In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Open letter from the DOJ to FFL's
FrancF
Member Posts: 35,279 ✭✭✭
Comments
The fed-gov is usurping the authority of the sovereign states, again...openly, flagrantly and arrogantly. There is zero constitutional authority for the fed-gov to criminalize drugs, therefore, drugs being criminalized or not is a state issue under the X Amendment.
Setting that aside, Federal Firearm Laws are textually unconstitutional. The fact that they are codified as 'law' does nothing to change this fact.
A day is coming...
I feel really bad for FFLs who try and comply with this agency...they make no sense.
That letter makes no sense...if they cant be arressted for having pot because they have a medical licensee card for it, and because there is really not a good way for an FFL to know if the random guy who walks in is addicted or not, than as I read the letter, and the law that ATF quoted, the person would be allowed to buy a firearm.
I feel really bad for FFLs who try and comply with this agency...they make no sense.
Actually, they CAN be arrested for having pot regardless of the fact that they have a medical card. It's just that it's so impractical to go after all of them.
The process to get a card is ridiculous. There is a commercial currently running here in the Sacramento area for a "clinic" where you can get your medical card in "about 30 minutes." They say that cannabis is proven to work but they don't say for what. As far as I know, it has only been proven to help relieve nausea due to chemo therapy (which was the original reason for the prescriptions). It does not relieve back pain, headaches, sore throats, or stupidity.
I have a friend that has a medical marijuana card. I asked him the reason that it was issued and he told me it was for his back. He has had some serious back problems and recently had two surgeries. I asked if it helped. His response: "HA! I wish!!"
ADDED: Incidently, he is currently in his 10 day waiting period for a shotgun.
That letter makes no sense...if they cant be arressted for having pot because they have a medical licensee card for it, and because there is really not a good way for an FFL to know if the random guy who walks in is addicted or not, than as I read the letter, and the law that ATF quoted, the person would be allowed to buy a firearm.
I feel really bad for FFLs who try and comply with this agency...they make no sense.
The underlying point you might be missing here, (lt496 hit it)
Federal Gov. is telling FFL's Nation wide "Our law" supersedes any law your state imposes.
quote:Originally posted by kidthatsirish
That letter makes no sense...if they cant be arressted for having pot because they have a medical licensee card for it, and because there is really not a good way for an FFL to know if the random guy who walks in is addicted or not, than as I read the letter, and the law that ATF quoted, the person would be allowed to buy a firearm.
I feel really bad for FFLs who try and comply with this agency...they make no sense.
The underlying point you might be missing here, (lt496 hit it)
Federal Gov. is telling FFL's Nation wide "Our law" supersedes any law your state imposes.
In essence, they do. Either you have to repeal federal drug laws and allow each state to make their own drug laws or this "clarification" goes right along with current enforcement standards.
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
quote:Originally posted by kidthatsirish
That letter makes no sense...if they cant be arressted for having pot because they have a medical licensee card for it, and because there is really not a good way for an FFL to know if the random guy who walks in is addicted or not, than as I read the letter, and the law that ATF quoted, the person would be allowed to buy a firearm.
I feel really bad for FFLs who try and comply with this agency...they make no sense.
The underlying point you might be missing here, (lt496 hit it)
Federal Gov. is telling FFL's Nation wide "Our law" supersedes any law your state imposes.
In essence, they do. Either you have to repeal federal drug laws and allow each state to make their own drug laws or this "clarification" goes right along with current enforcement standards.
Where is the constitutional authority for the fed-gov to even have any 'drug laws'?
Where is the constitutional authority for the fed-gov to supersede the sovereign states who are acting under Amendment X when no such federal authority for 'drug laws' exists?
Are you an apologist or an enabler of anti constitutional government?
It seems so.
quote:Originally posted by calrugerfan
quote:Originally posted by FrancF
quote:Originally posted by kidthatsirish
That letter makes no sense...if they cant be arressted for having pot because they have a medical licensee card for it, and because there is really not a good way for an FFL to know if the random guy who walks in is addicted or not, than as I read the letter, and the law that ATF quoted, the person would be allowed to buy a firearm.
I feel really bad for FFLs who try and comply with this agency...they make no sense.
The underlying point you might be missing here, (lt496 hit it)
Federal Gov. is telling FFL's Nation wide "Our law" supersedes any law your state imposes.
In essence, they do. Either you have to repeal federal drug laws and allow each state to make their own drug laws or this "clarification" goes right along with current enforcement standards.
Where is the constitutional authority for the fed-gov to even have any 'drug laws'?
Where is the constitutional authority for the fed-gov to supersede the sovereign states who are acting under Amendment X when no such federal authority for 'drug laws' exists?
Are you an apologist or an enabler of anti constitutional government?
It seems so.
Don't assume anything about me. You missed the point entirely. Try reading my post again. I never said that they have the RIGHT to make drug laws. However, they need to enforce things CONSISTENTLY. IF the drug laws are constitutional, then the letter is accurate. IF the drug laws are NOT constitutional, then the letter is a load of crap.
I'm not going to get into it whether the government has the right to make drug laws or not.
I'm not going to get into it whether the government has the right to make drug laws or not.Hypocritical and a massive cop-out, at best.
The issue of constitutionality is at the heart of the matter and the letter.
You either believe that the fed-gov has the duty and constitutional authority to enact drug laws, or you do not.
If they do not then all your postings are in defense of unconstitutional government 'law'.
quote:Don't assume anything about me. You missed the point entirely. Try reading my post again. I never said that they have the RIGHT to make drug laws. However, they need to enforce things CONSISTENTLY. IF the drug laws are constitutional, then the letter is accurate. IF the drug laws are NOT constitutional, then the letter is a load of crap.
I'm not going to get into it whether the government has the right to make drug laws or not.Hypocritical and a massive cop-out, at best.
The issue of constitutionality is at the heart of the matter and the letter.
You either believe that the fed-gov has the duty and constitutional authority to enact drug laws, or you do not.
If they do not then all your postings are in defense of unconstitutional government 'law'.
Read it again lt. I'm not going into whether or not the law is constitutional or under what authority they are making the ruling. However, based on CURRENT federal law (which according to the COURTS is constitutional) the letter accurately describes the way that it should be handled.
I'd love to continue this debate, but it's much easier to do with somebody that reads and comprehends the posts without assuming a whole bunch of stuff that isn't written.
With that, have a good night. I'm done trying to educate you on CURRENT laws. Please reference your case number for me so I can read up on your pending litigation to get these "unconstitutional" laws overturned. You ARE having them overturned since they are so blatantly unconstitutional, right?
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Don't assume anything about me. You missed the point entirely. Try reading my post again. I never said that they have the RIGHT to make drug laws. However, they need to enforce things CONSISTENTLY. IF the drug laws are constitutional, then the letter is accurate. IF the drug laws are NOT constitutional, then the letter is a load of crap.
I'm not going to get into it whether the government has the right to make drug laws or not.Hypocritical and a massive cop-out, at best.
The issue of constitutionality is at the heart of the matter and the letter.
You either believe that the fed-gov has the duty and constitutional authority to enact drug laws, or you do not.
If they do not then all your postings are in defense of unconstitutional government 'law'.
Read it again lt. I'm not going into whether or not the law is constitutional or under what authority they are making the ruling. However, based on CURRENT federal law (which according to the COURTS is constitutional) the letter accurately describes the way that it should be handled.
I'd love to continue this debate, but it's much easier to do with somebody that reads and comprehends the posts without assuming a whole bunch of stuff that isn't written.
With that, have a good night. I'm done trying to educate you on CURRENT laws. Please reference your case number for me so I can read up on your pending litigation to get these "unconstitutional" laws overturned. You ARE having them overturned since they are so blatantly unconstitutional, right?
I read it already. I comprehend what you wrote just fine.
*, and mind your own damn business, this is intrastate commerce which constitutionally the federal government is prohibited from interfering with.
My open letter to the DOJ:
*, and mind your own damn business, this is intrastate commerce which constitutionally the federal government is prohibited from interfering with.
"Constitutionally" they are prohibited from infringing on the right to bear arms. That's not going so well either.
quote:Originally posted by wittynbear
My open letter to the DOJ:
*, and mind your own damn business, this is intrastate commerce which constitutionally the federal government is prohibited from interfering with.
"Constitutionally" they are prohibited from infringing on the right to bear arms. That's not going so well either.
So we should just shut up and fall in line, is that it?
How about we relentlessly point out the unconstitutionality of such things and see if some of the slack-jawed, slope-headed, drooling morons who keep electing collectivists, will have a dim bulb come on over these issues, that brightens with increased awareness?
How about that?
Of course, we all could just accept things as they are and stay on the tyranny-express for the remainder of the ride.
An interesting division amongst the populous.
The massive majority, acquiescent to anti-constitutional government actions, programs, restriction, laws and other activity......the tiny minority resistant to such anti and extra constitutional government and who relentlessly try to budge the fat-toad of apathy that is the majority.
Interesting.
quote:Originally posted by calrugerfan
quote:Originally posted by wittynbear
My open letter to the DOJ:
*, and mind your own damn business, this is intrastate commerce which constitutionally the federal government is prohibited from interfering with.
"Constitutionally" they are prohibited from infringing on the right to bear arms. That's not going so well either.
So we should just shut up and fall in line, is that it?
How about we relentlessly point out the unconstitutionality of such things and see if some of the slack-jawed, slope-headed, drooling morons who keep electing collectivists, will have a dim bulb come on over these issues, that brightens with increased awareness?
How about that?
Of course, we all could just accept things as they are and stay on the tyranny-express for the remainder of the ride.
An interesting division amongst the populous.
The massive majority, acquiescent to anti-constitutional government actions, programs, restriction, laws and other activity......the tiny minority resistant to such anti and extra constitutional government and who relentlessly try to budge the fat-toad of apathy that is the majority.
Interesting.
There you go again, reading things that aren't there. I've told you before, all you do is yell and you don't actually DO anything. When are you going to file a lawsuit to challenge the law? I understand that the laws are unconstitutional, but unlike you, I realize that throwing a hissy fit accomplishes nothing. I also realize that it's not going to be fixed overnight and that there is no "perfect" candidate, especially one that has a chance of winning. I compromise and try to make sure that the worst ones don't even get the chance.
Are you saying that you do NOT "acquiescent to anti-constitutional government actions, programs, restriction, laws and other activity"?? You go and buy all the machine guns, silencers, etc. that you want in order to give the proverbial finger to the government? I'm guessing that you still follow the laws, you just do it yelling a screaming. They don't care if you yell and scream as long as you follow the laws. And so far, you are.
quote:Originally posted by lt496
quote:Originally posted by calrugerfan
quote:Originally posted by wittynbear
My open letter to the DOJ:
*, and mind your own damn business, this is intrastate commerce which constitutionally the federal government is prohibited from interfering with.
"Constitutionally" they are prohibited from infringing on the right to bear arms. That's not going so well either.
So we should just shut up and fall in line, is that it?
How about we relentlessly point out the unconstitutionality of such things and see if some of the slack-jawed, slope-headed, drooling morons who keep electing collectivists, will have a dim bulb come on over these issues, that brightens with increased awareness?
How about that?
Of course, we all could just accept things as they are and stay on the tyranny-express for the remainder of the ride.
An interesting division amongst the populous.
The massive majority, acquiescent to anti-constitutional government actions, programs, restriction, laws and other activity......the tiny minority resistant to such anti and extra constitutional government and who relentlessly try to budge the fat-toad of apathy that is the majority.
Interesting.
There you go again, reading things that aren't there. I've told you before, all you do is yell and you don't actually DO anything. When are you going to file a lawsuit to challenge the law? I understand that the laws are unconstitutional, but unlike you, I realize that throwing a hissy fit accomplishes nothing. I also realize that it's not going to be fixed overnight and that there is no "perfect" candidate, especially one that has a chance of winning. I compromise and try to make sure that the worst ones don't even get the chance.
Are you saying that you do NOT "acquiescent to anti-constitutional government actions, programs, restriction, laws and other activity"?? You go and buy all the machine guns, silencers, etc. that you want in order to give the proverbial finger to the government? I'm guessing that you still follow the laws, you just do it yelling a screaming. They don't care if you yell and scream as long as you follow the laws. And so far, you are.
Let me post it again, so you may actually read it and let it sink in.
So we should just shut up and fall in line, is that it?
How about we relentlessly point out the unconstitutionality of such things and see if some of the slack-jawed, slope-headed, drooling morons who keep electing collectivists, will have a dim bulb come on over these issues, that brightens with increased awareness?
How about that?
Of course, we all could just accept things as they are and stay on the tyranny-express for the remainder of the ride.
An interesting division amongst the populous.
The massive majority, acquiescent to anti-constitutional government actions, programs, restriction, laws and other activity......the tiny minority resistant to such anti and extra constitutional government and who relentlessly try to budge the fat-toad of apathy that is the majority.
Since you have bypassed almost every point in this and the other related thread, what exactly is it that you are advocating, since you say you recognize the unconstitutionality of such laws?
Nice try on the lawsuit strawman.
Do you think there have not been suits filed before or that there may be an issue of standing or that the courts have sided with their brother and sister branches of the fed-gov?
Do ya think?
That said, with your proclamation of recognizing the unconstitutionality of such fed-gov 'laws', what is it that you do, other than preach acceptance?
Do you vote for candidates that stand firm on the Constitution and principles of republicanism, which, if people did, would put things right constitutionally.....Nah, I've seen your previous postings...
Do you at least stand up and attempt to illustrate the constitutional position in an effort to wake up some people or to at least generate some interest in contemplating the issues....Nah, i've seen your previous postings, supported by those in this thread...
Do you stand firm on constitutional principles?....Nah, you are an advocate of compromise, the very thing that has led us to our current state of perverted the Republic...
You seem the quintessential Kalifornian in your beliefs and approaches.
I have never claimed to break law deliberately. There are laws, however, that to me are null & void. Read what you will into that.
I work within the fed-gov system at an absolute minimal level.
Difference is, well, I guess I already outlined the difference in my posts above.
Gotta go to work now.[:)]
Funny, coming from a supervisory law enforcement officer.
as stated before some cops/peace officers just think they are above the law[:(]
QUOTE: There are laws, however, that to me are null & void. Read what you will into that.
as stated before some cops/peace officers just think they are above the law[:(]
I believe you are missing the point. Recognizing that there are laws on the books which are unconstitutional does not mean that a peace officer is above the law or in any way overstepping his/her authority. It is our duty to resist unconstitutional usurpation of powers when we encounter them.
Part of the deception which has been successfully sold to the American people is that an expert, someone with a government badge, or at least someone brandishing some manufactured pseudo bona fides, such as a press pass or perhaps an Academy Award, is required to render judgement on matters of importance. This is a fallacy and this is a deliberate ploy to divorce the public from the decision making process. It is a means of concentrating power into a smaller group of more easily herded members.
Using logic, reading and comprehending, recognizing lies and untruths, coming to a rational decision and choosing to support that which we determine to be right and good is a burden and a privilege which must be taken up again by the people of this nation if we ever hope to re-establish the land of freedom which used to be unique in all the world.
quote:There are laws, however, that to me are null & void. Read what you will into that.
Funny, coming from a supervisory law enforcement officer.
nunn, just out of curiosity what does this mean to you.
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwith-standing.
That being said, I completely advocate changing the laws and I do as much as I can here in California and on a federal level. Sometimes it's a lot, sometimes, not so much. Sometimes it's financial, sometimes it is in the form of phone calls or letters to people that actually make decisions. What I do NOT do is yell at my neighbors that their ideas (which have no influence on the laws) are wrong. It's a waste of breath.
What you appear to be doing seems to me as if you were driving a car heading for a cliff yelling at the car to stop without actually putting your foot on the brake or turning the wheel.