Antipitas said:I've still not encountered the case I spoke of, above.
A duly interposed demurrer alleged: the National Firearms Act is not a revenue measure, but an attempt to usurp police power reserved to the States, and is therefore unconstitutional.
Further yet, if the agency has been de-funded and cannot process any applications for relief of disability (the fear of many), after 365 days have passed, the individual can file a claim in a federal district court and that court will have to do a full review of the facts and make a determination as to the application of the disability. This is what a de novo review entails.
I disagree. If that function of the agency has been defunded, why should you have to wait around for them to do something they obviously will not do? If a court review is to happen because Congress refuses to fund an agency review, why should there be any delay at all? Upon learning that the agency has been denied ability to comply with the law, you should be able to take the matter to court THAT DAY.Now I will submit that perhaps you shouldn't have to wait a year to do this, but understand also that a year is not a long time in the scheme of federal processes. So that in and of itself is not entirely unreasonable.
The bill's alleged purpose was to "improve" the Brady law. The Brady law is an unConstitutional pile. Improving the Brady Bill was "polishing" that pile.Or, I don't know why I don't like it, I just don't.
As for voice votes. They are the normal course and parliamentary rule. It is a matter of the chair speaking 'All apposed say AYE' then the Ayes are heard 'All opposed say NAY'' and all the nays are heard, then the chair determines which side has it. 'It appears that the AYES have it, the do indeed have it, the measure passes.
The GOA has far more expertise than you or I in knowing the future ramifications of any given anti-gun bill.If you choose to think this is a wonderful bill that improves gun ownership in America that is your choice.I choose not to side with the Chuck Schumers and Carolyn McCarthys of the world.Without copying and pasting this time, tell us, in your own words, what the bill does. I am absolutely positive that you haven't read the actual Bill.
Maybe this is the reason so many LEO's shoot themselves in the foot or leg with their Glocks every year.NRA Certified Instructors are responsible for having trained, or helped train, most of the LEOs in this country.
Going back to my remark about the nonsense they feed you in high school civics, have you ever watched a voice vote on CSPAN? There's no effort to count Ayes or Nays, "Allopposedsayayeallinfavorsayyeatheayeshaveit" being one word. And quorum counts are never permitted to go to completion, and note the absence of a quorum, unless the leadership want things shut down.
Again!
So chalk up a victory for Chuck Schumer... and for Carolyn McCarthy as well, as she told CBS News, "This is the best Christmas present I could ever receive."
Welcome to the place where alleged gun rights advocates rationalize every act of government that the NRA says is okay.What really astounds me is the large number of folks here that truly believe that the government is their best buddy and that voice votes are an excellent way of keeping Congress honest.
Insane people should not be able to buy guns.
How would you propose to keep that from happening?
Does that mean you cannot post the explicit section(s) of the bill that does what your mentor, Larry Pratt (who is no lawyer), says it will do?Te Anau said:The GOA has far more expertise than you or I in knowing the future ramifications of any given anti-gun bill.