Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire looks like the lawsuits have started for the ATF

GOA has said they are suing to haul it.

I think that puts us over half of all states suing over this.

Which 26 attorneys general are engaged in the suit?

28 states have constitutional carry so it wouldnt be hard to figure out. I know Nebraska is one.

Update

The Kansas coalition includes Arkansas, Iowa, Montana, Alabama, Alaska, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming. Their lawsuit was filed in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas Delta Division.

Texas and Florida also.

Well there’s the breakline of secession.

Does this mean the Colorado AG has joined one of the actions? That would be good if unexpected news.



3 actions in 3 different Circuits.






One source

Actually think its a smart move to file in different circuits.

Wow John. Actual good information this time instead of your usual drivel

That could work for secession. I be Northern VT, Northern and Western NY, Northern and Western PA, would come with as well giving access to New Hampshire. Keep Atlantic sea-ports in NH, VA, FL, GA, SC, and Gulf ports in FL, TX, AL. Pacific Port goods would all have to come through AK. Plenty of the
'Breadbasket" to keep us fed. Coal, oil, and Nat'l gas enough to keep the lights on.

I wonder if it would help or hurt the ATF's case if they made an example of someone while the suit is pending. I wouldn't put it past this administration to push the limits and strong arm gun owners as often as they can all the way up to the last minute.

They already assassinated that guy in Little Rock.

Here's a 'what if' question about this 'for profit' regulation.
Say you buy a gun for $800. You use it hard and current market value is now $500. You sell it for $600. Is this 'profit' based on the whether you sold it for more than the original $800, which would be a loss of $200, or on the market value which would be a profit of $100?

My grandfather paid $190 for a NIB Belgian Browning Light 12 in 1968, does the ATF actually think I should sell it for less than it was bought for? Do they take into account inflation and the devalued dollar? With all the crime in this country, this is where they want to spend resources?

I guess they ran out of cartels, organized crime families, sex traffickers, drug dealers and biker gangs to investigate!

Aside from the legal (and moral) fact that the rule is unconstitutional in its concept as well as its establishment…….it states that the motive of the transaction may not be profit. That suggests that the sale for a profit may not be the intent at the time of the purchase.

Of course, they didn’t ask the guy in Arkansas what his intent was before summarily executing him.

They don’t investigate them because they’ve become their voting constituents!

Does the ATF take inflation in to consideration. If you purchased a gun for $500 40 years ago what's the inflation adjusted cost.???

Alcohol
Tobacco
Firearms
Explosives
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Sounds like a fun convenience store- - - - -not a bunch of bureaucrat bullies hellbent on violating as many constitutional rights as possible!

GCA-68 already says an FFL is needed to be in the business of selling firearms.
This is just another unconstitutional step by the government to further gun control that is already on the books.
That and to cost those supporting our rights money.
Basically, it is just another gooberment unconstitutional overreach, nothing new

A right becomes a de facto privilege when taxed. The FFL requirement itself is unconstitutional. Any and all firearms transactions between free men are constitutionally legal under the “shall not be infringed” requirement.

infringe

“to act in a way that is against a law or that limits someone’s rights or freedom…”

Government taxes that which it desires to minimize and subsidizes that which it desires to expand. The 2nd Amendment is diminished by taxes of any sort be it FFL mandate or Pittman-Robertson. Interstate commerce has been the basis for much of our unconstitutional firearms laws. It is a false basis. Nothing, period, is laid out in our Constitution or Bill of rights itself to allow any other portion of those documents to be subjected to federal interference. The Bill of Rights is supreme.