State of Wyoming Police Form 10 tax-free transfers ... something similar to Swiss citizen militia duty firearms.

Heh ... if the BATFE wants to be a bunch of shits, a State can use the second amendment to really screw them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The BATFE has, since Bush Mk. 1, not ever processed a releif from disability &#8230; for anyone.</p>
<p>Yes, they are not following their own rules, by executive order.</p>
<p>I think that the State of Wyoming should retaliate by declaring all CCW holders to be LEOs, and allow them to purchase post-86 NFA firearms as duty weapons via State of Wyoming Police Form 10 tax-free transfers &#8230; something similar to Swiss citizen militia duty firearms.</p>
<p>Heh &#8230; if the BATFE wants to be a bunch of shits, a State can use the second amendment to really screw them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Captain Holly</title>
		<link>http://www.saysuncle.com/2006/05/11/atf_and_wyoming/comment-page-1/#comment-74700</link>
		<dc:creator>Captain Holly</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 May 2006 04:45:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.saysuncle.com/archives/2006/05/11/atf_and_wyoming/#comment-74700</guid>
		<description>I noticed a couple of errors in the story.  First off, the DV misdemeanor restriction was passed by Newt &quot;No New Gun Control&quot; Gingrich and the Republican Congress in 1996.  Prior to that, persons with DV misdemeanor convictions were not restricted from owning guns.

Second, the ATF itself has says on its website &quot;However, a conviction would not be disabling if it has been expunged, set aside, pardoned, or the person has had his or her civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) AND the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition.&quot; (http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/domestic/opltratf.htm)

So I&#039;m kinda confused as to what this dispute is really all about.  Unless, of course, the ATFE is ignoring its&#039; own stated policy, in which case it would be business as usual.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I noticed a couple of errors in the story.  First off, the DV misdemeanor restriction was passed by Newt &#8220;No New Gun Control&#8221; Gingrich and the Republican Congress in 1996.  Prior to that, persons with DV misdemeanor convictions were not restricted from owning guns.</p>
<p>Second, the ATF itself has says on its website &#8220;However, a conviction would not be disabling if it has been expunged, set aside, pardoned, or the person has had his or her civil rights restored (if the law of the applicable jurisdiction provides for the loss of civil rights under such an offense) AND the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition.&#8221; (<a href="http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/domestic/opltratf.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.atf.treas.gov/firearms/domestic/opltratf.htm</a>)</p>
<p>So I&#8217;m kinda confused as to what this dispute is really all about.  Unless, of course, the ATFE is ignoring its&#8217; own stated policy, in which case it would be business as usual.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

