Supreme Court Oral Arguments on ATF Change of Interpretation Without Change in Law

Gun Watch ^ | 24 January, 2013 | Dean Weingarten

[William Tell]

The whole issue seems pretty simple to me.

For 26 years the BATFE had one interpretation of the law by which the purchase of a firearm by someone who intended to transfer it to another person, which other person was permitted by law to have it, was not a crime.

For twenty years after that time, the BATFE adopted an interpretation that such an act was a crime.

It's been a long-standing practice of the Supreme Court to rule as unconstitutional a law which is so vague that a reasonable person could not determine what the law is.

This case presents a clear case of vague law as demonstrated by the very agency of the federal government charged with interpreting and enforcing gun laws.

I see little justification for having to wait more than an hour for a decision in this case, let along wait until June.

[SERE_DOC]

and then there's that pesky 1902 Dick Act, which negates any government attempt to control weapons.

Just sayin!