HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » SYFROYH » Journal
Page: 1


Profile Information

Member since: Tue Jun 29, 2004, 07:38 PM
Number of posts: 31,794

Journal Archives

Rep. Buddy Carter's Town Hall in SAV GA 02-21-17

Buddy Carter is a new US Rep who inherited Jack Kingston's seat after Kingston's failed Senate run. He's a typical pandering south Georgia politician who blends conservatism with Christianity doctrine. The only good thing I can say about Buddy is that he showed up and held his Town Hall meetings. I was ashamed of almost everything he said.

Some of those things were:
His condemnation of ACA, saying it was collapsing
Not supporting Emergency Contraception saying it was abortion
Saying the Bible tells us to support our leaders
Saying he would still undo ACA even if his constituents wanted it
Saying no to single payer
EPA "bureaucrats" is out of control and needed to be reeled in.
Media is out control and needed to be reeled in
Give Trump a chance. Give Devos a chance.
and then running out the back door (new nickname Backdoor Buddy).

On the other hand, I was very proud of the crowd, mostly. Liberals outnumbered conservatives 10 to 1 and they let him know it.

At capacity in the auditorium (300 people!)
Courtesy of Savannah Connect

Overflow crowd was at least 250 people!
Courtesy of Savannah Connect

Here is a video from an attendee. The Town Hall starts 30 minutes into the video. The sound quality isn't great, but its all there.

Courtesy of the good folks at Starlandia Art Supply

Here is a good summary of the event.

THE long-anticipated town hall meeting of Rep. Buddy Carter, R-Savannah, lived up to the hype in terms of crowd intensity and size of the audience, which packed the Armstrong Center auditorium to capacity well before the scheduled 3 p.m. start time this Tuesday afternoon.

The overflow crowd in the lobby of the Armstrong Center of those either too late to secure a space inside or preferring to be able to hold larger signs – prohibited in the meeting – loudly chanted “This is what democracy looks like.”

But answers to most actual questions were short in coming, both due to Carter’s largely rote and platitude-heavy responses and the crowd’s own unruliness and frequent insistence on yelling over not only Carter, but other questioners in the crowd as they attempted to be heard on the frequently malfunctioning mic and PA system.

I'm proud of Savannah. Usually we just don't give a shit about anything except drinking.

WaPo: Senior ATF official proposes loosening gun regulations

Looks like Ronad B Turk, the author of the white paper, might be vying for the top slot.


The second-highest-ranking official at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives has written a proposal to reduce gun regulations, including examining a possible end to the ban on importing assault weapons into the United States.

The “white paper” by Ronald B. Turk, associate deputy director and chief operating officer of the ATF, calls for removing restrictions on the sale of gun silencers; allowing gun dealers to have more guns used in crimes traced to their stores before the federal government requires additional information from the dealer; and initiating a study on lifting the ban on imported assault weapons.

“Restriction on imports serves questionable public safety interests, as these rifles are already generally legally available for manufacture and ownership in the United States,” Turk wrote of the ban on imported AR-15s and AK-style weapons.

The 11-page white paper, obtained by The Washington Post, is titled “Options to Reduce or Modify Firearms Regulations.” The proposal opens with the wording of the Second Amendment and is dated Jan. 20.

Here is a link to the actual white paper:http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/read-the-white-paper-on-firearms-regulations/2325/

Here is my attempt to trim the list of suggestions into one sentence lines and my view:
1. New Federal Firearms License specifically for online and gun show sales.
Good:This may help increase NICS checks at gun shows which is something we all want.

2. Redefinition of “armor Piercing Ammunition.”
Good:This has long been overdue. Most deer hunting cartridges are 'armor piercing' by current definition.

3. Lifting the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, and M1911 Army Surplus Importation Ban.
Good:This was the strangest prohibition that merely added fuel to the gun culture war -- these firearms are not fully automatic and very interesting to collectors.

4. Eliminating Law Letter Requirements.
Good:This only affects a small number of transfer of post 1986 machine guns from FFLs to FFLs and government agencies.

5. Reversing the decision on shouldering a pistol brace enabling the mass shouldering of pistol arm braces.
Good:This made no sense to consider the misuse of something as a "redesign" of that thing.

6. Redefine “Sporting Purposes.”
Good:Its clear that because of tactical sport shooting the definition of sporting purposes needs to be expanded.

7. Make agency rulings searchable.
Good:Knowledge is power.

8. Remove silencers from the NFA.
Good: I welcome this because silencers do not make firearms silent (just quieter) and this really will protect hearing and reduce problems with ranges near other properties.

9. Allow interstate firearms sales at gun shows.
Good: This makes sense.

10. Reclassify “destructive devices” so that only the launcher, not the munition, is considered the registered “destructive device.”
Good, but I can see why some people might be worried about how this might increase the lawful purchases of multiple munition DDs. I'll definitely pick up a launcher for one of my ARs.

11. Raise the threshold for “grey market” records reporting.
Ok: Neutral change.

12. Eliminate “multiple gun reporting” for border states.
OK: The FFL rules should be consistent across all states.

13. Reduce record retention requirements.
Ok:but we really should go digital.

14. Allow NICS checks for non-gun purchases like running a NICS check on prospective gun store employees.
Good: Makes a lot of sense.

What do we know about this supposed leaked ATF White Paper? Is it for real?

This is floating around the internet:


BREAKING: Leaked ATF Memo Reveals Planned Pro-Gun Moves

It should be no surprise to anyone that the Trump administration’s ATF would be a kinder gentler regulator to the firearms industry. The NRA-backed pro-gun president made eliminating wasteful, useless regulations one of his key campaign promises and his extremely pro-gun son has apparently helped push him further in the right direction. Word comes today through a leaked ATF white paper exactly what kinds of pro-gun regulatory changes are coming down the road.

{I abbreviated the list}
1. New Federal Firearms License specifically for online and gun show sales.
2. Redefinition of “armor Piercing Ammunition.” Companies making and importing ammunition that
3. Lifting the M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, and M1911 Army Surplus Importation Ban.
4. Eliminating Law Letter Requirements.
5. Reversing the decision on shouldering a pistol brace enabling the mass shouldering of pistol arm braces.
6. Redefine “Sporting Purposes.”
7. Make agency rulings searchable.
8. Remove silencers from the NFA.
9. Allow interstate firearms sales at gun shows.
10. Reclassify “destructive devices” so that only the launcher, not the munition, is considered the registered “destructive device.”
11. Raise the threshold for “grey market” records reporting.
12. Eliminate “multiple gun reporting” for border states.
13. Reduce record retention requirements.
14. Allow NICS checks for non-gun purchases like running a NICS check on prospective gun store employees.

Full paper here: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3454608/Read-the-white-paper-on-firearms-regulations.pdf

This was supposedly written by Associate Deputy Director/Chief Operating Officer Ronald B. Turk.

About CSK's Letter/Statement: did Strom Thurmond allow it in the record?

Her letter was addressed to Strom Thurmond and she asked for it to be included in the record. Was it ?

How fucked up it would be if someone like a Strom Thurmond let it in but these Republican assholes didn't.

The maybe he did not either.

SCOTUS Nominee Gorsuch and the guns thing.

So, while watching the news, one of the claims aginst Gorsuch was that he wanted to help felons get guns. My reading of the situation is that claim is not really true.

This summary of the issue comes from Eric Citron, who clerked on the Supreme Court of the United States for Associate Justices Sandra Day O’Connor and Elena Kagan which tells me he is a moderate, was posted about 2 weeks ago. Most of the piece affirms what we've been hearing about Gorsuch being a natural successor to Scalia.


Here is the guns issue which is more about mens rea than the right to keep and bear arms.

Another area in which Gorsuch has written persuasively in a manner that closely echoes Scalia relates to how to interpret criminal laws correctly, so as to avoid criminalizing potentially innocent conduct. One of Gorsuch’s most notable opinions in this area also happens to overlap with the hot-button issue of gun ownership — although the case is not about the Second Amendment, and doesn’t involve anything like the typical gun-rights groups.

A federal criminal law prohibits the knowing possession of a gun by a felon. This law has given rise to a debate about how best to read its limitation to “knowing” violations: Does it apply whenever a felon knowingly possesses a gun, or must violators also know that they have been convicted of a felony? This matters, because lots of minor crimes might technically be felonies, and lots of dispositions that seem inconsequential (because they involve no jail time) might technically be felony convictions. And the penalties for violating this law can be very high. In United States v. Games-Perez, in 2012, Gorsuch urged the 10th Circuit to review its rule holding that it is enough to support a conviction that the defendant knew he possessed the gun, whether or not he knew he was a felon. The opinion is an example of Gorsuch’s strong commitment to textualism, and a severe critique of using legislative history — particularly to make criminal what might otherwise be innocent. Accordingly, it is easy to hear clear echoes of Scalia’s views regarding the proper reading of statutes — especially criminal statutes — as well as the importance of focusing on ordinary usage and linguistic rules.

A few examples make the resemblance even clearer. Take this sentence from Games-Perez: “For current purposes, just stating Capps‘s holding makes the problem clear enough: its interpretation—reading Congress’s mens rea requirement as leapfrogging over the first statutorily specified element and touching down only at the second listed element—defies grammatical gravity and linguistic logic.” Or this passage, which contains both an endorsement of Second Amendment rights and a classic Scalia principle about attaching mens rea requirements to the element that criminalizes innocent conduct:

Besides, even if the government could somehow manage to squeeze an ambiguity out of the plain statutory text before us, it faces another intractable problem. The Supreme Court has long recognized a “presumption” grounded in our common law tradition that a mens rea requirement attaches to “each of the statutory elements that criminalize otherwise innocent conduct.” … Together §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2) operate to criminalize the possession of any kind of gun. But gun possession is often lawful and sometimes even protected as a matter of constitutional right. The only statutory element separating innocent (even constitutionally protected) gun possession from criminal conduct in §§ 922(g) and 924(a) is a prior felony conviction. So the presumption that the government must prove mens rea here applies with full force.

Meh. Not an RKBA activist as far as I can tell.
Go to Page: 1