testtest

Hunter Biden Guilty

867583-301a6dcbf72822fea32467c85a727078.data
 
HansGruber said:
Only 31 more convictions and he can run for President as a Republican.
Click to expand...
There's BIG difference between lying on a 4473, and having a legal NDA.

Then again 4 LEOs in MN went to prison trying to help a person who had 2X lethal dose of fentanyl given to him by his drug dealer that was sitting next to him. And the trial judge admitted all his judgements are made on the grounds of "racial justice".

So, it all depends on who wants to throw whomever under the bridge for political reasons vs. committing an "actual" crime.
 
Last edited:
Talyn said:
There's BIG difference between lying on a 4473, and having a legal NDA.

Then again 4 LEOs in MN went to prison trying to help a person who had 2X lethal dose of fentanyl given to him by his drug dealer that was sitting next to him. And the trial judge admitted all his judgements are made on the grounds of "racial justice".

So, it all depends on who wants to throw whomever under the bridge for political reasons vs. committing an "actual" crime.
Click to expand...
Yeah; a 4473 is an infringement on the 2nd Amendment.
 
Oaktree45 said:
I would hope President Biden would pardon his son, I mean it is his offspring. A pardon would be good for 2A advocates. I don't see a pardon happening until after the November election.
Click to expand...
I'm thinking a pardon would be far too obvious and, and it undoubtedly would have to be after the election at the earliest. My guess is that it will be appealed, drug out till after the election, and POTUS will ensure control of the appellate court. (So that the court will 'get it right this time'). That way he can still claim that no one is above the law, his hands will remain clean, and any pardon won't linger till the next election to come back and injure the DMC even then.

But I am really curious just how those 50+/- talking heads who all swore that the 'laptop' was "Russian Disinformation" without question, are going to respond to that .... assuming the mainstream media will at some point ask them to respond.

I don't know, maybe jus' me!!! But then I'm just a simple man requiring only simple solutions/answers!!!
 
papa said:
Did anyone have to fill out a form to buy a gun before 1968 ? No. As Bassbob says , infringement all the way.
Click to expand...
Another need for that AGREE selection!! Fact is the first real 'gun owner control' law was the GCA of 1934 when the Submachine guns were basically outlawed. And prior to 1968 one could actually mail order a firearm and have it delivered directly to one's front door. There was no requirement to prove who you were, how old you were, nor any other piece of personal info you might not want to divulge in order to exercise your 2nd amendment right. In fact it was only in 1968 that firearm manufacturers were required to permanently engrave/emboss an individual identifying serial # on every firearm manufactured.

I mentioned a few night ago my bride had just bought her first 9mm CCW. The lady behind the counter actually spent more time going over page by page explaining the particulars on how to fill out the 'new' 4473, than completing the rest of the sale. She went through every page of the 4473 and pointed out the areas to be particularly careful with answering, to be certain of any/all punctuation, honorifics, titles, etc. Bottom line ... in my purely law abiding, responsible gun owning opinion, if there is anything to prevent me walking up to a gun seller directly and buying any particular gun on a whim, that's an infringement.

Now in all honesty, there are some things I would more likely accept than others and I've said it this way many times:

Create any “common sense” gun control law that negatively impacts the bad guys and is enforced in every instance, with no negative impact to the responsible, law-abiding gun owner, and I'll support it 100%. But, if it in anyway negatively impacts the responsible, law abiding good guys, or will not likely be enforced to the ultimate, I'll resist and fight it with every legal means available!
 
HansGruber said:
Is a 4473 an infringement?

Yes or no?
Click to expand...
Where in my post that you replied to did I say any of that?

A reminder...

Talyn said:

There's BIG difference between lying on a 4473, and having a legal NDA.

BTW - The Firearms Transaction Record, also known as ATF Form 4473, is essentially an application to buy a gun from a licensed dealer.

If some want to question it's constitutionality then take it to a MN District court.
 
Last edited:
Talyn said:
There's BIG difference between lying on a 4473, and having a legal NDA.

BTW - The Firearms Transaction Record, also known as ATF Form 4473, is essentially an application to buy a gun from a licensed dealer.

If some want to question it's constitutionality then take it to a MN District court.
Click to expand...
This I agree with.......100%
 
Recusant said:
The real infringement on the 2nd Amendment will be the universal background checks that Joe is demanding. It's the backdoor to mandatory registration. Just my two cents!
Click to expand...
4473 and the GCA IS a real infringement. Being ok with this little infringement and that little infringement, but not this other infringement is what got us in this mess in the first place. Compromising with anti-gunners just gets you a guarantee of more stupid, unconstitutional gun laws in the future.

And a 4473 is already a registry. It's just allegedly harder to access.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top