What's new
By:
Filters

Brandon Herrera for ATF Director

Rerock

Well-known member
Joined
May 19, 2020
Member Number
332
Messages
304
Loc
Twins Territory


discourse.nomineesforthepeople.com

Brandon Herrera

Nominee's Key Links: Bio: https://brandonherreraforcongress.com/ Resume or CV: https://brandonherreraforcongress.com/ Writing or Publications: https://brandonherreraforcongress.com/ Website: https://brandonherreraforcongress.com/ Video...
discourse.nomineesforthepeople.com discourse.nomineesforthepeople.com

Apparently JFK Jr. has a site to nominate people for positions. Brandon Herrera's getting some traction 'from the people'. I signed up and voted for S&G's because that'd be pretty damn awesome.

I honestly think Brandon would take it seriously and do everything he can in the role to restore our rights.

Anyway, thought I'd pass it along for those who didn't know.
 
Motorcharge said:
Rather see it be one of the agencies cut out entirely.
Click to expand...
I've come to understand that even if it was deleted the roles/responsibilities wouldn't go away, they'd just be shifted to other agencies. Plus, I'm pretty sure congress needs to vote to disband the agency. So, keep it but neuter the fuck out of it.

Ted Nugent would be another good choice, but is he too fucking crazy to be trusted to take it seriously?
 
Never heard of him before but I don't really follow "you tubers" and definitely don't watch gun you tubers.
Last ones was probably that Russian guy that ended up getting one of his people shot like 10-12 years ago.

Was reading some of those links...

Just curious, FFL is Federal Firearms License right?

"As an FFL, Brandon..."
"Brandon is an FFL who has experience..."
 
Rerock said:
Plus, I'm pretty sure congress needs to vote to disband the agency. So, keep it but neuter the fuck out of it.
Click to expand...

What if it was defunded to 3 guys in a DC office with a 97 chevy lumina who have 15 days to approve or deny any and all applications for whatever or its an immediate approval on day 16? :laughing:



That's the size of government I dream of:homer:
 
AKnate said:
Never heard of him before but I don't really follow "you tubers" and definitely don't watch gun you tubers.
Last ones was probably that Russian guy that ended up getting one of his people shot like 10-12 years ago.

Was reading some of those links...

Just curious, FFL is Federal Firearms License right?

"As an FFL, Brandon..."
"Brandon is an FFL who has experience..."
Click to expand...
Your loss. He built a .50BMG AK47, and ran for Congress. Lost by 400 votes, after the incumbent spent $10M.

"Russian" guy was very possibly the shooter, dead guy's dad is on here. :frown:
 
Rerock said:
I've come to understand that even if it was deleted the roles/responsibilities wouldn't go away, they'd just be shifted to other agencies. Plus, I'm pretty sure congress needs to vote to disband the agency. So, keep it but neuter the fuck out of it.

Ted Nugent would be another good choice, but is he too fucking crazy to be trusted to take it seriously?
Click to expand...
Right now their plan is to nullify any regulation that wasn't directly written into law to comply with the recent Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ruling that overturned the Chevron doctrine. That means much like the brace ruling for pistols the ATF wouldn't be able to enforce anything other than the law as it's written. It also means they have justification for downsizing the amount of staff at the agency.

They'd still be legally required to enforce written law, but it would completely cut out all their interpretive rules and bullshit.

Chevy_man said:
Did you watch his video. He's full of great ideas.:smokin:
Click to expand...
No. I have nothing against Brandon at all, if we have to have an ATF he's certainly someone I'd want at the top. :laughing:
 
JD Mark said:
Ted Nugent!

Or press secretary. :lmao:
Click to expand...

It would be sweet to have a deep bullpen of people for Press Secretary. Stay for a week, or a month, whatever. People who DGAF and won't take shit.
Motorcharge said:
Right now their plan is to nullify any regulation that wasn't directly written into law to comply with the recent Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo ruling that overturned the Chevron doctrine. That means much like the brace ruling for pistols the ATF wouldn't be able to enforce anything other than the law as it's written. It also means they have justification for downsizing the amount of staff at the agency.

They'd still be legally required to enforce written law, but it would completely cut out all their interpretive rules and bullshit.


No. I have nothing against Brandon at all, if we have to have an ATF he's certainly someone I'd want at the top. :laughing:
Click to expand...

ATF could/would still "enforce" the laws (which ambiguous ones could be kicked back to be clarified by congress?). But, if the AFT agents were disarmed, they'd have to work with state/local LEO's to carry out warrants etc; which I THINK would be a good thing?
 
JD Mark said:
Isn't that kinda what we need?

I mean the good old saying that Alcohol, tobacco and firearms should be the name of a party store, not a gov't bureaucracy.
Click to expand...

I mean yeah, he is a smart fucking guy and wouldn't back down; that's for sure. As long as he had an advisor to help keep him abreast of what he legally can and can't do in the role... :smokin:
 
Disbanding the AFT would be dangerous unless the Scotus repeals the GCA, those duties would just get sent to FBI which might be the most corrupt of all 3 letter agencies. However, having BH at the wheel of that ship would be epic.
 
Rerock said:
ATF could/would still "enforce" the laws (which ambiguous ones could be kicked back to be clarified by congress?). But, if the AFT agents were disarmed, they'd have to work with state/local LEO's to carry out warrants etc; which I THINK would be a good thing?
Click to expand...
Nothing would kick back, there's just no law to enforce if it's not already written. It means they can't interpret the law or change definitions to work within a law.

Disarming them would help a lot. Local law enforcement would have to sign off on anything and theoretically could choose not to help enforce laws they find unconstitutional or don't think merit the resources. Would lend a lot of teeth to jurisdictions that have said they'd refuse to recognize such laws. ATF could still enforce but they'd have to weigh whether or not it's worth it to do so unarmed.
 
WhiteTrash303 said:
Disbanding the AFT would be dangerous unless the Scotus repeals the GCA, those duties would just get sent to FBI which might be the most corrupt of all 3 letter agencies. However, having BH at the wheel of that ship would be epic.
Click to expand...
Somehow I think the FBI is at the top of the list to be gutted and at least overhauled. There's a real argument for closing both the FBI and the ATF, they've both objectively been nothing but partisan failures since their creation and both are responsible for some of the biggest Federal fuck ups in this nation's history.
 
Motorcharge said:
Nothing would kick back, there's just no law to enforce if it's not already written. It means they can't interpret the law or change definitions to work within a law.

Disarming them would help a lot. Local law enforcement would have to sign off on anything and theoretically could choose not to help enforce laws they find unconstitutional or don't think merit the resources. Would lend a lot of teeth to jurisdictions that have said they'd refuse to recognize such laws. ATF could still enforce but they'd have to weigh whether or not it's worth it to do so unarmed.
Click to expand...
I suppose... if a law was passed that was intentionally left to interpretation, then I guess just enforce the law 'to the letter'. If the wording is shit and doesn't make sense, then I guess it isn't enforceable as written... not their problem. Works for me, but the shit law remains in place though.

Thanks; that was my hunch on it as well. Get rid of all these damn federal police forces. FDA doesn't need armed personnel, etc.
 
Rerock said:
I suppose... if a law was passed that was intentionally left to interpretation, then I guess just enforce the law 'to the letter'. If the wording is shit and doesn't make sense, then I guess it isn't enforceable as written... not their problem. Works for me, but the shit law remains in place though.

Thanks; that was my hunch on it as well. Get rid of all these damn federal police forces. FDA doesn't need armed personnel, etc.
Click to expand...

Basically Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo said that the agencies can no longer interpret the laws, they can only enforce as written and anything beyond that would be required to be decided by a court ruling or a change in written law.

Take vertical fore grips on guns. The law defines them as being 90*, the ATF has interpreted that as being anything close to vertical. So if I introduced an 89* grip to the market and stuck it on an AR pistol the ATF could, and likely would have come after me for it. Now they can't because the law says 90*, they'd have to take me to court and a judge would have to decide how to interpret the law or Congress would have to rewrite the law.

Same thing with 80% lowers. The ATF can no longer keep moving the goalpost on what constitutes 80% or what percentage constitutes an actual firearm.
 
I'm not familiar with Brandon Herrera, but I did watch some of the video posted above. After his intro, he did sound fairly intelligent. I probably wouldn't choose him, but that's just my opinion.

Two names come to mind to me with regard to director of the ATF, both of who are attorneys specializing in gun laws.

Willian Kirk



Colin Noir:

 
I remember the chevron Deference being shut down by SCOTUS, but never really read in to exactly how that would work. I basically stopped reading once I saw that it wouldn't apply retroactively... kind of a bummer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Back Refresh