Jump to content


Photo

Giffords Law Center ... v BATFE

Started by mauserme , Nov 10 2017 11:02 AM

This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
10 replies to this topic

#1 mauserme

    Eliminating the element of surprise one bill at a time.

  • Admin
  • 22,690 posts
    • Joined: 20-February 09

Posted 10 November 2017 - 11:02 AM

https://www.huffingt...4b03deac08c2a9b
 

 

Gabby Giffords’ Gun Group Sues The Trump Administration

Why? The federal firearms agency won’t hand over documents showing the NRA’s influence on gun policy.

By Jennifer Bendery

WASHINGTON ― The gun control group led by former Rep. Gabby Giffords (D-Ariz.) is suing the Trump administration for failing to turn over documents that could show the National Rifle Association’s influence over President Donald Trump’s gun policies.

The Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a lawsuit against the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives on Tuesday in the the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

The gun safety group is accusing ATF of refusing to respond to multiple Freedom of Information Act requests ...

 



The complaint is attached.

 

 

 

Attached File  Giffords-v.-ATF-FOIA-complaint.as-filed.pdf   71.51KB   277 downloads


 

Link to ILGA House Audio/Video..........Link to ILGA Senate Audio/Video ..........Advanced Digital Media Link ..........Blue Room Stream Link


 

RFM 3/7 Kilo Co.

;IGY6

#2 mikew

    Member

  • Members
  • 5,753 posts
    • Joined: 17-December 04

Posted 10 November 2017 - 12:27 PM

Amazing Bull.

 

They got their version of the mind control language out there in print in a federal complaint, starting on page 1.

 

 

(2) the extent to which the Washington gun lobby’s influence has caused


ATF to pursue dangerous policies and to oppose common sense gun-violence-prevention measures.


#3 lockman

    Member

  • Supporting Members Team
  • 8,447 posts
    • Joined: 07-July 06

Posted 10 November 2017 - 12:37 PM

Did it ever dawn on the Giffords group, that just maybe, the direction and policy of the BATFE post mass shooting situations is directed by a true common sense factually based approach as opposed to knee jerk constitutionally questionable and ineffective policy.


"We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately."
-- Benjamin Franklin, 1776

Life Member NRA, ISRA,  CCRKBA, GOA, & SAF

#4 cybermgk

    Member

  • Members
  • 2,679 posts
    • Joined: 10-October 17

Posted 10 November 2017 - 01:16 PM

Did it ever dawn on the Giffords group, that just maybe, the direction and policy of the BATFE post mass shooting situations is directed by a true common sense factually based approach as opposed to knee jerk constitutionally questionable and ineffective policy.

Nope, it didn't nor doesn't occur to them.


ISRA Member

NRA Member

U.S.A.F Veteran

Single Father of 2

#5 MrTriple

    Member

  • Members
  • 1,899 posts
    • Joined: 22-April 13

Posted 10 November 2017 - 04:42 PM

This is an act of desperation. They're incapable of passing their agenda, so they have to resort to other tactics instead.
"The point of [so-called "assault weapon" bans]...is not to ban firearms that are dangerous, it's to ban firearms that gun owners want to own because the people making the laws don't like gun owners. If we want to buy non-semiauto AR-style rifles, they'll ban those too, and for the same reason."

-Hapless

#6 markthesignguy

    S39-(D)D.Harmon(F-) R77-(D)K.Willis(F-)

  • Members
  • 3,174 posts
    • Joined: 11-July 08

Posted 10 November 2017 - 07:07 PM

It would be funny if it is proved that there are no requested documents that fit the parameters requested.


Edited by markthesignguy, 10 November 2017 - 07:07 PM.

Sign, sign, everywhere a sign......
NRA Life Member
ISRA Life Member
 

#7 C0untZer0

    Contributing Member in Arrears

  • Members
  • 13,547 posts
    • Joined: 14-October 11

Posted 10 November 2017 - 07:48 PM

Its just a bunch of baloney.  They could  have asked for whatever documents they wanted a few years ago and Eric Holder would have been tripping over himself to give them any documents that they could have used to make the NRA look bad.


“Most gun control arguments miss the point. If all control boils fundamentally to force, how can one resist aggression without equal force? How can a truly “free” state exist if the individual citizen is enslaved to the forceful will of individual or organized aggressors?
 
 It cannot.” 

 

― Tiffany Madison― 

#8 BobPistol

    Member

  • Members
  • 9,743 posts
    • Joined: 24-February 13

Posted 10 November 2017 - 08:07 PM

Its just a bunch of baloney.  They could  have asked for whatever documents they wanted a few years ago and Eric Holder would have been tripping over himself to give them any documents that they could have used to make the NRA look bad.

 

But we all know that Eric Holder is this right left wing gun nut, bitterly clinging to his Bible Communist Manifesto.... 


Edited by BobPistol, 10 November 2017 - 08:08 PM.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution protects the rest.

#9 biggun 1

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 754 posts
    • Joined: 03-January 17

Posted 10 November 2017 - 09:20 PM

my bet is this will backfire on giffords.


Edited by biggun 1, 10 November 2017 - 09:40 PM.

#10 Plinkermostly

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 860 posts
    • Joined: 20-April 13

Posted 11 November 2017 - 10:41 AM

We can hope!


#11 chislinger

    Member

  • Members
  • 7,256 posts
    • Joined: 21-November 13

Posted 11 November 2017 - 11:40 AM

Did it ever dawn on the Giffords group, that just maybe, the direction and policy of the BATFE post mass shooting situations is directed by a true common sense factually based approach as opposed to knee jerk constitutionally questionable and ineffective policy.

Is this a trick question?
Back to Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion


  1. IllinoisCarry.com
  2. → Right to Carry
  3. → Judicial Second Amendment Case Discussion
  4. Privacy Policy