It's just so annoying when your "TOO MANY GUNS ON THE STREET!!" line

takes such a setback:
In a press conference, Commissioner Ross said the gun used in the attack was a stolen police firearm.
And on top of that, the PC line took a beating when the suspect insists he did it for Allah.  And ISIS.


I don't care if it WAS an inert missile, this is still- no, this would aspire to insanity...
Again,

• a Hellfire missile
• shipped via commercial carrier to Europe
• in early 2014
• goes missing
• and months later, in June, “Lockheed Martin officials realized the missile was missing”
• but is likely in Cuba
• while the Obama administration is finalizing its easement of relations with the Communist dictatorship
• and the White House carried on with the negotiations.

On this crap from the President and ATF, and from a lawyer:
Taken at face value, the new ATF guidance is thus nothing more than a restatement of existing legal requirements. Put another way, it merely identifies those who are already subject to the relevant federal requirements and does not in any way expand the universe of those gun sellers who are required to obtain a license and perform background checks. In other words, it is — as the document says — a guidance, and not a substantive rule. It has no legal effect.

If the ATF guidelines are nothing more than a guidance — an indication of the sorts of things that might trigger a federal investigation or prosecution, but not a tightening of the relevant legal standard — why would the administration do this? There are several potential answers.
...
A consequence of choosing to issue a guidance document instead of a new regulation, however, is that the guidance document cannot have legal force. That’s what it means to be a guidance — and is one reason that such documents do not have to go through the rulemaking process. To be sure, sometimes agencies do one thing while saying they are doing another — issuing a new substantive regulation that changes the relevant legal requirements but calling it a guidance. Yet when agencies do this, they make themselves legally vulnerable. Courts reviewing agency actions are more concerned with the substance of what an agency does than what the agency calls it. So if one were to conclude that the new ATF guidance is really an expansion of existing regulatory requirements, it would be legally invalid under the Administrative Procedure Act because ATF did not go through the relevant rulemaking requirements.
So if they start trying to prosecute people on this, we may hear "Paging Mr. Gura."