(03-04-2023 03:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: (03-04-2023 01:33 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote: (03-04-2023 12:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote: Since you have discovered a mid level area in the law that has been previously unknown until now -- try this number: Telephone: 202-479-3000
They may need some help with getting their arms around this new discovery.
Youll be famous !!! Awesome. High five for TBE. I can say I knew him in chat before he became world famous for this discovery of his about the concept of 'overbroad and vague'.
Are you going to name it the TigerBlue level of law interpretation? Its stunning that those folks at that number have never heard of that thing that is *not* the 'either / or' that it has been part and parcel of the foundation of our system of law.
And, maybe you will get to teach this in a HS civics class. To replace that concept in all of the other HS civics classes.
I'm not a lawyer nor am I pretending to be, and I am not arguing the finer points of any law.
Fair enough. Ill retract the crticism.
Do you understand the issue of "overbroad and vague" and how there arent degrees of that? If you say yes, then we just move on from that.
Until the last few exchanges my only concern about the law is that it prohibits the exploitation of children and it prevents them being exposed to what society by and large considers indecent exposure and lewd and lascivious behavior.
First, you said 'until the last few exchanges my only concern". Do you now have others?
As to the bolded, I dont think anyone here begrudges that sentiment. No one has opposed that in general, or as an overarching end result.
The issue is for at least 3 of us is *how* that result is implemented. Criminy, even #s identifies that avenue as potentially an overbroad means -- and in fact criticizes the Republicans for going down that path.
I dont like overbroad and/or vague laws for *any* subject. Whether it be men in sexy drag stuff making lewd stuff in front of children --- *or* something else like gun restrictions.
Progressives have made a field day in trying to get expansive as **** results in overbroad and vague laws. Its a load of crap there.
In that instance all it takes is one ignorant progressive peckerhead law enforcement official to achieve what *their* heart desires in gun restriction, and to the detriment of otherwise innocent activities that the ignorant progressive peckerhead thinks should be the case for punishment.
My stance is that the form to regulate the actions you want regulated (and to which no one really disagrees here that they shouldnt. And do it in a way that a peckerhead ignorant right wing jerk wishes to achieve to the potential detriment of otherwise legal activity.
Quote: You on the other hand, in the interest of protecting a miniscule and deranged segment of society, appear not to care about the safety and welfare of innocent children.
Nice strawman. Just because I disagree on *how* to achieve that result doesnt make me not want that result. Please stop with the really shallow strawman stuff. Ill keep it to the friendly tone there.
Im sure you are happy that the pistol brace rule was ruled 'arbitrary' and 'overbroad' recently. I guess you like those types of laws and rules being challenged for that in one instance, then go off and support them fully in others. Yippee.
[/quote]
Hey, I'm simply taking a page out of the lefts playbook. And yeah yeah, I know you aren't a leftie.
As to the pistol brace rule having been ruled on I wasn't aware of that. I know in a crushing blow to the ATF the northern district court in Texas just yesterday issued a preliminary injunction over the ghost frame receiver rule. I think you may be confusing those two. However, the issuance of that PI speaks to the complications the ATF will face over implementing the brace issue.
Apparently that rule didn't pass the 4 step smell test a judge uses when considering whether or not to grant injunctive relief; Plaintiff(s) demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case, plaintiff(s) demonstrated that a substantial threat of irreparable harm existed to plaintiff(s), plaintiff(s) demonstrated that the balance of hardship weighed in favor of the plaintiff(s) and finally that the issuance of a PI didn't disturb the public interest. I believe I have those right.
In my uneducated mind the ATF rule about braces isn't an issue of a vague or overly broad application or definition, it's about the issuance of such a rule, however it is defined, in the first place.
![[Image: troy-laugh.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/eE0UXuV_efMAAAAC/troy-laugh.gif)
