User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/26/2016 11:56:58 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
180 days!?? There can't be THAT many e-mails exchanged, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So today they asked for an extension.... 180 days. January 23, 2017. 180. Days. Next time a government agency asks you for something, request a 180 day extension. Eta: I'm opposing it. The next business following following the inauguration. Basically, the next president's mess to deal with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 2:31:43 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So today they asked for an extension.... 180 days. January 23, 2017. 180. Days. Next time a government agency asks you for something, request a 180 day extension. Eta: I'm opposing it. Seriously? Are they retards, or do they think we are? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 8:40:31 PM EDT
[#3]
In a half a year, these fuckers can even get you the info you need? Just how retarded are they?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 8:52:11 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In a half a year, these fuckers can even get you the info you need? Just how retarded are they? It is their way of slow-rolling the process. They will get you the info you requested, but it's going to be a long, drawn-out, painful process. That's how the .gov passive-aggressively screws with you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 9:01:26 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In a half a year, these fuckers can even get you the info you need? Just how retarded are they? Remember that these are the guys that come up with firearm regs and the NFA process. So yea, they are retarded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 9:05:58 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is their way of slow-rolling the process. They will get you the info you requested, but it's going to be a long, drawn-out, painful process. That's how the .gov passive-aggressively screws with you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In a half a year, these fuckers can even get you the info you need? Just how retarded are they? It is their way of slow-rolling the process. They will get you the info you requested, but it's going to be a long, drawn-out, painful process. That's how the .gov passive-aggressively screws with you. I responded today that I would give them 30 days and 180 days is unreasonable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 9:08:22 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting, so they're apparently not going to be able to respond to any FOIA requests for emails before then. Yeah, I wouldn't bet on that theory. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 9:09:19 PM EDT
[#8]
And yet if the government wants to do something they can do an immediate announcement and Bam, thats that. Fuckers. F.U.C.K.E.R.S.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 9:12:37 PM EDT
[#9]
At this point im not even surprised by this utter aand complete crap. Im behind you all the way Nolo. Thanks for continuing to fight the good fight!
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 9:12:45 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I responded today that I would give them 30 days and 180 days is unreasonable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In a half a year, these fuckers can even get you the info you need? Just how retarded are they? It is their way of slow-rolling the process. They will get you the info you requested, but it's going to be a long, drawn-out, painful process. That's how the .gov passive-aggressively screws with you. I responded today that I would give them 30 days and 180 days is unreasonable. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 9:39:03 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is their way of slow-rolling the process. They will get you the info you requested, but it's going to be a long, drawn-out, painful process. That's how the .gov passive-aggressively screws with you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In a half a year, these fuckers can even get you the info you need? Just how retarded are they? It is their way of slow-rolling the process. They will get you the info you requested, but it's going to be a long, drawn-out, painful process. That's how the .gov passive-aggressively screws with you. We aren't talking state secrets. It's simple request for correspondences between an industry group and regulator. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 10:18:21 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We aren't talking state secrets. It's simple request for correspondences between an industry group and regulator. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In a half a year, these fuckers can even get you the info you need? Just how retarded are they? It is their way of slow-rolling the process. They will get you the info you requested, but it's going to be a long, drawn-out, painful process. That's how the .gov passive-aggressively screws with you. We aren't talking state secrets. It's simple request for correspondences between an industry group and regulator. It has made a lot of people.... Uncomfortable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 10:34:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has made a lot of people.... Uncomfortable. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In a half a year, these fuckers can even get you the info you need? Just how retarded are they? It is their way of slow-rolling the process. They will get you the info you requested, but it's going to be a long, drawn-out, painful process. That's how the .gov passive-aggressively screws with you. We aren't talking state secrets. It's simple request for correspondences between an industry group and regulator. It has made a lot of people.... Uncomfortable. good. Fuck Jeff Folloder. I wouldn't piss on that traitor if he was on fire! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 10:49:03 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We aren't talking state secrets. It's simple request for correspondences between an industry group and regulator. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In a half a year, these fuckers can even get you the info you need? Just how retarded are they? It is their way of slow-rolling the process. They will get you the info you requested, but it's going to be a long, drawn-out, painful process. That's how the .gov passive-aggressively screws with you. We aren't talking state secrets. It's simple request for correspondences between an industry group and regulator. Regulators classify the regulated into three groups: 1. Those who get all cozy with the regulators and kiss regulator ass so they can get special treatment and sit at the Big Kids Table. They are allowed to have meaningful input on the regulations being proposed, and make every effort to comply. The regulatory agency likes these people and treats them well because they make the regulator look good and do all the regulators' work for them in drafting proposed rules. NFATCA, for example. Thus, NFATCA gets what they ask for in a timely fashion. 2. Those who are challenge the regulatory process and call the regulators out on their bullshit. Regulators don't like these people because they call the regulators bad names, make them look bad, and make them do actual work. Regulators REALLY don't like these people when they have to go before an admin law judge and get fussed at. Nolo, for example. Thus, Nolo gets slow-rolled as punishment. 3. Everyone else. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 10:52:34 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regulators classify the regulated into three groups: 1. Those who get all cozy with the regulators and kiss regulator ass so they can get special treatment and sit at the Big Kids Table. They are allowed to have meaningful input on the regulations being proposed, and make every effort to comply. The regulatory agency likes these people and treats them well because they make the regulator look good and do all the regulators' work for them in drafting proposed rules. NFATCA, for example. Thus, NFATCA gets what they ask for in a timely fashion. 2. Those who are challenge the regulatory process and call the regulators out on their bullshit. Regulators don't like these people because they call the regulators bad names, make them look bad, and make them do actual work. Regulators REALLY don't like these people when they have to go before an admin law judge and get fussed at. Nolo, for example. Thus, Nolo gets slow-rolled as punishment. 3. Everyone else. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In a half a year, these fuckers can even get you the info you need? Just how retarded are they? It is their way of slow-rolling the process. They will get you the info you requested, but it's going to be a long, drawn-out, painful process. That's how the .gov passive-aggressively screws with you. We aren't talking state secrets. It's simple request for correspondences between an industry group and regulator. Regulators classify the regulated into three groups: 1. Those who get all cozy with the regulators and kiss regulator ass so they can get special treatment and sit at the Big Kids Table. They are allowed to have meaningful input on the regulations being proposed, and make every effort to comply. The regulatory agency likes these people and treats them well because they make the regulator look good and do all the regulators' work for them in drafting proposed rules. NFATCA, for example. Thus, NFATCA gets what they ask for in a timely fashion. 2. Those who are challenge the regulatory process and call the regulators out on their bullshit. Regulators don't like these people because they call the regulators bad names, make them look bad, and make them do actual work. Regulators REALLY don't like these people when they have to go before an admin law judge and get fussed at. Nolo, for example. Thus, Nolo gets slow-rolled as punishment. 3. Everyone else. Yes, but I'm always very polite.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/27/2016 11:31:49 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, but I'm always very polite.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In a half a year, these fuckers can even get you the info you need? Just how retarded are they? It is their way of slow-rolling the process. They will get you the info you requested, but it's going to be a long, drawn-out, painful process. That's how the .gov passive-aggressively screws with you. We aren't talking state secrets. It's simple request for correspondences between an industry group and regulator. Regulators classify the regulated into three groups: 1. Those who get all cozy with the regulators and kiss regulator ass so they can get special treatment and sit at the Big Kids Table. They are allowed to have meaningful input on the regulations being proposed, and make every effort to comply. The regulatory agency likes these people and treats them well because they make the regulator look good and do all the regulators' work for them in drafting proposed rules. NFATCA, for example. Thus, NFATCA gets what they ask for in a timely fashion. 2. Those who are challenge the regulatory process and call the regulators out on their bullshit. Regulators don't like these people because they call the regulators bad names, make them look bad, and make them do actual work. Regulators REALLY don't like these people when they have to go before an admin law judge and get fussed at. Nolo, for example. Thus, Nolo gets slow-rolled as punishment. 3. Everyone else. Yes, but I'm always very polite.... Good, because I'm not and that makes you look better and more reasonable than me... Carry on the good work and I'll keep being the bad guy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2016 11:56:49 AM EDT
[#17]
No response, I take it?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/28/2016 12:01:09 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Regulators classify the regulated into three groups: 1. Those who get all cozy with the regulators and kiss regulator ass so they can get special treatment and sit at the Big Kids Table. They are allowed to have meaningful input on the regulations being proposed, and make every effort to comply. The regulatory agency likes these people and treats them well because they make the regulator look good and do all the regulators' work for them in drafting proposed rules. NFATCA, for example. Thus, NFATCA gets what they ask for in a timely fashion. 2. Those who are challenge the regulatory process and call the regulators out on their bullshit. Regulators don't like these people because they call the regulators bad names, make them look bad, and make them do actual work. Regulators REALLY don't like these people when they have to go before an admin law judge and get fussed at. Nolo, for example. Thus, Nolo gets slow-rolled as punishment. 3. Everyone else. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
In a half a year, these fuckers can even get you the info you need? Just how retarded are they? It is their way of slow-rolling the process. They will get you the info you requested, but it's going to be a long, drawn-out, painful process. That's how the .gov passive-aggressively screws with you. We aren't talking state secrets. It's simple request for correspondences between an industry group and regulator. Regulators classify the regulated into three groups: 1. Those who get all cozy with the regulators and kiss regulator ass so they can get special treatment and sit at the Big Kids Table. They are allowed to have meaningful input on the regulations being proposed, and make every effort to comply. The regulatory agency likes these people and treats them well because they make the regulator look good and do all the regulators' work for them in drafting proposed rules. NFATCA, for example. Thus, NFATCA gets what they ask for in a timely fashion. 2. Those who are challenge the regulatory process and call the regulators out on their bullshit. Regulators don't like these people because they call the regulators bad names, make them look bad, and make them do actual work. Regulators REALLY don't like these people when they have to go before an admin law judge and get fussed at. Nolo, for example. Thus, Nolo gets slow-rolled as punishment. 3. Everyone else. I was on my way to option 2 with FERC before I was laid off. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2016 10:27:41 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No response, I take it? No response or order yet, but litigation isn't a quick thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2016 12:15:06 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Remember that these are the guys that come up with firearm regs and the NFA process. So yea, they are retarded malicious and corrupt. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: In a half a year, these fuckers can even get you the info you need? Just how retarded are they? Remember that these are the guys that come up with firearm regs and the NFA process. So yea, they are retarded malicious and corrupt. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/30/2016 12:15:50 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted: It has made a lot of people.... Uncomfortable. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: In a half a year, these fuckers can even get you the info you need? Just how retarded are they? It is their way of slow-rolling the process. They will get you the info you requested, but it's going to be a long, drawn-out, painful process. That's how the .gov passive-aggressively screws with you. We aren't talking state secrets. It's simple request for correspondences between an industry group and regulator. It has made a lot of people.... Uncomfortable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2016 6:06:16 PM EDT
[#22]
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's deadline to answer be extended 30 days, until September 26, 2016. Because the requirements of LCvR 16.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) do not apply, it is further ORDERED that, within 14 days of the answer's filing, the parties confer and file a joint proposed schedule for briefing or disclosure
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2016 6:29:47 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's deadline to answer be extended 30 days, until September 26, 2016. Because the requirements of LCvR 16.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) do not apply, it is further ORDERED that, within 14 days of the answer's filing, the parties confer and file a joint proposed schedule for briefing or disclosure Sounds like a small victory to me |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2016 6:29:58 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's deadline to answer be extended 30 days, until September 26, 2016. Because the requirements of LCvR 16.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) do not apply, it is further ORDERED that, within 14 days of the answer's filing, the parties confer and file a joint proposed schedule for briefing or disclosure 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2016 8:35:01 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds like a small victory to me Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's deadline to answer be extended 30 days, until September 26, 2016. Because the requirements of LCvR 16.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) do not apply, it is further ORDERED that, within 14 days of the answer's filing, the parties confer and file a joint proposed schedule for briefing or disclosure Sounds like a small victory to me Sure. No reason for a 180 day extension. That is just absurd. I would probably be sanctioned for asking for that amount of time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2016 10:07:27 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure. No reason for a 180 day extension. That is just absurd. I would probably be sanctioned for asking for that amount of time. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It is hereby ORDERED that Defendant's deadline to answer be extended 30 days, until September 26, 2016. Because the requirements of LCvR 16.3 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f) do not apply, it is further ORDERED that, within 14 days of the answer's filing, the parties confer and file a joint proposed schedule for briefing or disclosure Sounds like a small victory to me Sure. No reason for a 180 day extension. That is just absurd. I would probably be sanctioned for asking for that amount of time. UDAMAN NOLO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/1/2016 10:59:40 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure. No reason for a 180 day extension. That is just absurd. I would probably be sanctioned for asking for that amount of time. Sounds painful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2016 8:48:27 AM EDT
[#28]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/2/2016 9:53:43 AM EDT
[#29]
Hey, why not just ask NFATCA for copies of all concordance with BATFE since 2007, to verify compliance of a court order by a government agency. They shouldn't have a problem with that, should they?
NFATCA/Nolo 
 .................... us  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2016 9:58:57 PM EDT
[#30]
DOJ keeps asking to create search terms for them. Oh, and they are trying to limit the search to 2013 and after. Lol.
No. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/21/2016 11:51:22 PM EDT
[#31]
Just tell them to send everything and you'll send back what you don't need
The DOJ is corrupt to the core
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2016 12:07:13 AM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2016 11:05:02 AM EDT
[#33]
That list of names features a few people on the staff of the magazine Small Arms Review.
If I had to guess, I'd say they were looking to keep their collections from tanking in value, and they're more than willing to sell us all in order to accomplish that objective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2016 11:16:38 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That list of names features a few people on the staff of the magazine Small Arms Review. If I had to guess, I'd say they were looking to keep their collections from tanking in value, and they're more than willing to sell us all in order to accomplish that objective. "follow the money..." |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/13/2016 11:20:51 PM EDT
[#35]
I heard that NFATCA has an open meeting to the public the Thursday before the knob creek shoot in October. If anyone can attend it would be interesting to hear what they have to say.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2016 4:32:02 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I heard that NFATCA has an open meeting to the public the Thursday before the knob creek shoot in October. If anyone can attend it would be interesting to hear what they have to say. Any idea where the meeting is? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2016 5:36:07 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any idea where the meeting is? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I heard that NFATCA has an open meeting to the public the Thursday before the knob creek shoot in October. If anyone can attend it would be interesting to hear what they have to say. Any idea where the meeting is? Knowing how shady those fuckers are it will end up being a open meeting at an undisclosed location. ETA: Here's the directions- 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2016 9:56:20 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any idea where the meeting is? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I heard that NFATCA has an open meeting to the public the Thursday before the knob creek shoot in October. If anyone can attend it would be interesting to hear what they have to say. Any idea where the meeting is? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2016 9:57:04 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Any idea where the meeting is? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I heard that NFATCA has an open meeting to the public the Thursday before the knob creek shoot in October. If anyone can attend it would be interesting to hear what they have to say. Any idea where the meeting is? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/14/2016 10:59:15 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I heard that NFATCA has an open meeting to the public the Thursday before the knob creek shoot in October. If anyone can attend it would be interesting to hear what they have to say. Any idea where the meeting is? https://i.imgur.com/VwHdpyB.jpg Oh Fuck theres gonna be a snackbar? They committing seppuku? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2016 3:42:40 AM EDT
[#41]
Don't forget to say "Aloha" at the snackbar!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/15/2016 10:36:38 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I heard that NFATCA has an open meeting to the public the Thursday before the knob creek shoot in October. If anyone can attend it would be interesting to hear what they have to say. Any idea where the meeting is? https://i.imgur.com/VwHdpyB.jpg Thanks. I should have read my flier better! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/26/2016 2:35:28 PM EDT
[#43]
Today is 9/26
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 3:36:00 AM EDT
[#44]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 6:01:25 AM EDT
[#45]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 6:38:40 AM EDT
[#46]
In for the request for extension.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 7:01:04 AM EDT
[#47]
They filed a generic answer yesterday. I'll post it up today. So now we have a joint status report and scheduling order due in a few days and then we go from there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 7:08:05 AM EDT
[#48]
Late to the party, but I'm in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 7:24:42 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FUCK THE NFATCA |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/27/2016 1:43:05 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: DOJ keeps asking to create search terms for them. Oh, and they are trying to limit the search to 2013 and after. Lol. No.  |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
