He jumped in very early, good sign. it will not hurt any other parties, it may help in getting a stay, but most likely his suit will be dismissed. He, or they, may have to assist in establishing a Party or Class wherein this rule violates or prejudices their rights. Then he can file an amicus curiae, and in Supreme Court cases an Intervenor.Without reading the filing, it’s hard for me to see the States having standing. Stranger things have happened though.
So, if I never plan on buying any more guns, I'm good to go?
The female "armed attorney" actually says once this law goes into effect, my guns are now my guns (forever or) until the law and associated rule is struck down.Buy all you want, that’s not at issue. But sell one gun (or possibly even trade or give away) and you’re dealing without a license unless you can prove otherwise.
The female "armed attorney" actually says once this law goes into effect, my guns are now my guns (forever or) until the law and associated rule is struck down.
PFuck John Cornyn..........never forget.............
One step closer to making us all criminals.
Retards. Mouth breathing retards. Or quisling simps wanting a pat on the head from big brother..................and with all this shenanigans going on............ folks in the classifieds are still asking for a BOS............
Lawsuits has been filed:
I think its a mix of active and passive measures. For those whose names keep coming up with respect to sales of multiple guns of the same kind in a short period of time, they now have the ability to go after them. This was probably the justification publicized to the RINOs who voted for it.So, educate me.
Without entrapment (ATF buys from you directly) or actual observation of your sale to anyone, how can they “prove” there was a sale unless someone is caught with a firearm that was not “registered” to them as in the current NFA items (perhaps the actual goal)?