Biden to nominate horrible choice to be ATF director

Status
Not open for further replies.
Biden just said "the AFT."
This guy is a couple sandwiches short of a picnic.

Low road.

I was hit in the head in a vehicle accident 11 years ago and had to relearn how to speak, and to this day I get words mixed up.

I also still, to this day, design and build supercompute architecture.

Be mighty unwise to underestimate a man based on how he speaks. :)
 
Already happening. Texas and Arizona and other states are enacting laws making them Second Amendment sanctuary states. :)
Which should only excite those that don't know such laws are meaningless pablum for the illinformed.
1. States don't enforce federal gun laws as it is.
2. Federal laws don't disappear because a state passed some law.
3. Supremacy Clause be like it is because it do.
 
Which should only excite those that don't know such laws are meaningless pablum for the illinformed.
1. States don't enforce federal gun laws as it is.
2. Federal laws don't disappear because a state passed some law.
3. Supremacy Clause be like it is because it do.

I generally agree but I do wonder if there might be some practical effect? It stands to reason that most people violating federal gun laws aren’t initially nabbed by federal LEOs but rather by state or local personnel who then alert the feds. If the laws have some sort of prohibition about ratting out the locals then they might help a few people to skate. Unlikely, but I’m just looking for silver linings.

That’s how it seems to be working for weed...
 
Which should only excite those that don't know such laws are meaningless pablum for the illinformed.
1. States don't enforce federal gun laws as it is.
2. Federal laws don't disappear because a state passed some law.
3. Supremacy Clause be like it is because it do.
Arizona's new law relies in part on an existing clause (Article 2, Section 3) in its constitution:
3. Supreme law of the land; authority to exercise sovereign authority against federal action; use of government personnel and financial resources

Section 3. A. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land to which all government, state and federal, is subject.

B. To protect the people's freedom and to preserve the checks and balances of the United States Constitution, this state may exercise its sovereign authority to restrict the actions of its personnel and the use of its financial resources to purposes that are consistent with the constitution by doing any of the following:

1. Passing an initiative or referendum pursuant to article IV, part 1, section 1.

2. Passing a bill pursuant to article IV, part 2 and article V, section 7.

3. Pursuing any other available legal remedy.

C. If the people or their representatives exercise their authority pursuant to this section, this state and all political subdivisions of this state are prohibited from using any personnel or financial resources to enforce, administer or cooperate with the designated federal action or program.​
 
He's had dyslexia his entire life. Don't draw conclusions from his chronic slips of the tongue. It's a great mistake to underestimate him.

We can't misunderestimate him either.:rofl: From Ford falling down the ramp of his plane to Bush's legendary verbal fumbles, you're 100% correct. Cheap shots at a guy over his hair, his way of speaking, etc is not going to help protect our rights. I too often trip on my tongue and my speech stumbles to catch up with my thoughts.:thumbup:
 
Arizona's new law relies in part on an existing clause (Article 2, Section 3) in its constitution:
3. Supreme law of the land; authority to exercise sovereign authority against federal action; use of government personnel and financial resources

Again, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution means the federal law and federal courts really don't care one bit about what a particular states constitution says.
Your state constitution does not over ride federal law or the US Constitution.

 
Again, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution means the federal law and federal courts really don't care one bit about what a particular states constitution says.
Your state constitution does not over ride federal law or the US Constitution.​


I have heard one report that if the state passes it's law before the federal government passes the federal law, then it is possible the state may successfully nullify the federal law. Now I have to admit, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know if this is actually true. There's been so much phony baloney stuff & lies floating through our debased media I'm loath to invest much credulity in this ..... "report."

While I sort of like the "spirit of resistance" shown by these state leaders in the end I will agree with you that these attempts to negate federal supremacy are the wrong way to deal with the antigunner problem and atleast the ones passed subsequent to federal laws (if not all fed laws) are certainly worthless in the end.​
 
Biden is going to nominate a former ATF agent who is a devout gun control advocate. He is a consultant to the anti-gun Gifford Foundation. The story is in the Washington Post here.
Hopefully the nomination will be defeated in the Senate.
In case any of you missed it, it's 'thoughts & prayers time again. In Texas, this time. I'm familiar with Mr. Chipman, due to my connection to Ms. Giffords organization. He might be the answer to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Oh, and once again. Where was the good guy with a gun?
 
In case any of you missed it, it's 'thoughts & prayers time again. In Texas, this time. I'm familiar with Mr. Chipman, due to my connection to Ms. Giffords organization. He might be the answer to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals. Oh, and once again. Where was the good guy with a gun?

If he can keep guns out of the hands of criminals it would indeed be great. However, I think it is unlikely since most criminals get their guns “on the street.” Personally, the “good guy with a gun” mantra has proven over the decades that that NRA pushed it as a political tool. It’s gross exaggeration not supported by any evidence. @Usonia3 got a like from me because spoke his mind appropriately.
 

I have heard one report that if the state passes it's law before the federal government passes the federal law, then it is possible the state may successfully nullify the federal law.
Now I have to admit, I'm not a lawyer, and I don't know if this is actually true.
A state can be more restrictive than federal law, as long as it doesn't violate federal law. Again, the Supremacy Clause overrides anything a state may enact.
Ex. If federal law defines a rifle as having an OAL of 26" or greater and a bbl length of at least 16"........a state can have their own definition. But it doesn't invalidate federal law.

 
Again, the Supremacy Clause of the US Constitution means the federal law and federal courts really don't care one bit about what a particular states constitution says.
Your state constitution does not over ride federal law or the US Constitution.

I'm sorry you didn't read the excerpt.

Be that as it may, if the only way these new rules can be enforced is by federal LE, how exactly do you see them being enforced?
 
In case any of you missed it, it's 'thoughts & prayers time again. In Texas, this time. I'm familiar with Mr. Chipman, due to my connection to Ms. Giffords organization. He might be the answer to keeping guns out of the hands of criminals.
That's funny. Chipman had 25 years with ATF to do it......and didn't. Like all anti gun nitwits he thinks all guns are bad and the source of the problem. In fact people are the problem and the gun is their tool to commit violence. We don't blame Chevrolet for drunk drivers and don't sue Budweiser when a kid get run over...........we punish the lawbreaker.


Oh, and once again. Where was the good guy with a gun?
One if the most blissfully ignorant if not laughably_____ comments I've ever read on THR. Where on earth is it determined or presumed that a "good guy with a gun" is in every home, every business, every school, every office park? o_O I mean really? A good guy with a gun (and uniform) usually arrives within 10-15 minutes after calling 911. Sure, everone but the bad guy is unarmed.

The question I'll ask you is this: when a bad guy with a gun walks into your office, home, school or church.....do you wish you or other "good guys" had a gun? Having a good guy with a gun gives you an option to resist. No good guy with a gun gives you little recourse but to run or hide.
 
Last edited:
Specifically, what happened to gun ownership today. Did those of us that do not own a braced weapon or build “ghost guns” lose ground today.

From my perspective there were no consequences of Biden’s announced actions today. I think ghost guns ought to be banned, or, if not, buyers should have to pass a background check. I like level playing fields. Wouldn’t keep braced pistol if someone gave one to me. I see no point in them because I see real prospect of needing one. Might might Biden’s actions mean to me? It depends on whether his nominee for SFT Director goes through and what the man might do, but I do not get concerned with future possibilities. I only deal in real time.
 
Let’s hope this guy is all about enforcing existing laws... like when a dishonorably discharged cokehead lies on a 4473 form about substance abuse to obtain a gun (he then loses).
Yeah I'm highly doubtful that criminal case will be filed. I figure he'll be planning future " Federal Barbecue Parties" if you know what I'm saying.
 
From my perspective there were no consequences of Biden’s announced actions today. I think ghost guns ought to be banned, or, if not, buyers should have to pass a background check. I like level playing fields. Wouldn’t keep braced pistol if someone gave one to me. I see no point in them because I see real prospect of needing one. Might might Biden’s actions mean to me? It depends on whether his nominee for SFT Director goes through and what the man might do, but I do not get concerned with future possibilities. I only deal in real time.

And I have no use for alcohol, but alot of others do. As a freedom loving American I wouldn't ban Budweiser just because I don't want one. After they ban the Budweiser they will come for my coffee. Then what? We as gun enthusiasts will either stand together or fall in pieces.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top