Tuesday, March 25, 2014

ATF gets slapped down

on their "We'll tell you what the rules are after we decide you've broken them" methods.
Uncle Sam arbitrarily classified a new device as a firearm silencer without sufficient review or a decent explanation why, a federal judge’s somewhat scathing opinion states.
“In any agency review case, a reviewing court is generally obligated to uphold a reasonable agency decision that is the product of a rational agency process,” U.S. District Judge John Bates wrote Wednesday. “This is not a high bar. But in this case, ATF fails to clear it.”
Nice to see a judge finally call them on this.  I like this part too:
He also granted Innovator summary judgment on its claim under the Administrative Procedure Act, holding that the agency’s action must be set aside as arbitrary and capricious because of the agency’s failure to “articulate a satisfactory explanation” and “examine the relevant data” in classifying Innovator’s Stabilizer Brake as a “firearm silencer.”

Over in CT, they're still pretending they're not screwing gun owners and trashing the 2nd:
 Starting April 1st, gun buyers will be required to apply for a certificate from the state before purchasing any long gun from either a licensed or private seller. State Police warn it could add weeks if not months to what was a two week process.
Yeah, no screwing with the right to arms there, noooo...

And isn't this a comforting denial?
She wants to make very clear that the talk of confiscation is nonsense.  “There’s no plan in place nor has there been any execution of a plan where we would, for example, go door-to-door and be actively involved in the confiscation of weapons,” says Schriro, who took over as Commissioner of Emergency Services and Public Protection at the end of January.
...no plan IN PLACE...  Hasn't been any execution of a plan, which means "We haven't done this, at least not yet."
Comforting as hell, isn't it?  And let's not forget they put together a letter telling people "You haven't done what we order, you bad boy, so you have to surrender, destroy or get rid of your guns."  But no 'confiscations', oh no!  From an earlier post:
But one would suppose that whether or not Connecticut is conducting a systematic program of gun confiscation depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is, as former President Bill Clinton so famously quipped in sworn testimony in a court of law in the 1990s when he was asked direct questions about whether or not he told the truth when he claimed repeatedly that he did not have an affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Confiscation does not depend on law enforcement or government officials going door to door to physically remove "forbidden" items. Governments have and continue to engage in confiscation by requiring citizens to turn in forbidden items or destroy them.

In the case of Connecticut, citizens have several choices at their disposal, all of which amount to confiscation -- that is, by law they are relieved and deprived of the right to possess "assault weapons" and magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets.

Under the terms of the new law, a citizen can store their weapons and magazines out of state. Or they can take them to a licensed gun dealer and sell them. Or they can destroy them or take them to government authorities and turn them in.

Each of these choices amounts to one thing -- citizens are being deprived of the right to possess items they bought and paid for in good faith, with their own hard earned money. And that "is" what is referred to as "confiscation."

Hand out literature countering what's being said, get called a 'parasite'.

No comments: