On Jan 17, 2023 at 12:05:04 AM PST, "RichA" <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> https://wgntv.com/news/illinois/pritzker-threatens-to-fire-police-for-not-enforcing-illinois-gun-ban/
>
> 85% refuse to enforce the ban.

(WTVO) — After several Illinois law enforcement agencies said
they won’t enforce the new gun ban, Gov. JB Pritzker had a
strong response: Comply or hit the road.

"As are all law enforcement all across our state and they will in
fact do their job or they won't be in their job," Pritzker said
Tuesday during a press conference.

Local sheriff's departments in Winnebago, Ogle, Stephenson,
and Lee counties, among others, have said they will not enforce
the new law, which makes more than 100 guns and magazines
illegal because the state deems them "assault weapons".

Aren't sheriffs elected in Illinois? How can the governor fire another elected
official?

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>On Jan 17, 2023 at 12:05:04 AM PST, "RichA" <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:

>>https://wgntv.com/news/illinois/pritzker-threatens-to-fire-police-for-not-enforcing-illinois-gun-ban/

>>85% refuse to enforce the ban.

> (WTVO) After several Illinois law enforcement agencies said
> they won't enforce the new gun ban, Gov. JB Pritzker had a
> strong response: Comply or hit the road.

> "As are all law enforcement all across our state and they will in
> fact do their job or they won't be in their job," Pritzker said
> Tuesday during a press conference.

> Local sheriff's departments in Winnebago, Ogle, Stephenson,
> and Lee counties, among others, have said they will not enforce
> the new law, which makes more than 100 guns and magazines
> illegal because the state deems them "assault weapons".

>Aren't sheriffs elected in Illinois? How can the governor fire another elected
>official?

The sheriff is elected and the governor has no power to remove him from
office. Oddly enough, the coroner has some sort of power to remove the
sheriff under common law. I have no idea how it works and I've never
heard of it being done. Any number of counties have replaced the coroner
with another office that wouldn't retain those common law powers.

But the sheriff is also independent of other law enforcement agencies
and there could very well be a municipal police department that enforces
the law's provisions. Also, given that the sheriff provides court
bailiffs and runs the county jail and is carrying out judicial orders in
both instances, their ability to act independently of statutory law does
not exist in carrying out the vast majority of their duties.

The law in question makes purchase (but not manufacture, which had also
been discussed) of defined weapons and magazines illegal but does not
confiscate them from existing owners. As the sale has now been made
illegal, does that raise a taking issue? I don't know how it applies to
inheritance.

The issue that the sheriffs are complaining about is their duty to
enforce the new registration of rifles and shotguns requirement. Nobody
expects ANY law enforcement agency to enforce the registration
requirement independently of investigating some other crime.

One of the state's attorneys (prosecutor) said that a gun registration
violation could be an additional charge to the underlying crime but he
didn't expect to prosecute a violation separately.

In a situation in which the individual is in custody -- on parole,
serving a sentence of probation, or out on bond or on home monitoring
awaiting trial -- there are already restrictions on guns in the home.
This is another charge to bring on top of that charge, but I've always
wondered how the court orders that apply to the detainee are enforceable
against other persons in the home who may legally possess guns.

The issue becomes one of whether charging a criminal violation due to
the use of an unregistered weapon in self defense is contrary to the
interest of justice. I have no idea if the law made an exception for
this.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. The Supreme Court is
chomping at the bit, waiting for a federal lawsuit to be appealed, to
find such a law unconstitutional. They would dearly love to find such a
law from Illinois unconstitutional. Talk about waiving the red flag...

My prediction is that there will eventually be a McDonald II decision
finding against assault weapons bans.

I don't see how a potential decision finding that registration of rifles
and shotguns is unconstitutional can be reconciled with Heller. Heller
would have to be modified. In Heller, the Second Amendment is no longer
an amendment to the militia clauses but read independently. A militia
member using his personal weapons when called up and not drawing weapons
from the armoury would be expected to bring rifles and shotguns into
battle. But Heller doesn't protect keeping arms at home because all able
bodied adult males are members of the militia as Heller says that the
Second Amendment DOES NOT amend the militia clauses. Heller is about the
use of guns in self defense only and not in war.

How the hell is the Supreme Court going to have it both ways?

On Jan 17, 2023 at 8:55:32 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 17, 2023 at 12:05:04 AM PST, "RichA" <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> https://wgntv.com/news/illinois/pritzker-threatens-to-fire-police-for-not-enforcing-illinois-gun-ban/
>
>>> 85% refuse to enforce the ban.
>
>> (WTVO) After several Illinois law enforcement agencies said
>> they won't enforce the new gun ban, Gov. JB Pritzker had a
>> strong response: Comply or hit the road.
>
>> "As are all law enforcement all across our state and they will in
>> fact do their job or they won't be in their job," Pritzker said
>> Tuesday during a press conference.
>
>> Local sheriff's departments in Winnebago, Ogle, Stephenson,
>> and Lee counties, among others, have said they will not enforce
>> the new law, which makes more than 100 guns and magazines
>> illegal because the state deems them "assault weapons".
>
>> Aren't sheriffs elected in Illinois? How can the governor fire another
>> elected
>> official?
>
> The sheriff is elected and the governor has no power to remove him from
> office. Oddly enough, the coroner has some sort of power to remove the
> sheriff under common law. I have no idea how it works and I've never
> heard of it being done. Any number of counties have replaced the coroner
> with another office that wouldn't retain those common law powers.
>
> But the sheriff is also independent of other law enforcement agencies
> and there could very well be a municipal police department that enforces
> the law's provisions. Also, given that the sheriff provides court
> bailiffs and runs the county jail and is carrying out judicial orders in
> both instances, their ability to act independently of statutory law does
> not exist in carrying out the vast majority of their duties.
>
> The law in question makes purchase (but not manufacture, which had also
> been discussed) of defined weapons and magazines illegal but does not
> confiscate them from existing owners. As the sale has now been made
> illegal, does that raise a taking issue? I don't know how it applies to
> inheritance.
>
> The issue that the sheriffs are complaining about is their duty to
> enforce the new registration of rifles and shotguns requirement. Nobody
> expects ANY law enforcement agency to enforce the registration
> requirement independently of investigating some other crime.
>
> One of the state's attorneys (prosecutor) said that a gun registration
> violation could be an additional charge to the underlying crime but he
> didn't expect to prosecute a violation separately.
>
> In a situation in which the individual is in custody -- on parole,
> serving a sentence of probation, or out on bond or on home monitoring
> awaiting trial -- there are already restrictions on guns in the home.
> This is another charge to bring on top of that charge, but I've always
> wondered how the court orders that apply to the detainee are enforceable
> against other persons in the home who may legally possess guns.

They're generally told they have to store their guns somewhere else if they
want the parolee/probationer to live in their home. This also applies to home
inspections by parole officers. The parolee may cede his 4th Amendment rights
in exchange for being let out of prison early but the people he's living with
don't. However, if they insist on warrants before allowing a parole officer
into the home, the state will just prohibit the parolee from living there. So
basically, if mom and dad want to give their wayward kid a place to live while
he's on parole, they have to get rid of their guns and allow unannounced
invasions of their home by parole cops.

> The issue becomes one of whether charging a criminal violation due to
> the use of an unregistered weapon in self defense is contrary to the
> interest of justice. I have no idea if the law made an exception for
> this.
>
> I've said this before and I'll say it again. The Supreme Court is
> chomping at the bit, waiting for a federal lawsuit to be appealed, to
> find such a law unconstitutional. They would dearly love to find such a
> law from Illinois unconstitutional. Talk about waiving the red flag...
>
> My prediction is that there will eventually be a McDonald II decision
> finding against assault weapons bans.

Guess you saw what Biden (via BATFE) did to me last week? Three-time felon
literally overnight by administrative fiat which has no basis in statutory
law. It's the BATF literally making things up and saying it has the force of
law all on its own.

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-atf-publishes-factoring-criteria-for-firearms-with-pistol-stabilizing-braces-rule/

BATFE Announces 'Factoring Criteria for Firearms with
Pistol Stabilizing Braces' Rule

Our dear friends at the BATFE chose Friday the 13th in the
run-up to next week's SHOT Show to announce their final
rule on the use of pistol stabilizing braces. Basically... you
(mostly) can't. What we love the most is the firearms
regulators' assiduous use of scare quotes around the term
"stabilizing braces" to let us know that wink-wink these things
are really stocks and we're lucky they haven't just outlawed
them altogether a la bump stocks.

(Except BATFE's bump stock ban was just found to be an
unconstitutional use of administrative power, so one can only
imagine how the federal courts will feel about this one.)

Here's the summary:

All previous BATFE classifications involving "stabilizing brace"
attachments for firearms are superseded as of [INSERT DATE
OF PUBLICATION IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER]. As such, they
are no longer valid or authoritative, and cannot be relied upon.
However, firearms with such attachments may be submitted
to ATF for reclassification.

This final rule's amended definition of "rifle" clarifies that the
term "designed, redesigned, made or remade, and intended
to be fired from the shoulder" includes a weapon that is equipped
with an accessory, component, or other rearward attachment
(e.g., a "stabilizing brace") that provides surface area that allows
the weapon to be fired from the shoulder, provided that other
factors, as listed in the rule, indicate that the weapon is designed,
made, and intended to be fired from the shoulder. These other
factors are:

(i) whether the weapon has a weight or length consistent with
the weight or length of similarly designed rifles;
(ii) whether the weapon has a length of pull, measured from the
center of the trigger to the center of the shoulder stock or other
rearward accessory, component or attachment (including an
adjustable or telescoping attachment with the ability to lock into
various positions along a buffer tube, receiver extension, or
other attachment method) that is consistent with similarly designed
rifles;
(iii) whether the weapon is equipped with sights or a scope with
eye relief that require the weapon to be fired from the shoulder in
order to be used as designed;
(iv) whether the surface area that allows the weapon to be fired
from the shoulder is created by a buffer tube, receiver extension,
or any other accessory, component, or other rearward attachment
that is necessary for the cycle of operations;
(v) the manufacturer’s direct and indirect marketing and
promotional materials indicating the intended use of the weapon; and
(vi) information demonstrating the likely use of the weapon in the
general community.

We haven't yet come across what BATFE means by "consistent
with", what they consider enough surface area to function as a
stock, what "indirect marketing" means, or how they plan to hold
a manufacturer accountable for the "likely use of the weapon
in the general community" if that use is contrary to the
manufacturer's design intention, marketing, and stated purpose.

So ATF lets us buy these guns legally for almost nine years and now they
suddenly say it was illegal the whole time. But they'll magnanimously allow us
to keep them if we register them with the federal government and get a stamp
in their four-month grace period and they'll even "not collect" the $200-per
fee even though the law says I have to pay it.

They've gone so far off the reservation that even taking the braces off the
gun doesn't solve the problem: they can still consider them short-barreled
rifles because I could theoretically put the buffer tube against my shoulder,
OR because they’re heavier than "normal" pistols, OR because I have sights
that are used on rifles, OR even if *other people* would do those things! And
mind you-- neither the Gun Control Act nor the National Firearms Act says ANY
of that or gives the BATFE power to unilaterally make these determinations and
restrictions.

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>On Jan 17, 2023 at 8:55:32 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

>>. . .

>>In a situation in which the individual is in custody -- on parole,
>>serving a sentence of probation, or out on bond or on home monitoring
>>awaiting trial -- there are already restrictions on guns in the home.
>>This is another charge to bring on top of that charge, but I've always
>>wondered how the court orders that apply to the detainee are enforceable
>>against other persons in the home who may legally possess guns.

>They're generally told they have to store their guns somewhere else if they
>want the parolee/probationer to live in their home. This also applies to home
>inspections by parole officers. The parolee may cede his 4th Amendment rights
>in exchange for being let out of prison early

I'm not sure about that. I thought someone on parole or probation is
serving a sentence and does not have any 4th Amendment rights.

I'm confused as to how the 4th Amendment applies to pre-trial
confinement if waiting trial at home on monitoring since that's a
defendant and not a convict.

>but the people he's living with don't. However, if they insist on warrants
>before allowing a parole officer into the home, the state will just
>prohibit the parolee from living there. So basically, if mom and dad
>want to give their wayward kid a place to live while he's on parole,
>they have to get rid of their guns and allow unannounced invasions of
>their home by parole cops.

That makes sense. Thanks.

>>. . .

>Guess you saw what Biden (via BATFE) did to me last week? Three-time felon
>literally overnight by administrative fiat which has no basis in statutory
>law. It's the BATF literally making things up and saying it has the force of
>law all on its own.

>https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-atf-publishes-factoring-criteria-for-firearms-with-pistol-stabilizing-braces-rule/

>. . .

That was a very interesting read. Thanks for posting it.

>So ATF lets us buy these guns legally for almost nine years and now they
>suddenly say it was illegal the whole time. But they'll magnanimously allow us
>to keep them if we register them with the federal government and get a stamp
>in their four-month grace period and they'll even "not collect" the $200-per
>fee even though the law says I have to pay it.

>They've gone so far off the reservation that even taking the braces off the
>gun doesn't solve the problem: they can still consider them short-barreled
>rifles because I could theoretically put the buffer tube against my shoulder,
>OR because they’re heavier than "normal" pistols, OR because I have sights
>that are used on rifles, OR even if *other people* would do those things! And
>mind you-- neither the Gun Control Act nor the National Firearms Act says ANY
>of that or gives the BATFE power to unilaterally make these determinations and
>restrictions.

I don't even see that a federal court would consider the Due Process
constitutional violation. It would be overruled under the APA. I assume
someone will be applying for an injunction.

What are you going to do, put things in storage till there's a court
ruling?

Can you get a referal from Bastet to the Egyptian god of mitigating a
Kafka-esque bureaucratic nightmare?

In article <tq6rvb$3bod5$1@dont-email.me>,
"Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
> >On Jan 17, 2023 at 8:55:32 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>. . .
>
> >>In a situation in which the individual is in custody -- on parole,
> >>serving a sentence of probation, or out on bond or on home monitoring
> >>awaiting trial -- there are already restrictions on guns in the home.
> >>This is another charge to bring on top of that charge, but I've always
> >>wondered how the court orders that apply to the detainee are enforceable
> >>against other persons in the home who may legally possess guns.
>
> > They're generally told they have to store their guns somewhere else if
> > they want the parolee/probationer to live in their home. This also applies
> > to home inspections by parole officers. The parolee may cede his 4th
> > Amendment rights in exchange for being let out of prison early
>
> I'm not sure about that. I thought someone on parole or probation is
> serving a sentence and does not have any 4th Amendment rights.
>
> I'm confused as to how the 4th Amendment applies to pre-trial
> confinement if waiting trial at home on monitoring since that's a
> defendant and not a convict.
>
> >but the people he's living with don't. However, if they insist on warrants
> >before allowing a parole officer into the home, the state will just
> >prohibit the parolee from living there. So basically, if mom and dad
> >want to give their wayward kid a place to live while he's on parole,
> >they have to get rid of their guns and allow unannounced invasions of
> >their home by parole cops.
>
> That makes sense. Thanks.

> > Guess you saw what Biden (via BATFE) did to me last week? Three-time felon
> > literally overnight by administrative fiat which has no basis in statutory
> > law. It's the BATFE literally making things up and saying it has the force
> > of law all on its own.
>
> >https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-atf-publishes-factoring-criteria-f
> >or-firearms-with-pistol-stabilizing-braces-rule/

> That was a very interesting read. Thanks for posting it.
>
> > So ATF lets us buy these guns legally for almost nine years and now they
> > suddenly say it was illegal the whole time. But they'll magnanimously
> > allow us to keep them if we register them with the federal government
> > and get a stamp in their four-month grace period and they'll even
> > "not collect" the $200-per fee even though the law says I have to pay it.
>
> > They've gone so far off the reservation that even taking the braces off
> > the gun doesn't solve the problem: they can still consider them short-
> > barreled rifles because I could theoretically put the buffer tube against
> > my shoulder, OR because they're heavier than "normal" pistols, OR because
> > I have sights that are used on rifles, OR even if *other people* would
> > do those things! And mind you-- neither the Gun Control Act nor the
> > National Firearms Act says ANY of that or gives the BATFE power to
> > unilaterally make these determinations and restrictions.
>
> I don't even see that a federal court would consider the Due Process
> constitutional violation. It would be overruled under the APA. I assume
> someone will be applying for an injunction.
>
> What are you going to do, put things in storage till there's a court
> ruling?

I predict an immediate injunction on enforcement of this new rule and
then years of litigation, during which time I hope to have moved to a
firearms sanctuary state.

> Can you get a referal from Bastet to the Egyptian god of mitigating a
> Kafka-esque bureaucratic nightmare?

Bastet spits and hisses at such pedestrian entreaties.

On 1/17/23 2:12 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> In article <tq6rvb$3bod5$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>> On Jan 17, 2023 at 8:55:32 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>>> . . .
>>
>>>> In a situation in which the individual is in custody -- on parole,
>>>> serving a sentence of probation, or out on bond or on home monitoring
>>>> awaiting trial -- there are already restrictions on guns in the home.
>>>> This is another charge to bring on top of that charge, but I've always
>>>> wondered how the court orders that apply to the detainee are enforceable
>>>> against other persons in the home who may legally possess guns.
>>
>>> They're generally told they have to store their guns somewhere else if
>>> they want the parolee/probationer to live in their home. This also applies
>>> to home inspections by parole officers. The parolee may cede his 4th
>>> Amendment rights in exchange for being let out of prison early
>>
>> I'm not sure about that. I thought someone on parole or probation is
>> serving a sentence and does not have any 4th Amendment rights.
>>
>> I'm confused as to how the 4th Amendment applies to pre-trial
>> confinement if waiting trial at home on monitoring since that's a
>> defendant and not a convict.
>>
>>> but the people he's living with don't. However, if they insist on warrants
>>> before allowing a parole officer into the home, the state will just
>>> prohibit the parolee from living there. So basically, if mom and dad
>>> want to give their wayward kid a place to live while he's on parole,
>>> they have to get rid of their guns and allow unannounced invasions of
>>> their home by parole cops.
>>
>> That makes sense. Thanks.
>
>>> Guess you saw what Biden (via BATFE) did to me last week? Three-time felon
>>> literally overnight by administrative fiat which has no basis in statutory
>>> law. It's the BATFE literally making things up and saying it has the force
>>> of law all on its own.
>>
>>> https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/breaking-atf-publishes-factoring-criteria-f
>>> or-firearms-with-pistol-stabilizing-braces-rule/
>
>> That was a very interesting read. Thanks for posting it.
>>
>>> So ATF lets us buy these guns legally for almost nine years and now they
>>> suddenly say it was illegal the whole time. But they'll magnanimously
>>> allow us to keep them if we register them with the federal government
>>> and get a stamp in their four-month grace period and they'll even
>>> "not collect" the $200-per fee even though the law says I have to pay it.
>>
>>> They've gone so far off the reservation that even taking the braces off
>>> the gun doesn't solve the problem: they can still consider them short-
>>> barreled rifles because I could theoretically put the buffer tube against
>>> my shoulder, OR because they're heavier than "normal" pistols, OR because
>>> I have sights that are used on rifles, OR even if *other people* would
>>> do those things! And mind you-- neither the Gun Control Act nor the
>>> National Firearms Act says ANY of that or gives the BATFE power to
>>> unilaterally make these determinations and restrictions.
>>
>> I don't even see that a federal court would consider the Due Process
>> constitutional violation. It would be overruled under the APA. I assume
>> someone will be applying for an injunction.
>>
>> What are you going to do, put things in storage till there's a court
>> ruling?
>
> I predict an immediate injunction on enforcement of this new rule and
> then years of litigation, during which time I hope to have moved to a
> firearms sanctuary state.

Eight other states already have assault weapons bans.

https://www.axios.com/2023/01/12/assault-weapons-ban-states-illinois

Nine states in the U.S. now have assault-style weapons bans after
Illinois became the latest to enact restrictions this week.

I get it though, since becoming a full fledged white supremacist facts
are now optional for you.

>> Can you get a referal from Bastet to the Egyptian god of mitigating a
>> Kafka-esque bureaucratic nightmare?
>
> Bastet spits and hisses at such pedestrian entreaties.

Is that what the gay guys think now?

On Tue, 17 Jan 2023 18:10:52 +0000, BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>They're generally told they have to store their guns somewhere else if they
>want the parolee/probationer to live in their home. This also applies to home
>inspections by parole officers. The parolee may cede his 4th Amendment rights
>in exchange for being let out of prison early but the people he's living with
>don't. However, if they insist on warrants before allowing a parole officer
>into the home, the state will just prohibit the parolee from living there. So
>basically, if mom and dad want to give their wayward kid a place to live while
>he's on parole, they have to get rid of their guns and allow unannounced
>invasions of their home by parole cops.
>
That seems a limitation they should be happy to accept if they want
the kid paroled as opposed to doing his time in jail.

One accepts all sorts of limitations on one's constitutions in all
sorts of situations "in a good cause" - joining the military comes to
mind.

On Jan 17, 2023 at 11:12:44 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
wrote:

> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>
>> So ATF lets us buy these guns legally for almost nine years and now they
>> suddenly say it was illegal the whole time. But they'll magnanimously allow
>> us
>> to keep them if we register them with the federal government and get a stamp
>> in their four-month grace period and they'll even "not collect" the $200-per
>> fee even though the law says I have to pay it.
>
>> They've gone so far off the reservation that even taking the braces off the
>> gun doesn't solve the problem: they can still consider them short-barreled
>> rifles because I could theoretically put the buffer tube against my shoulder,
>> OR because they’re heavier than "normal" pistols, OR because I have sights
>> that are used on rifles, OR even if *other people* would do those things! And
>> mind you-- neither the Gun Control Act nor the National Firearms Act says ANY
>> of that or gives the BATFE power to unilaterally make these determinations
>> and
>> restrictions.
>
> I don't even see that a federal court would consider the Due Process
> constitutional violation. It would be overruled under the APA. I assume
> someone will be applying for an injunction.
>
> What are you going to do, put things in storage till there's a court
> ruling?
>
> Can you get a referal from Bastet to the Egyptian god of mitigating a
> Kafka-esque bureaucratic nightmare?

Well, it took all of three days and there's already a workaround that makes
the gun legal and makes a mockery of BATFE all at the same time:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/wuo0iy6c3st40p3/Ungovernable.png?dl=0

BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>On Jan 17, 2023 at 11:12:44 AM PST, Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:

>>>So ATF lets us buy these guns legally for almost nine years and now they
>>>suddenly say it was illegal the whole time. But they'll magnanimously
>>>allow us to keep them if we register them with the federal government
>>>and get a stamp in their four-month grace period and they'll even "not
>>>collect" the $200-per fee even though the law says I have to pay it.

>>>They've gone so far off the reservation that even taking the braces
>>>off the gun doesn't solve the problem: they can still consider them
>>>short-barreled rifles because I could theoretically put the buffer
>>>tube against my shoulder, OR because they’re heavier than "normal"
>>>pistols, OR because I have sights that are used on rifles, OR even if
>>>*other people* would do those things! And mind you-- neither the Gun
>>>Control Act nor the National Firearms Act says ANY of that or gives the
>>>BATFE power to unilaterally make these determinations and restrictions.

>>I don't even see that a federal court would consider the Due Process
>>constitutional violation. It would be overruled under the APA. I assume
>>someone will be applying for an injunction.

>>What are you going to do, put things in storage till there's a court
>>ruling?

>>Can you get a referal from Bastet to the Egyptian god of mitigating a
>>Kafka-esque bureaucratic nightmare?

>Well, it took all of three days and there's already a workaround that makes
>the gun legal and makes a mockery of BATFE all at the same time:

>https://www.dropbox.com/s/wuo0iy6c3st40p3/Ungovernable.png?dl=0

Thank Bastet for that!

On 1/19/23 4:48 PM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2023 at 11:12:44 AM PST, ""Adam H. Kerman"" <ahk@chinet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> So ATF lets us buy these guns legally for almost nine years and now they
>>> suddenly say it was illegal the whole time. But they'll magnanimously allow
>>> us
>>> to keep them if we register them with the federal government and get a stamp
>>> in their four-month grace period and they'll even "not collect" the $200-per
>>> fee even though the law says I have to pay it.
>>
>>> They've gone so far off the reservation that even taking the braces off the
>>> gun doesn't solve the problem: they can still consider them short-barreled
>>> rifles because I could theoretically put the buffer tube against my shoulder,
>>> OR because they’re heavier than "normal" pistols, OR because I have sights
>>> that are used on rifles, OR even if *other people* would do those things! And
>>> mind you-- neither the Gun Control Act nor the National Firearms Act says ANY
>>> of that or gives the BATFE power to unilaterally make these determinations
>>> and
>>> restrictions.
>>
>> I don't even see that a federal court would consider the Due Process
>> constitutional violation. It would be overruled under the APA. I assume
>> someone will be applying for an injunction.
>>
>> What are you going to do, put things in storage till there's a court
>> ruling?
>>
>> Can you get a referal from Bastet to the Egyptian god of mitigating a
>> Kafka-esque bureaucratic nightmare?
>
> Well, it took all of three days and there's already a workaround that makes
> the gun legal and makes a mockery of BATFE all at the same time:
>
> https://www.dropbox.com/s/wuo0iy6c3st40p3/Ungovernable.png?dl=0

Right wing humor: indistinguishable from diarrhea.

On 1/17/23 2:46 AM, BTR1701 wrote:
> On Jan 17, 2023 at 12:05:04 AM PST, "RichA" <rander3128@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> https://wgntv.com/news/illinois/pritzker-threatens-to-fire-police-for-not-enforcing-illinois-gun-ban/
>>
>> 85% refuse to enforce the ban.
>
> (WTVO) — After several Illinois law enforcement agencies said
> they won’t enforce the new gun ban, Gov. JB Pritzker had a
> strong response: Comply or hit the road.
>
> "As are all law enforcement all across our state and they will in
> fact do their job or they won't be in their job," Pritzker said
> Tuesday during a press conference.
>
> Local sheriff's departments in Winnebago, Ogle, Stephenson,
> and Lee counties, among others, have said they will not enforce
> the new law, which makes more than 100 guns and magazines
> illegal because the state deems them "assault weapons".
>
> Aren't sheriffs elected in Illinois? How can the governor fire another elected
> official?

What part of "threatens to fire police" says "sheriffs" you stupid gay
eunuch motherfucker?