HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » SYFROYH » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Jun 29, 2004, 07:38 PM
Number of posts: 31,575

Journal Archives

What do we know about this supposed leaked ATF White Paper? Is it for real?

This is floating around the internet:


BREAKING: Leaked ATF Memo Reveals Planned Pro-Gun Moves

It should be no surprise to anyone that the Trump administration’s ATF would be a kinder gentler regulator to the firearms industry. The NRA-backed pro-gun president made eliminating wasteful, useless regulations one of his key campaign promises and his extremely pro-gun son has apparently helped push him further in the right direction. Word comes today through a leaked ATF white paper exactly what kinds of pro-gun regulatory changes are coming down the road.

{I abbreviated the list}
1. New Federal Firearms License specifically for online and gun show sales.
2. Redefinition of “armor Piercing Ammunition.” Companies making and importing ammunition that
3. Lifting the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, and M1911 Army Surplus Importation Ban.
4. Eliminating Law Letter Requirements.
5. Reversing the decision on shouldering a pistol brace enabling the mass shouldering of pistol arm braces.
6. Redefine “Sporting Purposes.”
7. Make agency rulings searchable.
8. Remove silencers from the NFA.
9. Allow interstate firearms sales at gun shows.
10. Reclassify “destructive devices” so that only the launcher, not the munition, is considered the registered “destructive device.”
11. Raise the threshold for “grey market” records reporting.
12. Eliminate “multiple gun reporting” for border states.
13. Reduce record retention requirements.
14. Allow NICS checks for non-gun purchases like running a NICS check on prospective gun store employees.

Full paper here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3454608/Read-the-white-paper-on-firearms-regulations.pdf

This was supposedly written by Associate Deputy Director/Chief Operating Officer Ronald B. Turk.

About CSK's Letter/Statement: did Strom Thurmond allow it in the record?

Her letter was addressed to Strom Thurmond and she asked for it to be included in the record. Was it ?

How fucked up it would be if someone like a Strom Thurmond let it in but these Republican assholes didn't.

The maybe he did not either.

SCOTUS Nominee Gorsuch and the guns thing.

So, while watching the news, one of the claims aginst Gorsuch was that he wanted to help felons get guns. My reading of the situation is that claim is not really true.

This summary of the issue comes from Eric Citron, who clerked on the Supreme Court of the United States for Associate Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Elena Kagan which tells me he is a moderate, was posted about 2 weeks ago. Most of the piece affirms what we've been hearing about Gorsuch being a natural successor to Scalia.


Here is the guns issue which is more about mens rea than the right to keep and bear arms.

Another area in which Gorsuch has written persuasively in a manner that closely echoes Scalia relates to how to interpret criminal laws correctly, so as to avoid criminalizing potentially innocent conduct. One of Gorsuch’s most notable opinions in this area also happens to overlap with the hot-button issue of gun ownership — although the case is not about the Second Amendment, and doesn’t involve anything like the typical gun-rights groups.

A federal criminal law prohibits the knowing possession of a gun by a felon. This law has given rise to a debate about how best to read its limitation to “knowing” violations: Does it apply whenever a felon knowingly possesses a gun, or must violators also know that they have been convicted of a felony? This matters, because lots of minor crimes might technically be felonies, and lots of dispositions that seem inconsequential (because they involve no jail time) might technically be felony convictions. And the penalties for violating this law can be very high. In United States v. Games-Perez, in 2012, Gorsuch urged the 10th Circuit to review its rule holding that it is enough to support a conviction that the defendant knew he possessed the gun, whether or not he knew he was a felon. The opinion is an example of Gorsuch’s strong commitment to textualism, and a severe critique of using legislative history — particularly to make criminal what might otherwise be innocent. Accordingly, it is easy to hear clear echoes of Scalia’s views regarding the proper reading of statutes — especially criminal statutes — as well as the importance of focusing on ordinary usage and linguistic rules.

A few examples make the resemblance even clearer. Take this sentence from Games-Perez: “For current purposes, just stating Capps‘s holding makes the problem clear enough: its interpretation—reading Congress’s mens rea requirement as leapfrogging over the first statutorily specified element and touching down only at the second listed element—defies grammatical gravity and linguistic logic.” Or this passage, which contains both an endorsement of Second Amendment rights and a classic Scalia principle about attaching mens rea requirements to the element that criminalizes innocent conduct:

Besides, even if the government could somehow manage to squeeze an ambiguity out of the plain statutory text before us, it faces another intractable problem. The Supreme Court has long recognized a “presumption” grounded in our common law tradition that a mens rea requirement attaches to “each of the statutory elements that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct.” … Together §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2) operate to criminalize the possession of any kind of gun. But gun possession is often lawful and sometimes even protected as a matter of constitutional right. The only statutory element separating innocent (even constitutionally protected) gun possession from criminal conduct in §§ 922(g) and 924(a) is a prior felony conviction. So the presumption that the government must prove mens rea here applies with full force.

Meh. Not an RKBA activist as far as I can tell.
Go to Page: « Prev 1 2