4 ms·

One could argue this is just like how the ATF arbitrary can interpret the law and changes what's consider legal or not. Their is not method the truly balances

One could argue this is just like how the ATF arbitrary can interpret the law and changes what's consider legal or not. Their is not method the truly balances any position where you can constantly change the definition of words and ths interpretation of the law.

jonhohle 2y ago
In court the ATF is learning that they cannot arbitrarily change their interpretations and may have less authority than when they started due to how arbitrary they’ve decided to be recently. That doesn’t help the poor folks who followed the old rules and are now ensured in the executive branch illegally pulling the rug out from under them, but it seems like the ATF is routinely losing when brought to trial. While the current admin seems to love changing the meaning of words to suit their whims, I think, in general, the courts have pretty consistently sided with the intended meaning at the time of legislation (text and tradition) rather than the politically motivated meaning that’s been conjured up in the last 36-months (novel legal theory garbage).
- int_19h 2y ago
  The new trick they are using is to simply drop the case whenever they feel that the ruling is not going to be in their favor. Which lets them keep the rule on the books and continue using it in the future. Basically the onus becomes on the person prosecuted & their lawyer to bring it up every time. And the problem with that is that by the time you get to the point where case is dismissed, it is already a major disruption to one's life. The legal fees alone can be effectively punitive for many people to begin with, and then if you actually get arrested and detained, it's straight up financial ruin. Not to mention reputational damage stemming from stuff like this even if the case is eventually dropped.

4 ms·

One could argue this is just like how the ATF arbitrary can interpret the law and changes what's consider legal or not. Their is not method the truly balances

by tonetegeatinst 2y ago

jonhohle 2y ago
In court the ATF is learning that they cannot arbitrarily change their interpretations and may have less authority than when they started due to how arbitrary they’ve decided to be recently. That doesn’t help the poor folks who followed the old rules and are now ensured in the executive branch illegally pulling the rug out from under them, but it seems like the ATF is routinely losing when brought to trial. While the current admin seems to love changing the meaning of words to suit their whims, I think, in general, the courts have pretty consistently sided with the intended meaning at the time of legislation (text and tradition) rather than the politically motivated meaning that’s been conjured up in the last 36-months (novel legal theory garbage).
- int_19h 2y ago
  The new trick they are using is to simply drop the case whenever they feel that the ruling is not going to be in their favor. Which lets them keep the rule on the books and continue using it in the future. Basically the onus becomes on the person prosecuted & their lawyer to bring it up every time. And the problem with that is that by the time you get to the point where case is dismissed, it is already a major disruption to one's life. The legal fees alone can be effectively punitive for many people to begin with, and then if you actually get arrested and detained, it's straight up financial ruin. Not to mention reputational damage stemming from stuff like this even if the case is eventually dropped.