Judge Upholds ATF Gun Rule

" By Jason Ryan
@JasonRyanABC
Follow on Twitter

Jan 13, 2012 8:13pm
[h=1]Judge Upholds ATF Gun Rule for SW Border States[/h] A federal judge has upheld a rule proposed by the ATF to track multiple gun sales in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico in a lawsuit brought by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and two gun dealers in Arizona."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/judge-upholds-atf-gun-rule-for-sw-border-states/

The Judge is essentially affirming the Authority of the ATF. This Judge was benched by Bush W. I wonder if some people are kicking themselves real hard for this one!

What I thought was interesting in the article is that one of the shop owners interviewed stated that he is selective about whom he sells military rifles to.

Can a person who is supportive of the Second Amendment be selective about whom he allows to purchase a firearm, even if that person is cleared to purchase the firearm? Seems like a sticky situation to me. Of course, his shop is a private business, and he should be able to sell to whomever he can legally sell to. I just think it's interesting.

Kicking themselves? For voting for someone who is bad as opposed to voting for someone who is far worse. Or perhaps you are referring to the GOP primary where someone more libertarian might have been selected instead of Bush. I voted for Bush in the general election and do not regret that decision, but I hold few good thoughts about him for his progressive policies.

s'OK. It can be appealed. If the judge had ruled against ATF, you know they were gonna appeal it. No reason the good guys can't appeal it.

Beretta92FSLady said:

" By Jason Ryan
@JasonRyanABC
Follow on Twitter

Jan 13, 2012 8:13pm
[h=1]Judge Upholds ATF Gun Rule for SW Border States[/h] A federal judge has upheld a rule proposed by the ATF to track multiple gun sales in Texas, California, Arizona and New Mexico in a lawsuit brought by the National Shooting Sports Foundation and two gun dealers in Arizona."
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/01/judge-upholds-atf-gun-rule-for-sw-border-states/

The Judge is essentially affirming the Authority of the ATF. This Judge was benched by Bush W. I wonder if some people are kicking themselves real hard for this one!

What I thought was interesting in the article is that one of the shop owners interviewed stated that he is selective about whom he sells military rifles to.

Can a person who is supportive of the Second Amendment be selective about whom he allows to purchase a firearm, even if that person is cleared to purchase the firearm? Seems like a sticky situation to me. Of course, his shop is a private business, and he should be able to sell to whomever he can legally sell to. I just think it's interesting.

Click to expand...

Competitors for Federal Judgeships are only nominated by the President, they must be confirmed by the Senate in order to be seated on the bench. Unfortunately, all federal judges are essentially appointed for life (although one clause in the articles of appointment specifies "good behavior" - so, if they don't run afoul of the law themselves they're 'in like Flynn'). The judge can, and hopefully WILL, be overturned.
The rule was sought amid the controversy over the botched ATF gun trafficking operation Fast and Furious, which resulted in about 2,000 weapons being allowed to flow into Mexico. The Obama administration has said it was seeking the rule to allow for more accurate and faster tracing of guns involved in crimes that may be linked to drug trafficking. It's an obvious attempt to distract public attention from the culpability of the BATFE in that fiasco, so the government can wipe the egg off their collective White House/DOJ/BATFE faces. This is the same politically-motivated approach the feds used again AZ Sheriff Joe Arpaio, shortly after it was made known that the good Sheriff had a 5-man team investigating Obama's background - *BOOM* - Arpaio was hit with a federal lawsuit over his enforcment of federal immigration laws!
Addressing your final question, "Can a person who is supportive of the Second Amendment be selective about whom he allows to purchase a firearm, even if that person is cleared to purchase the firearm?" For as long as I can remember, private businesses have indulged in the practice of posting a simple sign saying, "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." I have seen signs such as those recently in my local area. Are they enforceable? I have no idea, but if a gun dealer feels there's something not quite right about a prospective buyer, he should have the right to say "No sale" (but perhaps a bit more diplomatically than that)! The customer isn't trying to buy ice cream, five gallons of gasoline or a ticket to the movies... he/she is trying to buy a tool capable of taking human life at significant distances. This is especially true if the customer is interested in buying something like a couple of Kriss Super V's and overpaying... in pesos. Pax!

Aren't they obligated to say no?

Posted using my HTC Evo

Beretta92FSLady said:

Can a person who is supportive of the Second Amendment be selective about whom he allows to purchase a firearm, even if that person is cleared to purchase the firearm? Seems like a sticky situation to me. Of course, his shop is a private business, and he should be able to sell to whomever he can legally sell to. I just think it's interesting.

Click to expand...

Yes, absolutely! As a firearm dealer, I can chose who I will or not sell to. Being "cleared" means only that they don't have any identifiable record of disqualifying conditions but I am legally allowed and morally obligated to exercise my best judgment about the wisdom of sending that person forth into the world with a firearm. A person with no record of disqualifying conditions may still be intoxicated, obviously mentally unbalanced, known to me to be untrustworthy, known by me to be an un-caught criminal, or a host of other things which would cause me to refuse the sale. If I know someone beats his wife but she has never pressed charges (as an example) or uses cocaine but has never been arrested (as another example), it would be irresponsible for me to sell a firearm to that person because I know that the intent of the law is that he not be allowed to have a firearm. Furthermore, if I have any reason to think a person may be irresponsible or associating with others who are irresponsible, it is my own moral conviction that such a person should not have a firearm. I may not be able to keep him from getting one, but I certainly won't provide it.