AFT changing the game?
 

FYI
Just in, ATF rule chamges: :mad:
Haven't read completely, yet

Thanks JJ. I'm trying to think of the last time that "public comments" - even the 80% of comments auto-generated by liberal outfits over the FCC's net neutrality ruling - ever actually did anything that made an alphabet agency stop & rethink its direction. I could be wrong but in my recollection they have about as much import as a "strongly worded letter" from Lindsey Graham to the FBI.

They are bound and determined to pound the 80% receiver and will get to use "we got rid of the Ghost Guns" :eek: for the next SOTU and the mid-terms.

They have also - smartly - left themselves some wiggle room 'to be defined later' regarding their kerfuckery over the AR having 2 receivers, by their own definition, since they took a beat down in a couple of cases over that issue IIRC a few years back.

Plus ca change...
:rolleyes:

The important thing is the Teriyaki'd chicken I have marinating for tomorrow's gathering. I've found that a good meal tends to increase the enzymes that make me smile & say "No" and display a rather GTFO attitude toward certain authorities. Sometimes ya gotta indulge & channel your inner misfit. Helps the digestion.

On a bit of a positive note:

Of course, the fact that the suit was even allowed to advance to this point is disturbing. I'm surprised they didn't try to get it moved to Kali-Kourt

Story here

Thanks for that. It's going into the reverb tank and we'll hear the spinoff from that case in the future, of that I'm certain.

Proposed Rule? Still lacking completely is authority to sign into law!

Much of the "rules" are only in statute by reference or covered under broad, blanket authorities granted by statute.

Those agencies with statutory authority do not have to receive permission from elected officials to institute certain rule changes and updates as long as their lawyers feel it is within the scope of the existing statute.

Therefore, there is no "sign into law" that really needs to happen. The courts may stop an activity after a suit is filed...but that is another story.

Unfortunately, I agree with your analysis

It'll end up as "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" and a comments period published in the Federal Register. I'm still waiting for an historical precedent where peasant (or even kulak) comments swayed a piece of Leviathan from their intended agenda.

I'll just play boomer, as in, "I've got mine and bought it all & stacked it before prices were stupid, you little fiddling grasshoppers."
Harrumph!
:munchin

Not much attention from the mainstream media.
Unanimous.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/nicksib...h=25f942de5c1e

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinion...0-157_8mjp.pdf

Was very glad to see that & then forgot, thanks for posting it. This is going to play hell with some states' notions of "red-flag" laws and even steps on (not-really-a-Constitution-guy) Trump's notion of "take the guns first, do due-process later."

EGADS!!! The Supreme Court thinks the Constitution is absolute!! Didn't they hear the Dear Leader when he said it wasn't absolute? :D

Possibly they're just mad because someone else said it. A kind of Animal House moment.

This is where we are...

It occurs to me that there is a persuasion problem in the gun rights debate.
This is primarily a political issue, not a logical problem to be solved, and therefore it should addressed using political persuasion methods.

Key points:
-who are we trying to persuade?
-what are the most effective methods of persuasion?

This is a republic, not a democracy.
We are trying primarily to persuade office holders and candidates, not voters.

Voters also matter, but they should be viewed as force multipliers in the persuasion mission.
Changing voters attitudes on guns isn’t as important as figuring out a way to use their influence to serve the primary objective of persuading office holders and candidates (hereafter referred to as politicians).

The most effective persuasion tool is fear.
What do politicians fear?

They fear being branded with something negative that “sticks” to them.
Once that happens, their political career has just become much more difficult.

So, how do we do this?
Don’t make the issue about guns, make the issue about the particular politician in question.

This isn’t a court of law, it’s a political process.
Put them in a position of being guilty until proven innocent.

Now into specifics.
This is the messaging:

***
Why is it important that a politician be pro-gun?
Because it is the only way we can truly tell if they view themself as the people’s servant, or the people’s master.

If a politician doesn’t have a problem with the people being well-armed, then that politician doesn’t have a problem with the people saying “no”.
A politician who seeks to neuter the people doesn’t want the people to be able to say “no”.

They view themself as the people’s servant or the people’s master.
Choose.
***

Notice how this avoids getting into the weeds about magazine capacities, operative clauses of the Second Amendment, etc.
It bifurcates and brands with simple messaging.

It leaves absolutely no room for “reasonable” gun control.
(“Reasonable” gun control is just the persuasion technique known as “thinking past the sale”…gun control is assumed).

Also, there’s no limit to how “pro-gun” is enough.
A politician would have to be more pro-gun than the next politician to prove relative “people’s servant” credentials…it has a ratcheting effect.

It also feeds into the natural disdain most voters already feel for politicians.
Winning the title of “people’s servant” is difficult, whereas branding a politician as “people’s master” is easy.

The voters don’t even have to have a dog in the fight of the gun debate.
They’re pressed into service because everyone cares whether a politician seeks to be a servant or master.

Well, that’s my pitch.
Don’t talk about guns, brand the office holders and candidates as wanting to be the “people’s servant ” or the “people’s master”.

Very well done.

Politicians having concern over an armed citizenry is the proper state of a republic. The concern over the people saying 'no' is a good context in which to frame that. The only reason for disarmament is because they're willing to do something to you that you'd shoot them for.