MARTINSBURG, WV –-(Ammoland.com)- An anonymous source within the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco Firearms and Explosives (ATF) Firearms Technology Industry Services Branch (FTISB) reports turmoil within the department over a promotion.
The head of the FTISB, Michael Curtis, is retiring from the Bureau, and Daniel Hoffman has been selected as his replacement by Chief of Firearms Ammunition Technology Division (FATD), Eral Griffith. Hoffman has been a Firearms Examination Officer (FEO) for the past four years. Before coming to the FTISB, Hoffman did not have any experience within the firearms industry. This choice led many others inside FTISB to wonder how he got the nod over other more qualified candidates. The choice has caused an uproar within the department.
Curtis and Hoffman have been two of the ATF’s crusaders against pistol-stabilizing devices. They have long held the opinion that the devices are a workaround for gun owners to legally violate the National Firearms Act (NFA) restrictions on short-barreled rifles (SBRs). Both have long argued that certain pistol braces were designed to be shouldering devices.
Not only does Hoffman have minimal industry experience, but he has also faced complaints filed by other ATF employees from the FTISB. It has been suggested by sources that Hoffman has an unstable and explosive temper. The complaints seem to at least partially stem from Hoffman’s suggested bad nature. Several employees have referred to Hoffman as a toxic personality.
This choice harkens back to the nomination of David Chipman as Biden’s pick to head up the ATF.
Chipman once accused black applicants of cheating on a test because he felt they could not possibly score as high as they did on the exam. Chipman faced multiple EEOC complaints about his racist and sexist remarks, and yet President Biden still thought he was the best option to be the Director of the ATF.
The push back against Hoffman by revolting ATF employees seems to be causing the leadership within the ATF to second guess their decision to tap Hoffman as Curtis’s replacement. AmmoLand News’s sources report that Hoffman is on the verge of being unselected by Griffith as Curtis’s replacement as the head of FTISB. One thing is clear Hoffman is a very unpopular choice within the chaotic department.
The reason that the ATF’s top brass chose Hoffman to replace Curtis is perplexing. Curtis is in a top leadership position inside the ATF, but Hoffman is a low-level employee with little experience and a history of employee complaints. The choice doesn’t make sense to people in the know, leading many to wonder exactly how Griffith concluded that Hoffman should replace Michael Curtis.
Gun Owners of America (GOA) has also taken notice of the strange, proposed appointment of Hoffman to head the FTISB. The gun-rights group will be filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)(below) request for all of Hoffman’s examinations. The group hopes to shed light on why the ATF would select any potentially problematic employee to lead one of the most powerful departments within the ATF.
The ATF has not responded to AmmoLand News’s request for comment about the appointment at the time of publication. As of now, Hoffman is still Griffith’s choice to replace Curtis.
About John Crump
John is a NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people of all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons and can be followed on Twitter at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.
As the ATF is not a Constitutionally authorized agency each and every one of their employees should be jobless.
The problem is not the constitution or the congress as a legislative body. It is the American people and their choices of representatives they send to congress. It is clear to a blind man that the self destructive forces of liberalism have overtaken freedom and conservatism as our foundational elements. A hundred years of “liberalism” has erroded our liberties to the point where communism now appears attractive to the hyper ignorant masses of Americans. And when the highly infectious disease of communism strikes, only an armed and motivated population can rid this disease and those who carry it. The problem… Read more »
Unfortunately, the leftist have corrupted the term “liberalism”. To be accurate you probably mean leftist or progressives. Liberalism historically was not the bad ideology it connotes today. Other than that you are largely correct in your assessment about who we have decided to elect as our representatives.
Indeed.
“Liberal” has been stolen as a weasel word for “socialist” & “progressive” for “Marxist/Leninist/communist” or other repressive, far left ideology.
I agree OlTrailDog. A “Democrat Socialist” is a communist by another name. Same as “progressive”, “leftist”, and just “democrat” anymore, etc… We continue to bend to the new language leftists have put out there. Things like “assault rifle”, were made up by the left, yet talked about and reported by that name for years in our industry, before some got a clue. Now, in firearms related articles you’ll only see it used half the time to describe Modern Sporting Rifles or AR/AK platform rifles. The left’s ability to hijack then redefine the meaning of words and get near 100% acceptance… Read more »
If the left didn’t use the “friendly and deceptive wording” such as Liberalism, they wouldn’t be able to lure all the dumb jackasses into their realm to buy the crap that they are shoveling.
Bolding makes your definition no less false.
Conservatives want to keep good traditions, culture, quality of life, sovereignty, constitutional liberty.
They don’t want to keep turds in the bathwater as you claim.
They don’t want to toss the babies with the bathwater as you & commie-lib-Dems would do.
You’re a meanie.
Plus one.
I don’t use those words to aid and abet the destruction of my country or it’s people.
Liberalism is freedom. Liberalism can’t erode liberty, liberty is liberalism.
But what’s presented as liberalism by the left is actually repressive socialism.
“all republics are socialist”
– Jean-Lloyd Schartre
What an insufferable blowhard. As if Democracy can’t be tyranny by majority.
Plus one.
Jean-Lloyd Schartre? JohnLloydScharf? Hmmmm?
No the words Liberalism and Liberty have two very opposing meanings.
And if you will read the Commerce clause it reserves for the states INTRA state for the states texas should win on the silencers ,but the ffls will not be able to sell them
If congress passed a law ordering us to say the moon’s made of cheese, & SCROTUS passed or affirmed, Schartre would say it’s constitutional.
Plus one.
APATHY
You’re being a little harsh. These veterans are not apathetic:
https://www.bradyunited.org/program/veterans-for-gun-reform
They are organized, involved, and taking action to influence Tester to vote for Chipman.
I see the problem here… You don’t know how to back-track replies or comments to it’s source. I said NOTHING about Veterans in my reply. Scroll all the way back up to JAQUE’s statement and pay attention to the reply chain.
Oh, I paid attention.
I understand who is replying to what.
I also see a lot of hypocrisy and that is the point of my post.
You stomp around loudly barking about apathy.
You have also made numerous comments about how veterans are the answer.
Go get a dozen of your fellow veterans to join you in forming a group and write an open letter to Tester opposing Chipman’s appointment.
No one is expecting one damn thing from you.
“you have to submit to the tyranny of a Republic” -JeanLloydSchartre… Do we? You misrep Romans 13 out of context as if it means the following: 1 Let every soul be subject to Adolph Hitler. For there is no authority except from God, and Joe Stalin was appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists Mao Tse Tung resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist Pol Pot bring judgment on themselves. 3 For the Taliban are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of Genghis Kahn? Do what is good, and you will have praise from The Young… Read more »
Where does it say that congress shall have the power to create departments who have the power to make laws…?
U.S. Constitution, Article I., Section 8., last paragraph.
“Article I Section 8 Clause 1 The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States; … (last paragraph) Clause 18 To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” The last paragraph gives Congress (a… Read more »
Exactamundo.
Plus one.
and that “shll make all laws” does not mean they can make any law they choose. it more accuratly means to make all the laws they are allowed to make and no others”. ALL laws must be consistent with the Constutioin. Laws that restrict or control firearms, eg, are NOT under the atuhority of the legislature to make. THEY need reeled in. Nearly everything they’ve enacted this past year os unconstituttuinal.
I know how we can settle this. How about if DonP, Russkie, and his acronym sidekick go and violate a bag full of regulations. When the appropriate LEO enforces those regulations, the gang of three can inform them it is unconstitutional and they will not comply or remedy the damage done. If the LEO have the temerity to disagree you’all can take it on up to the supreme court and report back to us how it goes. Please punch the thumbs down and make me proud.
How about if you convince your buds-in-blue to draw a line in the sand and just not enforce any more new federal gun control laws?
I highly respect the men, mostly in brown and tans, that reach the conclusion the laws, regulations, or pathetic rules, e.g. mask or vaccine mandates, they are asked to enforce are unconstitutional and as our local elected LEO decline to enforce them. The same goes for unconstitutional issues, e.g. the right to peaceably assemble and protest our government, the freedom of religion and speech, and the infringement on our 2A rights, and etc. Frankly, it is a difficult position for those individuals to be faced with as they most likely will lose their jobs and hence financial provision for their… Read more »
What are your thoughts on the men & women in blue, brown and tan who will enforce (or cooperate with federal enforcers to enforce) the upcoming new federal gun control laws in order to not lose their government job?
Where do you draw the line on what laws they should not enforce, even if it means they might have to work in the private sector (the horror)?
Like I said it is a tough situation they are faced with now and in the future. I don’t envy them and the decisions they personally make. Those choices are theirs to make. For me personally, I draw the line at what is temporal and what is of eternal importance. When things don’t go as I wish and it is beyond my control it is time to trust that nothing is beyond my God’s control and live accordingly. After all my Savior came when his country was subjugated to a hostile regime. More over they decided He should die even… Read more »
That is a bit different view than you have expressed before, when you suggested that people who were concerned about the prospects of enforcers enforcing never-ending gun control are paranoid.
Not having any line in the sand on what is right and what is wrong is a dangerous attitude.
Do you believe the enforcers used by Mao, Stalin, Hitler, the Kim family, Pol Pot, and others had a reasonable defense (“just following orders”) in following orders that resulted in dystopia?
This is where the conversation normally ends.
Group A: “You can’t expect enforcers not to be the tools of tyrants – they might lose their government job!”
Group B: “At what point should people reasonably expect the people they pay not to crush them?”
Group A: . . .
Still rough, but if you listen to the original (search: Simon & Garfunkel – The Sounds of Silence Audio)while you read it, it has potential. The Tools of Tyrants Hello, darkness my old friend I’ve come to talk with you again Because oppression softly creeping Left its seeds while we were sleeping And the oppression that was imposed on our plains Still it gains Due to the tools of tyrants In restless dreams we walked still somewhat free Narrow streets for which we paid dearly ‘Neath the halo of a streetlamp I turned my collar to the cold and damp… Read more »
“Those choices are theirs to make…Savior, blah blah blah” -OlTrailDog
Deflection. You excuse cops who murder innocent civilians. You won’t even SAY THEIR NAMES let alone demand their murderers be punished.
Donald Scott, the Branch Davidians, Vicky & Sammy Weaver, Tony Timpa, LaVoy Finicum, Daniel Shaver, thousands of others. Their blood is on the hands of folks like you who cover & make excuses for bad cops.
Plus one.
I won’t dispute that. My sights are set on being governed by a system that is ultimately fairer than our founding fathers could have even imagined. In a place that is fairer than I can even imagine. For a time that is far beyond my comprehension.
Why do you hump Romans 13 out of context as if it means OBEY all decrees including Hitler’s? “We may very safely assert these two things in general, without undermining government: One, no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God. All such disobedience is lawful and glorious…disobedience to them is a duty, not a crime…Another thing that may be asserted with equal truth and safety is, that no government is to be submitted to at the expense of that which is the sole end of all government— the common… Read more »
Plus one.
Last night I got to mulling over the times that these scriptures need to be infringed. There were several situations in the gospels and the book of Acts where the authorities commanded Jesus or the apostles and disciples they were forbidden to continue proselytizing. See Acts 4. At other times they were jailed and expected to remain in jail. Did they comply? No, for there are times when the commandments of men need to be subjected to higher commandments of God.
Yep. But disobeying tyrants doesn’t infringe scripture. Mayhew & other American Revolutionary preachers made clear the abundant absurdity of taking Romans 13 out of context. For starters, plug in some constants and see how it sounds: 1 Let every soul be subject to Adolph Hitler. For there is no authority except from God, and Joe Stalin was appointed by God. 2 Therefore whoever resists Mao Tse Tung resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist Pol Pot bring judgment on themselves. 3 For the Taliban are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of Genghis Kahn? Do what… Read more »
Paycheck Uber Honor.
I believe the correct answer to both situations is the courts are the arbiters of what is constitutional under our current governmental system.
“courts are the arbiters constitutionality under our current gvt sys.”-OlTrailDog.
Clarification: Under the perversion of our gov sys.
It’s important to some to remove all expectations of personal judgement, morality, and accountability from enforcers. They back the blue (and tan, brown, green, black, and camo) no matter what they do. As part of that belief system they repeat the mantra that enforcers should enforce all laws they are ordered to enforce unless the people in black robes say the law must be elminated. It doesn’t matter if it’s a law that says its ok for a person to own people or if its a law that says people should be incarcerated for 20 years for owning a semiautomatic… Read more »
TFB it’s time for LEO to put up or shut up.
And all the others that violate the Constitution.
Nice strawman. Can you bring yourself to SAY THE NAMES of innocent Americans murdered by “LEO’s”?
Well, depending on the law that is broken, if it doesn’t have a comparable state or local law that we would be violating, according to the Biden administration (or is it the Harris administration?) local and state LEOs aren’t authorized to enforce federal laws. You’ll need to get a federal LEO.
Most state, county, & city/town enforcers do and will cooperate with federal enforcers to enforce federal laws.
Missouri is going through a very interesting time wrestling with this since their 2nd Amendment Preservation Act has some teeth in it (unlike most states, where the bill passed is mostly symbolic).
Have them try to enforce immigration laws snd the Biden administration will tell them that they don’t have the authority to enforce federal laws.
They* follow orders.
Their* orders are not to enforce immigration laws.
Their* orders are to enforce never-ending gun control laws against certain people.
Their* orders are not to enforce never-ending gun control laws against other people.
They* follow orders.
The most terrifying thing in the world to them* is the prospect of having to work in the private sector.
*Many, but not all enforcers.
BS.
“No State shall Compact with another State or engage in War unless invaded or in imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.”
~Art I Sec 10 U.S. Constitution
If the federales subvert our most critical fundamental national defense zones – our borders – states retain the right to step in.
Wrong. “…all laws necessary and proper for carrying into execution” includes appropriations and creation of any and all executive agencies necessary..” To start with, can you try to get the correct number and location of the quotation marks in your post so a person knows exactly what’s a quote and what is your statement? Quotation marks are supposed to be used in pairs and you have three in your post. Second, maybe it would help if you reread my posts and understood exactly what my point was before telling me I’m wrong. My first post, which is apparently the one… Read more »
More Schart BS. “necessary & proper for carrying into execution” i.e. to enforce laws written by congress, not promulgate laws.
It doesn’t state what you wish it does.
The Constitution is a statement of enumerated powers, not open season for the federales to do anything not specifically prohibited.
Like “democracies are not tyranny by majority”?
The Constitution is a list of enumerated powers, not open season for federales to do anything not specifically prohibited.
Why the thumbs down?
You people thumbing this down are idiots. The statement is correct.
They love guzzling federal DNA.
Re: creating departments DIYinSTL is correct (clause 18) and JLS above. However, what the “departments” do is not “make laws”. Rather the departments make regulations. Regulations are rules created by agencies, aka departments, that implement how laws will be enacted. The problem being how insidious and beyond the scope of reason the regulations have become.
I’ll give you that, but their “regulations” should not have the authority of law unless approved by Congress and should not be able to conflict with existing law.
Agreed.
Bingo
OlTrailDog,
What are you concerned about?
You’ve stated the brave armed government employees will not enforce those regulations. In fact, you have attempted to mock those people who know armed government employees will follow orders without hesitation to enforce those regulations.
BTW, are you watching what the military is currently saying about Afghanistan? They are stuffering and stammering and saying contradictory things – lying their asses off.
What are they doing? Following orders to protect their careers, dental plans, and pensions.
The problem is that regulatory-administrative law is unconstitutional.
I suspect there has been ample litigation of your assertion and the regulatory process has been adjudicated to be lawful. Here is an example primer on how it works, using the EPA agency, but they all work similarly. You will not get any argument from me that it has gone way over board as the legislative branch chooses to abdicate their constitutional duties largely because it may negatively affect their opportunity to be reelected and continue lining their pockets.
Was RKBA an individual right before the Heller decision?
Was slavery cool after Dred Scott?
Is Obamacare constitutional because John Roberts voted for it?
Do states have the right to disinfranchise their own voters and those of other states, and steal elections because Texas et al. didn’t have “standing”?
Adjudication or lack thereof hardly ensures constitutionality.
Unfortunately an inherent weakness in our absolutely wonderful system is it is not infallible because men are not infallible. Like it or not (and I don’t) the cases you mention are perfect examples. The were adjudicated and found to be lawful at the time and became law. Fortunately, later adjudication sometimes overturns such cases of injustice, e.g. Dred Scott and slavery. Other injustices continue as enforceable law until later challenged, e.g. Roe vs. Wade. I don’t disagree with you on either Texas or the Stolen Election, but at this point in time, we live under those decisions that were made… Read more »
Evading again. Thanks anyway, Captain Obvious.
Form over substance. They are in effect laws.
I’m sorry, but in this case you happen to be mistaken. One is a statute and one is an administrative regulation. They may carry the same weight in court, but they are two different birds and promulgated through two different processes.
No, you’re mistaken. You said there was ample litigation of constitutionality. Now you’re changing the subject.
And for all those flaws we still are blessed to live under what is probably the most blessed system of government currently available with it’s liberties, freedoms, AND responsibilities. Imperfect? Yes. Far better than many of the alternatives? I think so, “if you can keep it”. It’ll do while I work and wait on something better that is coming in the future.
Interesting video and hard to completely respond to in this venue. However, both my mom’s parents families immigrated from Switzerland to the US. Don’t get me wrong, I love Switzerland and highly respect some of the choices they have made in governing themselves. Albeit unknown to me, my ancestors had reasons for immigrating that involved the sacrifices and hardships immigrating took at the time. Including the loss of my grandpa’s identical twin brother during the voyage. Regarding the statistics the gentleman spewed, I believe the totality of factors brings a better understanding of who we are. An isolated statistic does… Read more »
they know most people dont have the money to take them to court. false law or not you have to fight them judges wont strike down a “law” without a complaint would actually make too much sense judges would never get to court the thousands of bs rules and laws that violate constitution would keep them busy
Congressionally created subdivisions of the executive branch do not make laws. Those subdivisions right regulations outlining how a congressional act will be interpreted and enforced. Please see the Code of Federal Regulations.
This scheme was put in place Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who described the regulations as having the “force and effect of law”. FDR was a master of double talk and socialism, who sought of negate Congress and the Constitution.
Issues come up when those agencies push their own agenda and go beyond the act of Congress, but the Supreme Court is not bound by the CFRs.
“Issues come up when those agencies push their own agenda and go beyond the act of Congress, but the Supreme Court is not bound by the CFRs.” Those issues are allowed to persist when the elected officials (to whom the agencies report) do not tell them stop. The BATFE is not a “rogue” agency (and I’m not implying you indicated it is – but, many others have). They will follow orders when instructed to stop pushing their own agenda. Trump could have given those orders when they pursued their attack on 80% lowers and braced pistols. He could have also… Read more »
All true! Each of those presidents could have ordered the Sec Treas. (and now HS sec.) to write a memo eliminating the BATFE. All it takes is a memo from the authorized person.
Where have you been, missed your comments, today is the first time I’ve seen any comments in months, hope everything has worked out, Willyd
@willyd, My computer and its operating system got so old that I could access fewer and fewer things. Finally I could not access anything at all. In the mean time, my neighbor and I put together a 1300 meter rifle range using his land and mine, at a location where our live stock won’t be at risk. Then my priorities drove me to purchase a Christiansen Ridgeling in 6.5 PRC, in preference to a new computer and operating system. Then a Winchester model 70, two Manlicherschoenuers, Mauser K98k with serial number matching scope, several pistols, and other necessities! Then PSG… Read more »
I’m not doing much on this thing as since you dropped off the Ammo land sight I managed to buy an older home and been busy working on it, needed some TLC not bad, but taking my time and doing most of the upgrades myself, the lady I got it from was 85 and just needed what I said, TLC! Biggest thing was getting the Toy Box done for my other passion my Plastic Toys and finding Ammo for the collection of other items in the safe! Life is good in retirement. Work on a range is in the mix… Read more »
If you haven’t watched the complete Senate hearings on Ruby Ridge (it’s on C-SPAN), I encourage you to do so.
Grassley was one of the senators. He was so appalled at abuses of the BATFE that, towards the end of the hearings, he indicated consideration should be given to just eliminating the agency.
Since then, Grassley evolved more and more into just another establishment Republican and finally became the guy sitting in this embarrassing meeting during which he did nothing to argue against never-ending gun control:
https://www.c-span.org/video/?441884-1/president-trump-calls-comprehensive-gun-bill
@JSNCGC, Ouch!
Did it seem as if Grassley may have backed-down just a little so as to still “stay in the ring” so to say and attack the corruption through other means?
I don’t know. It seems to me he was truly appalled at the hearings (in the 90s) and then (over time) concluded it was in his best economic interests to support federal law enforcement no matter what and to not make arguments against never-ending gun control (like in the 2018 meeting).
I’m sick of the whole lot of them.
you are also wrong ,the atf started life as a bureau of the department of revenue they were not set up by congress. it changed control an several times and wound up under doj after September 11 while I was with dea the atf was still revenuers a department of IRS they had treasury id like secrete service
As originally envisioned, the Commerce clase was designed to prevent the States from levying duties on products which crossed their borders. The woosie supreme court (bandits in black) have permitted the clause to be stretched to the point when the federal government can probably regulate anything and everything including clouds since they crosses state borders!
@Bill, quite correct. One hundred and fifty years of elitists that care less about the original meanings of the Constitution and people that the Constitution was meant to serve, but more about their agenda, their place in history, and the protection of their class, has gotten us where we are today.
Don’t forget to give credit to an apathetic and dumbed-down citizenry.
Congress has bragged about not reading the laws they pass, which are written by their staffers and government bureaucrats.
“Congress passes bills, not laws.”
~ Jean-Lloyd Schartre
Again with the technicality Nazism?
At least you got through a whole schartre without calling Knute a lying liar who lied & lies with his pants on fire.
@Green Mtn Boy and JLS, Gentlemen, The BATFE was created by a memo. The Sec. Treas. has the authority to create and maintain divisions and bureaus within the U. S. Treasury. That is quite lawful and constitutional. BATFE, however, was not created by Congress. Thus there is no Congressional “enabling act” protecting the BATFE. It was created by a memo, and can be destroyed by a memo. Here for your enjoyment and edification is the scholarly and authoritative history of the BATFE’s creation: Who or What is the BATF? by Dan Meador. B.A.T.F. from I.R.S. On June 6, 1972 Acting… Read more »
It is not constitutional.
What is the “it” that you assert is not Constitutional? The memo procedure used by Sec. Treas. Charles Walker or the BATFE as an agency or something else?
The entire contraption of Regulatory-Administrative “law”. Unconstitutional, terrible idea, but very convenient for congressional & presidential shirkers & plausible deniers. Responsible for the ridiculously massive size of the fed gvt.
Downvoters love groveling & assisting their federale “partners”.
@Russ, and it would only take a memo to rid ourselves of the BATFE.
I agree, but it doesn’t make the contraption constitutional.
and YES a sitting president could write them out
Good luck with that.
He can’t even leave an under control border and Afganistán correctly.
“Pro-2A” Trump had 4 years to do it, but collaborated with Schumer & DiFi and decreed more gun control instead. Bush 2 had 8. Bush 1 had 4. Reagan had 8. Ford had 4. Nixon had 7? NRA: Zip. Industry? NSSF loves up their ATF “partners”.
Thank you. It is nice to be back.
Welcome from here in Montana as well! What ever happened with Too Old To Race Harold’s infected hoof?
@Knute Knute, Harry the “too slow” race horse is still in good health. Unit losses include Squeaky, who developed cancer and Heathen who had a heart attack and died in my arms, both last October. Fanugies (sp) include: Noodles is an obvious runt of the litter semi-hunting dog. He came to us just before the big Texas freeze last February, and avoided becoming a dog sickle. Lady Jane a huge and powerful quarter horse that needed a home, joined the ranks. And just last month, Winston, a pitbul (now 85 and a half lbs and growing,) puppy stands a post… Read more »
Pretty good. I have a new bull calf from this spring that is so friendly I’m going to make him into an ox. Not only have I not removed his balls, but I’m not even going to put a ring in his nose. He comes a’runnin when I whistle, and holds his head up to get his neck scratched. So I named him “Chin” 🙂 He’ll be something else when he weighs 2000 pounds! I’ll see where they got the phrase; “strong as an ox”. Too bad for your losses though. My favorite dog (12 years old now) has been… Read more »
WB! Thank God you’re back! Hope you and yours are well.
Thank you, I have noted with great interest how everyone has done their part to stamp out the many paid trolls that used to slip through the wire. Well done.
So who do we elect that will waive that pen and sign the memo to disband the BATFE?
Or move it’s purview back to the IRS for importation taxes and limit it’s function back to that of a janitor.
Not Trump clearly, since he betrayed us. Maybe DeSantis-Noem. Someone with balls AND brains who acts, not just talks, not a narcissist who can’t finish a thought coherently without babbling & changing the subject & contradicting himself 2-3x in the same sentence.
If you recollect what all Trump had to deal with on a daily basis with an out of control Congress and Senate whereas the Dems where slamming him with fugazis and hyperbole and the establishment Repub RINOS causing problems, the man STILL accomplished 95% of his promises to this nation. Where the FAILURE came was when he said, “THIS is YOUR COUNTRY, I am giving it back to YOU, THE PEOPLE.” and all WE, The people did was shrug it off and go bout our own petty lives not knowing or caring s to WHAT to do or HOW to… Read more »
Trump had to suffer attacks from the media, the democrats, establishment republicans, and many others.
He did a lot of things that were good for this country.
He flip-flopped on firearm rights issues and threw the firearm community under the bus in order to pander to white suburban women. He was not polling well with that voting block.
All of those things are true.
I volunteered & donated to Trump starting in 2015. He raised issues that desperately needed raising, issues declared verboten by the LoLibertarian / business-class / “cheap labor” / 1-way “free trade” set & their rent boys in congress. He did a lot of good. But Trump’s responsible for his own actions, including His major betrayals after Parkland – which are His fault – strangling His own Commission on Election Integrity in the crib before it could report etc.
I did not drop the ball. Did you?
I agree. I’ll add that the people in Republican party leadership positions in numerous “red states” did more harm than good with respect to getting Trump re-elected in 2020: Their arrogance about knowing what needed to be done; Their absolute refusal after 2/28/18 to contact national party leadership and Trump’s sons to clue Trump in on how offensive he was to pro 2nd Amendment Americans; and Their refusal again to contact Trump’s circle of influencers after the BATFE’s actions just prior to the election. Instead, they were busy demanding people put Trump stickers on their vehicles and condeming firearm rights… Read more »
It’s still very like a cult.
@Bubba, “So who do we elect …” Well .. one of us … would be good!
No one will be elected to eliminate (or even downsize) the BATFE. Politicians know they don’t have to do that in order to get elected.
They have seen the firearm community cheer wildly for Republican presidents who pushed for more gun control and bragged about how good they are at doing so.
They have all done the math and, instead of eliminating the BATFE, they will push for more gun control in order to get more votes from white suburban women.
That can change, and it if doesn’t we’re Perma-F’d.
Look at all the people here who still idolize Trump. There are only a handful of regular posters who both voted for him and criticize him for his life-long antipathy towards firearms. He made vague statements while campaigning about supporting the 2nd Amendment. He was elected and shortly afterwards said: “The eight-year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end. You have a true friend and champion in the White House.” Less than a year later he flip-flopped in order to pander to white suburban women after a murderer killed children. We have discussed the other things… Read more »
Until ~8yrs ago those who exposed W’s idiotic betrayals were savaged. Now it’s hard to find folks to defend him.
The celeb-worship will erode as folks see how Trump increasingly betrayed us & bungled. Without bungling the ChiDem covid attack & doing Op Warp Speed we wouldn’t face vax tyranny. He still brags about the deadly vax. W/o His coy support of Q, 2 good Americans would be alive & 100s free including Stroika. If He cared about more than Himself He would’ve pardoned them & Assange (w/o whom He wouldn’t’ve been Pres) instead of bank robbers-drug dealers-toadies-celebs.
Have you learned the 6-letter word for the dangerous end yet, Mr Precision Shooter? 😉
He doesn’t want to admit he’s been ram-rodding clams into it.
🙂
I picture him furiously googling it every way he can think of, trying to find it out. But his copy/paste style won’t work here. Hopefully he’ll keep wasting his time, because every way of wording that just brings up articles from the lame stream media about how horrible and dangerous guns are and you should never have one. Never does find the magic word… 🙂
This is where the challenge is.
Doing things legally using congress to create unconstitutional legislation.
“It’s constitutional until the SupCt says it’s not”
~ Jean-Lloyd Schartre.
What a load of subversive, false-authority-groveling bull. The Constitution does not anoint SCROTUS sole & final arbiter of constitutionality. The oath is to defend the Constitution. Had the framers meant “OBEY SCROTUS“, that’s what they would’ve written.
If congress passed a law that ex-prison guards must confiscate their neighbors’ guns, & SCoTUS affirmed or declined review, you’d cite Marbury v Madison & your ignoranus abuse of Romans 13 & OBEY.
Highlighting crap doesn’t make it edible. The Constitution doesn’t say what you want. SCoTUS decided it’s The Arbiter, not the Constitution. Execs & legislators needn’t honor an arrogation.
The Constitution’s a document of enumerated powers, not open season for anything not specifically barred.
Had the framers wanted SCoTUS to be The Arbiter, they would’ve written it. MvM was a bloodless coup: subvert Constitution, create junta.
SKY SCHARTING AGAIN! Do you EVER tire of spraying boring, pompous, wrong, evasive, hypocritical diarrhea? Presidents have abided by all sorts of unconstitutional, unconscionable laws. Doesn’t make them constitutional. You will OBEY a law and orders to confiscate guns from your neighbors if written well enough, or promulgated sufficiently by regulation, if ignored or affirmed by The Arbiter, especially if another enforcer is there ready to arrest or kill you if you don’t OBEY. Like the Constitution, Romans 13 was not meant as a vehicle for your trea$0nous misinterpretations, as is clear to those who’ve read the Bible in context.… Read more »
Schartre thinks Bible interpretations need no context. Noted.
Sadly that IS the reality today. But that is NOT how it spozed ta be. WE have remained comatose as this has slowly and surely developed since the mid-19th century, and the War of Norhtern Aggression.. the result of the then-leadership of this nation dumped the Constitution onto a pile of manure and did what THEY wanted to do.
true, those words are written exactly as you put here.. I just checked. HOWEVER.. that word “regulate” as used there by tose men does NOT mean what our present gummit claim it means. It does NOT mean to draft and impose myriad “regulatioins”, rules, limits, requirements, conditions, etc as they have done. That word “regulate” means “to make regular, as in functioning as it should”. In those days the term meant “regulate” as in “to regulate a timepiece”. in other words to make it function as designed. They have taken “a well regulated militia” and used that to impose rules,… Read more »
Please show us the “ACTION” that took place in this matter to do so?
Of course pistol stablizing braces are a workaround to an NFA registered SBR…a LEGAL workaround to the illegal and unconstitutional NFA. Repeal NFA and SB Tactical never sells another brace. Problem solved.
from what i understand stabilizing braces were designed and manufactured to help disabled persons in aiming a rifle caliber firearm. that they also may be used in other ways than intended should not make them illegal or subject to the nfa.
Biden thought Chipman was the best choice for AFT Director? No. That would imply the Biden administration acted in good faith when it chose a nominee.
The proof is in the putting and as you can see the BATF is just another corrupt alphabet soup agency of our government . Time to eliminate these criminals from our republic and restore freedom and rights to all Americans .
And rights to pudding.
Pretty simple. Hoffman is to be a “match up” with Chipman.
Great job Mr. Crump!
18 U.S. Code § 241 – Conspiracy against rights | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) “YOU GOD DAMNED RIGHT WE ARE COMING AFTER YOUR AK-47’S AND AR-15’S! – Beto O’Rourke running for President. 18 U.S. Code § 242 – Deprivation of rights under color of law | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) 18 U.S. Code § 244 – Discrimination against person wearing uniform of armed forces | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu) 18 U.S. Code § 245 – Federally… Read more »
your nickname and your photo make believe that you might have been in VIETNAM. how does it feel to know that the government you send hard earned money to every year NOW ADMITS TO LYING ABOUT THE REASON FOR STARTING A WAR IN VIETNAM? Look my step brother Ronald McCormick volunteered to go to nam and was a FORWARD OBSERVER. the war was already over when i was 18 in late 1970’s but the government lied and FORCED (the draft is not volunteering) many young men to go to Vietnam and come back in a body bag.some came back with… Read more »
He said that.
WTF? You came up with all THAT just by looking at my photo and my screen name?
It’s fine to talk like Chipman was a Biden decision, he would make such a bad choice, but back in reality we KNOW that Chipman is payback to the anti-gun lobby. Biden’s handlers made the deal during the campaign, probably because one of them was banging ms. gifford’s while her husband was floating up among the space debris. It could be that simple, as all things are possible in DC when you talk about debauchery and politics. Chipman himself will attract all sorts of anti-gun zealots, wishing to kiss his feet, to add to the permanent DC bureaucracy (think Deep… Read more »
His FEET?? I think not.
(They’re hoping to kiss something a little higher, like, twice the distance to the knee.)
I want to read how you were Deported and gang rapped on your way out.
Gang rapping would be a horrible thing to be subjected to. Imagine a bunch of MS-13ers freestylin’ about killin’, women, and the police.
I’d like to hear some gang rapping. Maybe not so horrible.
It’s easy to see why Hoffman is being promoted. He’s an undeserving low-level boot-licker that will grateful for the bump in prestige & pay. He knows he’ll be called when a keestering is in order – where he gets to do the förking or if he’s got to raise his rump and take it.
Just a shot driving on the freeway is a workaround or loophole in low speed limits, stop signs and traffic light on surface streets. Oh the horror – you were driving 55 without stopping every couple hundred yards! Obviously you are a homicidal maniac for driving so fast, speed kills after all. Note to those who wish to judge my driving speeds – statute of limitations has expired since last time I drove over double the speed limit. I am a far more cautious driver in my old age, while retaining my sympathy for those who wish to speed with… Read more »
well i’m sure there are “some” good employees at the batfe.
I’m not.
Maybe: a few PPM.
That’s Parts-Per-Million. Duh.
Given that there are less than a million LEO across the nation (federal+state+local) – i won’t argue against a single digit ppm number.
The agents I have interacted with all have professed to be “pro 2A”. In reality they were Fudds and Butters. When they allowed pistol braces I almost wondered if there was in fact some faction of agents that really do respect 2A.
The same for all WY sheriffs, all WY police chiefs (of every little town), and WY highway patrol leadership. Everyone one of them says they are pro 2nd Amendment and not one of them is.
They will do as directed. They are just following orders to enforce laws.
https://www.lectlaw.com/files/int06.htm
How could anyone expect them not to follow orders?
They might lose their job!
OBEY and ENFORCE!
Paycheck Uber Honor!
It’s the law!
https://www.rbth.com/history/326865-guns-rifles-russia-revolution
Try to follow the ball, Schartre.
What order wouldn’t you follow?
Crickets chirping…
Consider this scenario (assume you are still in your previous job): There is a law (passed by the legislature and signed into law by the President) that requires all center fire semiautomatic rifles be registered under the requirements of the NFA of 1934; Your job at the prison is eliminated, but you are offered a job with the federal government; The job offer includes a 20% increase in pay, a 20% increase in pension benefits, better health care insurance, more paid time off, and the use of a vehicle; Your new job requires that you work your way down a… Read more »
You see, if we look for things to agree on rather than points of disagreement, we can all just get along.
I’d say you should get out more, but I really don’t think that’s a good idea.
Hallelujah.
OFC not. You already have a job working for Michelle Bloomberg. 🙂
Yet you’d ‘take orders’ to ‘serve’ as a concentration camp guard over political prisoners for $65 an hour.
Please stop violating Ammoland rules, crybaby.
Plus one.
Unconstitutional laws. Stop dissembling.
It’s not the law they’re following, but the statutes. The Uniform Commercial CODE… and codes are things that require a key to understand. That is the difference between laws and stautes. Statutes are designed to be understood only by the elite controllers, not the citizens. Laws are Constitutional, statutes are not.
Statutes are for the corporation, not the People. But you can’t separate the People from the corporation anymore, and nearly everyone doesn’t even understand the distinction. And cops, as corporate employees, do a fine job of enforcing corporate policies.
Excellent point. As you are likely already aware, that is the reason that if you are ever brought into court, your name is spelled on the charging documents in all capital letters. One’s name spelled in all caps is one’s fictional, corporate identity, instead of your own. One can beat such charges simply by bringing your Identification pointing out that you are not the person listed in the documents. No lawyer will ever do this, they are Officers of the Court, and it is forbidden to them. One must do it oneself. Then, since the Judge will likely find against… Read more »