Looking like ATF is taking another run at banning ghost guns
https://www.hstoday.us/subject-matter-areas/law-enforcement-and-public-safety/atf-issues-public-safety-advisory-to-all-federal-firearms-licensees-manufacturers-and-distributors-on-violations-of-frame-or-receiver-rule/
Yeah
They’re mad they lost in Federal Court for acting as a legislative branch of the government
yall know about this stuff before we do!
You’re busy being an FFL
We’re busy trolling the internet
So true! Seriously as long as I stay off the internet I don’t hear about most of these “rulings” and “rule changes”.
They don’t call us, they don’t mail us, only the occasional email and invitation to a confusing e-training.
That’s not right
You guys should be the first to know
But given Bo Bo Bidens’ 
zero tolerance policy closing down FFLs at a 500% higher rate than before, I’m not surprised
We told “Everybody”, Oh did we forget to tell the people directly targeted? Oops our bad.
4 Likes
I just don’t get it. I’m slow. Somebody is going to have to explain this to me.
My understanding is that the Court swatted down the agency and issued an injunction barring them from enforcing the frame and receivers rule, based upon the Court’s opinion that the plaintiffs were likely to prevail with a judgement in their favor. In plain English, the Court notified them that they can’t enforce the rule because they’re likely to lose the case.
Then they respond by issuing a “Public Safety Advisory” that doesn’t have anything to do with public safety. It’s a warning message that makes it sound like they plan on enforcing the rule irrespective of the Court’s decision.
How is this not contempt for the court’s ruling?
You’re forgetting the ATF’s God Complex
Seems like an act of planned terrorism to me…
Why are they calling this a “Public Safety Advisory” when it is really a threat of prosecution that has nothing to do with safety? There has to be some sort of catch associated with them being able to say something is a PSA. anyone?
I pasted your question into BARD , it gave 3 drafts for fun here is one it wrote in response:
"A public safety advisory is a warning issued by a government agency or other organization to inform the public about a potential danger. Public safety advisories can be issued for a variety of reasons, including natural disasters, terrorist threats, and public health concerns.
The threat of prosecution is a serious matter, and it is possible that the government agency or other organization issuing the public safety advisory believes that the threat of prosecution could pose a danger to the public. For example, if the threat of prosecution is related to a criminal organization, the government agency or other organization may believe that the criminal organization could retaliate against the public if they are prosecuted.
However, it is also possible that the government agency or other organization issuing the public safety advisory is using the threat of prosecution as a way to intimidate people or to silence dissent. In this case, the public safety advisory would not be a genuine warning about a potential danger, but rather a way to suppress free speech and to intimidate people who are critical of the government.
It is important to be aware of the potential dangers associated with public safety advisories, and to be critical of information that is presented to you. If you are unsure about the validity of a public safety advisory, you should contact the government agency or other organization that issued the advisory to ask for more information." from Bard AI
The purpose is a public safety warning that physical harm could occur from ATF SWAT teams battering in your front door. https://emoji.discourse-cdn.com/apple/exploding_head.png?v=12
I absolutely know what the “purpose” is
I’m not sure why you directed your response to me
Either am I . No offense intended.
The Google AI response is interesting and a bit surprising. I have to wonder what kind of training bias Google gives it’s AI platform.
Kirk, could you post the input and each of the outputs, rather than just posting one output? It would be interesting to see just how your phrased the question, and all of the responses that Google AI gave in response to your questions.
I got kind of side-tracked with the Bard output posted above. The Bard tells us that from a citizen’s perspective the PSA must be viewed as a threat of prosecution – but we already knew that – the Public Service Announcement says on it’s face that someone will be investigated and potentially prosecuted for things that the Court appears to have told them they may not prosecute. On it’s face the PSA is intended to intimidate. Nonetheless it’s good to see that even an AI bot can see the situation for what it is.
My real question though, is to ask what is the purpose of the government agency giving their comment the label of a PSA, irrespective of what is the content of the announcement. Legally there has to be some sort of purpose or protection made available to the agency for publishing their bulletin in the wrapper of a PSA – I just can’t figure out what that is. Reading it, I get the impression that some government lawyer somewhere is using the label of a PSA to grant them some sort of special status that is not totally obvious. Unfortunately I’m not smart enough to figure out what it is.
A fear-mongering projection of perceived power to lure more into registering on the “Brace Rule”?
There a registration going on?