Comments on: ATF and the law

By: SayUncle » More stellar performance from ATF

SayUncle » More stellar performance from ATF — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:27:10 +0000

[...] And getting smacked down for disregarding the law. [...]

By: SayUncle » ATF Targets Gun Dealer

SayUncle » ATF Targets Gun Dealer — Mon, 30 Jul 2007 14:34:16 +0000

[...] I discussed the case before here. [...]

By: ParatrooperJJ

ParatrooperJJ — Thu, 05 Jul 2007 14:44:43 +0000

Their position is actually correct. Federal district court rulings only apply in that district.

By: Chris Byrne

Chris Byrne — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:05:21 +0000

Oh and don’t forget Shulz vs. IRS which makes clear that administrative procedures and rulings of executive branch agencies (and the ATF is one) do not have the force of law without a direct and specific court order.

All the ATFs “enforcement” actions are by administrative procedure; so unless they get a court order FIRST, anything they do is invalid.

By: Heartless Libertarian

Heartless Libertarian — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:51:39 +0000

Don’t forget the recent Kwan case in WA, where a jury decided that just because the Winchester M14 receiver had been a machinegun at one time, it wasn’t a machinegun now, even after the agent went after it with power tools to undo welding and replaced the trigger group with one that allowed FA fire.

By: SayUncle » Speaking of ATF troubles

SayUncle » Speaking of ATF troubles — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:06:40 +0000

[...] just listed some, but here’s another: The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives no longer [...]

By: straightarrow

straightarrow — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:37:12 +0000

Oh, yeah, just to clarify; on the no-go side of the bars

By: straightarrow

straightarrow — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:36:11 +0000

BobG Says:
I still think they should close down the BATF and transfer the personnel somewhere that they would be useful, like patrolling the US/Mexico border.

Vehemently disagree. I grant they should all, ALL, be transferred. However, the only appropriate destination for them would be a federal penitentiary

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 16:07:48 +0000

Why am I not surprised at the BATFE response to ignore a federal judge’s ruling. This has to be the most rouge federal agency I’ve ever seen.

By: Snowflakes in Hell » ATF Court Smackdowns

Snowflakes in Hell » ATF Court Smackdowns — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 15:21:09 +0000

[...] has a good post up about the ATF getting smacked down by federal courts over the “one a machine gun always a machine gun” and their AOW [...]

By: BobG

BobG — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:42:40 +0000

I still think they should close down the BATF and transfer the personnel somewhere that they would be useful, like patrolling the US/Mexico border.

By: Ahab

Ahab — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:26:03 +0000

So I guess I’m going to have to put my plans for a .17 HM2 10/22 PDW on hold.

By: gattsuru

gattsuru — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 14:14:42 +0000

This shouldn’t be surprising, and it’s similar to what we’ll see in D.C if Parker doesn’t get overturned.

If they lose, the worse that happens is they get their paws smacked and one person gets off. That doesn’t hurt them at all — they get their paws smacked whenever they don’t go after someone the Brady Bunchites are nuts over, and the people are innocent in the first place. Sure, they might pay court costs, but that’s all other people’s money, and it’s assigned for the purposes of legal use in the first place.

If they win, they’ve got material to act on, and a public relations victory.

If they threaten enough people, even if they fail nearly every time, it might as well be law — it’s not viable for most folk to deal with the court cases, potential jail time, and risk of a wacko judge.

By: SayUncle

SayUncle — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:44:25 +0000

The tax is $5 if you buy one. If you build one (i.e., add a vertical forward grip to your Glock) then it’s $200.

By: emdfl

emdfl — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:42:52 +0000

Almost forgot – I seem to recall that the tax on an AOL is $5.00, not $200.00

By: emdfl

emdfl — Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:40:51 +0000

Losses in court mean absolutely nothing to the Dictat of the ATFE. They either ignore them all together or claim that the rulings only apply within the area of jusrisdiction of the finding court – and then usually ignore them in that area as well.