Ya better get an attorney

[wayneinFL]

Sounds like it operates like a bump stock with a return spring installed in it. We already knew those were illegal.Following the law is not a loophole. Looking for ways to circumvent the obvious intent of the law is not following the law and that is pretty much the definition of a loophole.

The obvious intent of the law is that they don't want people to shoot fast. Pulling the trigger fast is a loophole.

It's not a result of people finding loopholes. It's a result of the government passing feel good arbitrary laws with arbitrary lines drawn.

There's a lot of people out there who see semiautomatic AR-15s as a loophole that allows you to own an M-16.

"Loophole" is just a name for whatever stupid law you want to pass next.

 

[bearcreek]

Everyone should have an attorney.

What does, "have an attorney" mean, exactly?

 

[BreechFace]

The obvious intent of the law is that they don't want people to shoot fast. Pulling the trigger fast is a loophole.

It's not a result of people finding loopholes. It's a result of the government passing feel good arbitrary laws with arbitrary lines drawn.

There's a lot of people out there who see semiautomatic AR-15s as a loophole that allows you to own an M-16.

"Loophole" is just a name for whatever stupid law you want to pass next.

Yep.

 

[JohnKSa]

Pulling the trigger fast is a loophole.

Pulling the trigger fast is perfectly legal. Shooting fast is perfectly legal--you can buy and make hand-cranked firearms that shoot as fast as you can manually turn the crank. It's when something else other than the shooter does the work of actuating the trigger or firing the gun that things run afoul of the law.

It's a result of the government passing feel good arbitrary laws with arbitrary lines drawn.

I'm not a fan of the NFA, but it's been the law for about 90 years now. Until the legislature or the courts change it, we're stuck with it.

I agree. It is unfortunate that unjust laws make gun owners turn on each other and stifle innovation.

I think about another victim of the ATF’s nonsense. There was a gentleman who made solvent traps that were then classified as suppressors. As a result, the business owner committed suicide; hell of “collateral damage” on the ATF’s hands.

Kind of interesting how people see things from different perspectives.

The law is what the law is. Not liking it doesn't change it. There are several responses to it.

Some think that a proper response is to crowd right up against the limits and see exactly how far they can go. They applaud people who do so and call them innovators.

Some think that a proper response is to make sure that they stay clear of the limits so that they don't accidentally end up on the wrong side of it. They try to protect others from getting into trouble by telling them to do the same.

Guess which kind is most likely to end up committing suicide as a result of BATF actions.

Who is supporting the gun community best? The people who advise members of the gun community to stay safe, to abide by the laws and change them via the legislature or the courts when possible, or the ones who make it seem like it's a good idea to spend as much time as possible playing around right at the hairy edge of legality where there will occasionally be the inevitable misstep resulting in ruined lives?

 

[AlexanderA]

What does, "have an attorney" mean, exactly?

Presumably, it means having one on retainer. If you think tying up $7,500 without having a specific legal threat is reasonable, go for it.

 

[DeepSouth]

Following the law is not a loophole. Looking for ways to circumvent the obvious intent of the law is not following the law and that is pretty much the definition of a loophole.

The danger with playing around with loopholes is that legislatures eventually decide they need to be closed. Then you have to hope that when they close the loophole there is no collateral damage caused by the revised law.

Loopholes are made by legislators, frequently on purpose. Also if we followed the intent of the laws, specifically the the 2nd amendment, this law would not exist, Imo.


Also, the law has not changed so, frequently, the ATF is not following the intent of the law. Either they did and now they aren’t, or, they weren’t and now they are. You can’t hold two opposing positions and be right both times, well you shouldn’t be able to.

 

[N555]

What does, "have an attorney" mean, exactly?

Have a lawyer on retainer that covers as many things as possible. My guy does child custody, divorce, tax stuff, small claims, traffic tickets, criminal and civil cases.
The government doesn't want you to have a layer when they charge you, they want to lock you up, seize all your assets, so you don't have enough money to bail yourself out or hire a lawyer and then get you to take a plea deal. That's their MO.

 

[N555]

Lawyers are not "one size fits all." For example, a divorce lawyer or a tax lawyer is not going to do you much good if you need a criminal-defense attorney.

And "having a lawyer" means tying up a bunch of money in retainer fees. These typically do not draw interest.

I will agree that you better get a lawyer pretty damn quickly if you are confronted with a real legal problem. (The biggest mistake some people make is a do-it-yourself divorce.)

It's expensive because it's worth it.
The government doesn't want you to have a layer when they charge you, they want to lock you up, seize all your assets, so you don't have enough money to bail yourself out or hire a lawyer and then get you to take a plea deal. Putting a lawyer on retainer and "losing that interest" is the price you pay to have legal representation after the government has seized all you assets. Seems like a great deal to me.
It might not be a total loss, you may be able to work out a deal where the retainer is held in the form of savings bonds in escrow.

 

[dogtown tom]

It's expensive because it's worth it.
The government doesn't want you to have a layer when they charge you, they want to lock you up, seize all your assets, so you don't have enough money to bail yourself out or hire a lawyer and then get you to take a plea deal. Putting a lawyer on retainer and "losing that interest" is the price you pay to have legal representation after the government has seized all you assets. Seems like a great deal to me.
It might not be a total loss, you may be able to work out a deal where the retainer is held in the form of savings bonds in escrow.

Seriously.....do you really believe the stuff you write?

Not having an attorney on retainer doesn't mean you lose the right to an attorney when being questioned. It's not a matter of whether "the government" wants or doesn't want you to have one because for goodness sakes man watch you some Law & Order reruns or On Patrol Live and listen to what LE tells the person they just handcuffed.
"Seize all your assets"? Dude, tell us more about this.

My guy does child custody, divorce, tax stuff, small claims, traffic tickets, criminal and civil cases.

Don't forget that he's an excellent salesman. Or has at least one customer that doesn't know any better.



Good grief.

 

[N555]

Seriously.....do you really believe the stuff you write?

Not having an attorney on retainer doesn't mean you lose the right to an attorney when being questioned. It's not a matter of whether "the government" wants or doesn't want you to have one because for goodness sakes man watch you some Law & Order reruns or On Patrol Live and listen to what LE tells the person they just handcuffed.
"Seize all your assets"? Dude, tell us more about this.


Don't forget that he's an excellent salesman. Or has at least one customer that doesn't know any better.



Good grief.

Yes I do.
When the government locks some one up, seizes or freezes all their assets, a person gets fired from their job because they are in jail, how is one to pay for competent legal representation? You are clearly some kind of genius at least in your own mind so tell us where is someone is going to get money once they suddenly become unemployed, locked up and have assets frozen to pay for lawyers, house payments, bills, ect?
I have reviewed his cases and comes personally recommend by multiple people.
You don't have to believe anything I say. Keep your money, go on vacation, lease that new truck or whatever then when they come for you, get a public defender and good luck.
I'm amazed by how many people over the age of 20 trust the government and the legal system. These people must have their blinders on and don't pay attention to anything.
You need to read Wikipedia more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_forfeiture_in_the_United_States
"Civil forfeiture in the United States, also called civil asset forfeiture or civil judicial forfeiture,[1] is a process in which law enforcement officers take assets from people who are suspected of involvement with crime or illegal activity without necessarily charging the owners with wrongdoing".

I warn everyone don't take any legal advice from dog town tom.
My only legal advice is "get a lawyer before you need one". But for some reason a lot of people seem to have a problem with that. Almost like they want you to get a public defender and take a plea deal....

 

[Kleanbore]

Folks, the idea that one attorney would be able to successfully "handle" ATF cases, firearms possession issues, a legal defense of self defense, an adverse possession claim, tax evasion, a defense against eminent domain, breach of contract, etc., is ludicrous in the extreme.

 

[BreechFace]

Folks, the idea that one attorney would be able to successfully "handle" ATF cases, firearms possession issues, a legal defense of self defense, an adverse possession claim, tax evasion, a defense against eminent domain, breach of contract, etc., is ludicrous in the extreme.

Agreed, as it pertains to CCW practitioners, it's a good idea to know a local attorney that deals with legal issues revolving firearms and have their number in one's cell phone and at home where the wife/emergency contact knows where it is.

In the event of needing the attorney, call one's wife/emergency contact and have them call the attorney and relay the details of the need of their services. One's one phone call should be to a person who can make many phone calls on one's behalf.

 

[N555]

Who really believes a court appointed public defender would be able to handle all that stuff?
If your lawyer can't I'm sure they will forward you to someone who can.

 

[dogtown tom]

Yes I do.
When the government locks some one up, seizes or freezes all their assets, a person gets fired from their job because they are in jail, how is one to pay for competent legal representation? You are clearly some kind of genius at least in your own mind so tell us where is someone is going to get money once they suddenly become unemployed, locked up and have assets frozen to pay for lawyers, house payments, bills, ect?

Which has absolutely nothing to do with having an attorney on retainer. Seriously, tell us about .gov seizing all of a defendants assets. You watch too many YouTube videos.
The .gov cannot take title to your house....and that's what you'll use as collateral for the attorney you hire .

I warn everyone don't take any legal advice from dog town tom.

I'm not a lawyer, so cannot give legal advice. Pointing out the sheer nonsense of someone screeching "Lawyer on retainer!!!" as if thats going to matter one bit isn't legal advice.

 

[N555]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with having an attorney on retainer.


I'm not a lawyer, so cannot give legal advice. Pointing out the sheer nonsense of someone screeching "Lawyer on retainer!!!" as if thats going to matter one bit isn't legal advice.

Yeah it is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_advice
"Legal advice is the giving of a professional or formal opinion regarding the substance or procedure of the law in relation to a particular factual situation. The provision of legal advice will often involve analyzing a set of facts and advising a person to take a specific course of action based on the applicable law".
Just take the L already.

 

[dogtown tom]

Yeah it is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_advice
"Legal advice is the giving of a professional or formal opinion regarding the substance or procedure of the law in relation to a particular factual situation. The provision of legal advice will often involve analyzing a set of facts and advising a person to take a specific course of action based on the applicable law".
Just take the L already.

Bolded portion for the WIN BABY!!!!!!!!!!!

You might want to read the rest of that Wiki page.

 

[N555]

Bolded portion for the WIN BABY!!!!!!!!!!!

Indeed.

 

[AlexanderA]

Have a lawyer on retainer that covers as many things as possible. My guy does child custody, divorce, tax stuff, small claims, traffic tickets, criminal and civil cases.

You know the old saying "a jack of all trades is the master of none"? If I was charged in a criminal case, I sure wouldn't want a divorce or tax attorney representing me. Different expertise in this age of specialization.

Retainer fees vary, according to the geographical area, and the general reputation and experience of the attorney. It's probably a mistake to try to go cheap, but on the other hand, if it's all you can afford......

 

[wayneinFL]

"Who is supporting the gun community best? The people who advise members of the gun community to stay safe, to abide by the laws and change them via the legislature or the courts when possible, or the ones who make it seem like it's a good idea to spend as much time as possible playing around right at the hairy edge of legality where there will occasionally be the inevitable misstep resulting in ruined lives?"

Both. If you want to call and write your congressman, go for it. If someone is willing to test the law, push the bounds of the law, or outright break an unconstitutional law, they can go for it, too.

 

[Kleanbore]

Yeah it is.

Nope. Try to comprehend the definition.

 

[N555]

You know the old saying "a jack of all trades is the master of none"? If I was charged in a criminal case, I sure wouldn't want a divorce or tax attorney representing me. Different expertise in this age of specialization.

Retainer fees vary, according to the geographical area, and the general reputation and experience of the attorney. It's probably a mistake to try to go cheap, but on the other hand, if it's all you can afford......

I agree you get what you pay for. If my guy can't do it, I'm sure one of the other ones in the law firm can. Their minimum retainer will buy nice used car.

 

[rust collector]

When we start a thread with a clickbait title, we probably should not be surprised when it promptly runs off the rails and becomes contentious. Henceforth, if a title does not clearly indicate the subject matter of the thread, the thread will be deleted. I am closing this thread to avert further misinformation and disparagement.