expatriate
Verified User
:: can you hear those crazy crickets?::
now here is some federal idiocy
- Thread starter SmarterthanYou
- Start date
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I have posted it, you've been advised of it in this thread. If you choose not to read about constructive possession, that's not my problem.
expatriate
Verified User
the stuff you posted most certainly did NOT preclude anyone from serving as an accountant at a firearms manufacturer... or a dishwasher, or a janitor. None of them has "constructive possession" of the product their company manufactures. Especially, let's say, that the accounting arm of the company isn't even located in the same state as the manufacturing facility.
What else you got besides your unsupported opinion?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you're free to take it up with the ATF. It was their argument, not mine.
maineman
Banned
So...you got nothing written in law that specifically forbids their employment. Is that correct?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
that's a given, but the federal courts bought their argument as well so feel free to take it up with them
SmarterthanYou
rebel
I gave you the ATF position as well as the courts agreement. feel free to create a case to argue in front of the courts if you believe it to be incorrect.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
again, ATF argument, courts sided with ATF. if you have a problem with that, call them. it was their position after all. that is not an appeal to authority, that's just the facts.
maineman
Banned
It would seem to me that if you had a court record that supported your position that an accountant in a firearms company somehow has constructive possession, even if he doesn't even work at the facility where the firearms are being made, you would have linked to THAT instead of the US Code which clearly did NOT support such a position.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
obamas EEOC is doing nothing more than pressing firearms companies to violate federal law. something that will come back to bite them in the ass. and if you can't read legal code, maybe you shouldn't participate.
maineman
Banned
I read what you posted... and what you posted does not make your case for you. sorry. reposting the entire section of US code again will only be proof positive that you have your head firmly up your ass and think that repeating idiocy is intelligence. nowhere does the law suggest that employees at firearms companies all have, by the very nature of their employment there, constructive possession. try again or stfu. your choice.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you've been told what the department of justice considers constructive possession. you've been told how the courts have agreed. you want to make more prison inmates, who am I to argue with you. enjoy your failure.
maineman
Banned
again... you have TOLD me stuff, but you have yet to come up with any document that shows the government's position to be that anyone who works for a firearm manufacturer, regardless of work locale or job description, automatically is assumed to have constructive possession. Not one thing. It seems to me that, if you could, you would, instead of strutting around like a peacock spewing nothing but smoke and hot air. prove me wrong, if you dare.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
no, what you want to do is reverse your stance on how laws work now. where before, you idiots held that a prohibition applies to everyone, now you want to see a specific prohibition or the law doesnt apply. I strongly urge you to test that theory with you as the defendant, please.
maineman
Banned
I've held no such thing. You are the one who claimed that felons are forbidden by law from working for any company that manufactures firearms, regardless of their capacity or their work location. I merely asked you to show me something other than YOUR opinion that supports that interpretation. You have steadfastly failed to do so. I assume that will continue?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
you have falsely assumed that this is my opinion. it is, in fact, the ATF and DOJ position via court cases and statutory US Code. again, your failure to acknowledge the law is not my problem.
maineman
Banned
if that were their position, it would seem you could easily call up a document which actually supports that allegation. I have asked, and nothing has been forthcoming. If you have something, maybe you could post it, because I am not inclined to take your unsupported opinion as fact.