Well... not "scare..." per se. All the active participants in this forum can't be all that "scared" or they wouldn't be here very long. 
But let's put it this way. Which of our Fed. Govt. agencies (and their heads) do you think represents the greatest potential negative impact on gun owners? DOJ? FBI? ATF? I was watching a YouTube video by Washington Gun Law Channel owner William Kirk. He was discussing whether or not the negative response from the 2A community over the nomination of Pam Bondi is really justified. Yes, she did do all those things as FL AG (
laws, raise the age to 21, and lobby against OC). But he proffers the argument that this was what she was supposed to do in her capacity as FL AG and may not be her personal preference. It was the law of the land (via the FL legislature at the time) and she had to support it. I'm not so sure I agree, but...
What Kirk says we should be more concerned about is who becomes the Dir. of ATF. Assuming that the DOJ will let it run as autonomously as it has been previously (I guess because ATF and DOJ were "aligned" to this point, but...). So, if Brandon Herrera becomes ATF Director, will we be better off even though Pam Bondi is AG? Or, will Bondi just override him? Don't know.
I think for me, the people/agency that have the greatest negative impact on me, personally, would be those that want to impose a national law. If Bondi has that on her agenda, then she's a really bad choice. Or, if it's on the agenda of the other agencies, as well. Now I also saw "Lehto's Law" video that stated the "Institute for Justice" was able to get the DEA to suspend Civil Asset Forfeitures at the airports, etc. So that's a good thing. We'll see how that goes.
So, which agency (or head/cabinet position) do you think respresents the greatest potential negative impact on gun owners in the upcoming Trump administration?
But let's put it this way. Which of our Fed. Govt. agencies (and their heads) do you think represents the greatest potential negative impact on gun owners? DOJ? FBI? ATF? I was watching a YouTube video by Washington Gun Law Channel owner William Kirk. He was discussing whether or not the negative response from the 2A community over the nomination of Pam Bondi is really justified. Yes, she did do all those things as FL AG (
laws, raise the age to 21, and lobby against OC). But he proffers the argument that this was what she was supposed to do in her capacity as FL AG and may not be her personal preference. It was the law of the land (via the FL legislature at the time) and she had to support it. I'm not so sure I agree, but...What Kirk says we should be more concerned about is who becomes the Dir. of ATF. Assuming that the DOJ will let it run as autonomously as it has been previously (I guess because ATF and DOJ were "aligned" to this point, but...). So, if Brandon Herrera becomes ATF Director, will we be better off even though Pam Bondi is AG? Or, will Bondi just override him? Don't know.
I think for me, the people/agency that have the greatest negative impact on me, personally, would be those that want to impose a national
law. If Bondi has that on her agenda, then she's a really bad choice. Or, if it's on the agenda of the other agencies, as well. Now I also saw "Lehto's Law" video that stated the "Institute for Justice" was able to get the DEA to suspend Civil Asset Forfeitures at the airports, etc. So that's a good thing. We'll see how that goes.So, which agency (or head/cabinet position) do you think respresents the greatest potential negative impact on gun owners in the upcoming Trump administration?
Last edited:
