Just because a federal judge, or Jeff Cooper, used a term doesn't mean its legitimate. Its a BS term, made up to sound "smart," when talking about a fear of firearms. You might as well use "Klingon" words, as it has the same legitimacy. Just say "fear of firearms," and skip the nonsense.Originally Posted by RDB
Last edited by DMF13; 12-02-2023 at 02:25 PM.
_______________
"Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here I am. Send me." - Isaiah 6:8
All words are “made-up.” Words are not delivered by a divine authority. Google informs me Merriam Webster added 690 words in September 2023.
But significantly, it would appear that there is a bias in those that are recognized in some quarters. The words ending in "phobe" that immediately make their way into lots of dictionaries have a particular bent. This style of capture of English usage is, of course, designed to limit all conversation about the relevant topic. I’m not inclined to submit to that.
Additionally, there would seem to be an inherent inconsistency in your view. You have suggested one should defer to the authors of the DSM, but not to a Federal appellate court judge (who graduated from Stanford and the University of Chicago, if one cares about such things). Of course, it is not only that federal judge. The word (or a word with the same root) has appeared in multiple opinions of justices (or perhaps they are called judges in that State) of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. It’s in the Free Dictionary (https://medical-dictionary.thefreedi...com/Hoplophobe). It’s appeared in Ammoland, the Daily Star, the Jacksonville Journal-Courier Online (Illinois), an NRA press release, to name a few.
Lastly, it is not helpful to use a phrase containing six words “judges with irrational fears of firearms” when two will do (hoplophobic judges). If you are aware of another adjective--not a phrase, but a single word--that conveys the notion of a fear of firearms and also has a pejorative connotation, please post it. I write often about firearms law. You can see my c.v. here: https://law.missouri.edu/person/royce-de-r-barondes/. So, I suspect that if there is a better word for this purpose, I will use it at some point in time in the future.
Thanks.
Interesting stuff. If you could effectively poll the crowd at The Outdoor Trader you’d find a ton of folks that are constantly buying and trading and almost never (as far as I could ever tell) shoot them.
Deleted link as I initially forgot that violated forum rules here.
It often occurred to me that it seemed a side hustle for many of them.
“Remember, being healthy is basically just dying as slowly as possible,” Ricky Gervais
Have you worked within an organizational culture? In particular, a government organization that goes by style manuals and whatnot...(Note: this is a question for you to reflect on internally for the purpose of learning, not an invitation to hear your meanderings. I really don't care.)
I would read @DMF13's comments as insight on how your language is going to be interpreted within a certain organization. Reading between the lines over the years and using some deductive reasoning, I'd take his comments about perceptions of your language to the AFT with a little bit of weight.
There's 6 sides to a conversation, after all.
I would not read his comments as an invitation to debate theory. I don't think he has a personal interest in such, and is simply trying to do a "wink wink, nudge nudge", while tapping his foot on the floor, to get your attention about how your language is going to be perceived, and whether anyone is going to listen to your message vs immediately ignoring it. I've seen this myself in my own agency's organizational culture, so I can appreciate it from "this" side of the table where I've sat on panels evaluating proposals, commentary, etc from non-governmental organizations and..."impassioned"...persons.
Tl;Dr: in your mind, you think you're crafty and clever. Save that shit for the classroom or courtroom if you actually practice. To the bureaucratic panel assigned to review comments, you're going to come off as a douche and they're going to ignore everything you write.
And just to head off what I feel is coming: I don't care about how clever you are, these comments are made solely for you to reflect on and whether you think it's more important to stroke your ego in writing or do something that is less flashy and more effective. Take it or leave it, you don't need to convince me of anything.
Last edited by TGS; 12-02-2023 at 06:56 PM.
"Are you ready? Okay. Let's roll."- Last words of Todd Beamer
They claim it’s a “side hustle” but most are not actually making money. They may make a little bit on one transaction. But overall they’re just floating their hobby.
It’s their hobby, new gun = dopamine hit.
Agreed, I mentioned that in my post. As I noted, already resigned to taking some loss, not wanting to exacerbate that by also having to pay the LGS, one way or another.
Adding nothing to the conversation since 2015....
I thank you for your observations.
The current stage of the proceedings involves assuring that the agency record contains citations to relevant information that illuminates the impact the proposed rule would have, were it adopted. Whatever I write will not influence the outcome of their decision-making. But it may influence the outcome of subsequent judicial proceedings. Whether it does, as to this issue, will depend on the relevant evidence that folks on this site can identify and allow me to forward.
That would be a citation to a page in a book or an article (could be internet or in print) or, less desirable, or a link to a video of a youtube video of a widely respected expert. A citation to an expert report filed in litigation also would work. I did not mention that before, because it seems less likely that would be something someone on this list would have at easy access. An embedded post on a site like this won't work, even if I were persuaded by it. One supposes that, collectively, this forum will have access to the intro of, one supposes, every book by every well-known trainer.
I'm not sure why there is an interest in whether I've ever practiced law or whether I've ever worked in a particular type of organization. I've posted a link to my c.v. If you care, you can see who I am, you can google the law firm I used to work at, some years ago, and you can decide for yourself.
If you would like to spend two minutes scanning the intros to training books in your library, or any pamphlet handed out in training you've attended, to see if they reference people frequently getting firearms and never shooting them, that could be of great assistance. I expect that it would be difficult to include material received after Sun., 12/3, in view of the ATF's deadline later in the week and my other commitments. I likely would need to get actual copies of the entire source, if it is a book, in my hand, before submitting a comment. So, if it's a book, I will have to get Amazon to deliver it to me (early in the week). If my background will dissuade folks from providing assistance that they otherwise might, I will regret that.
I believe a healthy share of the folks on this forum would find that forwarding to the ATF information of the type that I am seeking would ultimately be aligned with their preferences. I thank you, and others on this list, for taking the time to consider my request.
Thanks.
How does using an FFL as a transfer middleman impact the ATF determining if someone is "in the business"?
I understand that using an FFL means the buyer now has to fill out a 4473 which is their goal. What I don't understand is how that means someone selling 10 AR-15s is or isn't "engaged in the business" (or whatever their term is) depending on how those transfers took place.
Building a bunch of near identical guns as a hobby and disposing of them doesn’t require a dealers license - doing it for profit does. Engaged in business normally = profit.
The argument is 1) if I was “engaged in business” why would I need another dealer to sell my guns; 2) the x% consignment fee going to the dealer documents prices and helps show the sales are not profitable; 3) most actual “unlicensed dealers” specialize in flipping cheap guns to prohibited persons who either can’t pass a NICS check or don’t have a straw purchaser at 2x or more market price. Selling guns on consignment (thus subject to NICS checks) deflects that argument.
John, it saddens me to disappoint, but I don't know of any empirical database on that.
Reply With Quote