Posted on Aug 4, 2023
Live Oak Man Sentenced to Two Years in Federal Prison for Conspiring To Possess and Transfer...
354
18
6
4
4
0
Crime
Justice
ATF
Firearms and Guns
Posted 10 mo ago
Responses: 4
3
3
0
1
1
0
One of many recent BS cases generated by ATF to try to demonstrate their value to the community by prosecuting people for perfectly legal products that the ATF has suddenly changed their interpretation of some legal 'fine print'
People like this take a plea deal because they can't afford the legal battle.
As noted in another article also posted on RP, some Public Defenders are starting to recognize that such cases are almost certainly unconstitutional under Bruen, but people who aren't eligible for a Public Defender cannot afford the prolonged legal battle it takes to get the charges tossed out.
People like this take a plea deal because they can't afford the legal battle.
As noted in another article also posted on RP, some Public Defenders are starting to recognize that such cases are almost certainly unconstitutional under Bruen, but people who aren't eligible for a Public Defender cannot afford the prolonged legal battle it takes to get the charges tossed out.
(1)
(0)
SPC Robert Coventry
The guy had 35 Silencers, tried to sell some of them, should Silencers be allowed in every state?
(1)
(0)
MSG Thomas Currie
SPC Robert Coventry -
1. Actually the family had ZERO silencers until the ATF decided that parts that could be modified and assembled to make a silencer were each individually a silencer.
2. Regardless of whether suppressors should be allowed, there is absolutely no historical basis to support restrictions on suppressors. The US government chooses to try to regulate suppressors as firearms, but if they are "arms" then clearly they fall within the 2nd Amendment and the regulation is unconstitutional.
1. Actually the family had ZERO silencers until the ATF decided that parts that could be modified and assembled to make a silencer were each individually a silencer.
2. Regardless of whether suppressors should be allowed, there is absolutely no historical basis to support restrictions on suppressors. The US government chooses to try to regulate suppressors as firearms, but if they are "arms" then clearly they fall within the 2nd Amendment and the regulation is unconstitutional.
(0)
(0)
2
1
1
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google