United States 2nd Amendment Legal Cases and Law Discussion
- Thread starter bullethead
- Start date
Its the atf vrs the navy.
Of all of the lettered agencies the atf is the biggest joke. If as has been mentioned the navy could cause the IRS to back down on something then the navy is fully capable of wreaking the atfs shit. especially if they think their being disrespected.
Turf is still Turf and the ATF is messing with the Big Boys now.
And who holds the navy’s leash? The political establishment.
They need the Navy more than they need the ATF
Well that and navy personal can walk up the capital steps with out needing a breather.
The navy, yes, is the basis of American military power projection and hugely important the the countries defense... but.... the ATF lets them attack political enemies and arrest them. I know which one they need more, but which one do you think they value more?
The one that is not getting it's teeth kicked in by the Supreme Court. Because the ATF is presenting only defeats for the Biden Admin.
“And how many battalion does the pope have?”- Stalin
Or in simple terms; if the establishment decides not to enforce the Supreme Court’s rulings, what force do those rulings have?
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
...
Did you actually put any thought into that kneejerk? 'Cause I've a sneaking suspicion the Navy has more battalions than the ATF, and better quality ones.
Typhonis
Well-known member
The Navy has the USMC under its control. The USMC still has tanks from what I understand.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
I have my doubts the Navy would need the USMC's help to roll up the ATF's carpet if the government tried to use them to suppress the Supreme Court in order to attack the Navy as suggested above, but it wouldn't hurt.
Did you?
Because again, that assumes that the US ‘a political class and the US navy’s politically minded officers will let the Navy do anything about the ATF.
Once more; this isn’t the 90’s. This isn’t the US military as it once was.
Bear Ribs
Well-known member
Yes, of course I thought about it. The Navy's politically minded officers are going to want to keep their power. They will be disinclined to accept that their power is going to be dramatically reduced in order to give it to the ATF, especially when the government is ordering force to be used to suppress the Supreme Court and Constitution, giving those political-minded officers a perfect legal pretext to gain more power instead.
Well lets compare the song of the navy and the ATF
US navy
ATF
I defiantly find one more intimidating then the other
Update on some Benetiz cases:
Article: A full summary will come from CRPA tomorrow, but some highlights from today's Rhode (ammunition background checks) hearing
- Benitez repeatedly questioned the DOJ attorneys on why they think old racist laws are relevant to the modern ammunition background check. They said that while they don't endorse the racism, the laws stand for the proposition that there is a tradition of barring people perceived to be dangerous from owning guns. Benitez seemed unsatisfied with this answer. (As he should be, the "how" is totally different, it's not relevantly similar).
- Benitez was also unimpressed with the State's insistence on submitting expert declarations. He says he's not sure why their historians can better explain a historical law with a clear meaning, like the racist laws (he really kept bringing these up - I now expect it to be a big theme of his rulings in these cases). The State submitted hundreds of laws in its survey, and he's skeptical there are more to find. Nevertheless, he gave them a month to submit expert declarations, perhaps to avoid the 9th circuit kicking it back to him again.
- Standing was a big argument today, and apparently what the State is going to push. I.e., if you manage to get through the process even with difficulty, no standing. Of course, there is still standing because of the fees, waits for some people, and out-of-state ammo purchases.
- That last point was apparently a big one for Benitez. He talked about how he used to go bird hunting in Arizona, and would often buy extra ammo while there but wouldn't shoot all the shells, and would bring the remainder back home. Did the state expect him to drive to a California gun store upon his return to do a background check on that ammo? It was here I spoke up and corrected him
- if he crossed the border with ammo bought in AZ, he'd be breaking the law. He'd actually have to ship it from AZ to a CA FFL, and pick it up from them. (This seemed to make him even more insistent on this point).
- Benitez also brought up how a regular driver's license isn't enough, you need the costlier "Real ID" one. He asked the DOJ attorneys how fast they thought the 9th circuit would overturn a law that blocked people from voting unless they had "Real ID". (They wisely dodged).
- Benitez implied he'd be OK with the background check as originally envisioned by Prop 63, the version in which you'd get a permit card renewable every five years and use that to buy ammo. He believes Bruen footnote 9 would allow that. But the version CA immediately changed that too (because Prop 63 allows the legislature to modify it with just 55% of the vote) created this far more burdensome system we now have in which you do a NICS check each and every time you buy ammo, complete with a face-to-face requirement (so online ammo must be shipped to an FFL).
Article: Oh and one last one:
- The record in Rhode from years ago indicated that the DOJ background check denied a lot more people wrongly than it did correctly. That said, there were around 700 people who were denied who were indeed prohibited people who tried to buy ammo. Benitez asked the DOJ lawyers whether the State had arrested/prosecuted any of those people. They had no answer on that, but it's something he wants to know going forward.
(I think the idea here is that if they didn't even bother going after most of these people, then the law clearly just harasses the law-abiding more than it's about stopping criminals)
