I think he got fed up and wanted to fight this in court.
Being a good lawyer, he knew that if he provided the documents they would have approved the renewal and then he wouldn't have been able to sue.
Cancelled firearm permit?
That's right up there with removing people from voter rolls.
Agree totally. The libs like to cry about voting laws, but are just fine with lots of gun laws. They talk about the "sacred right to vote", but shit on the right to bear arms, which was a much higher regarded right (2 vs 15). When will the politicians grow a set of balls and go all out and lobby for our "sacred right to bear arms"?Cancelled firearm permit?
That's right up there with removing people from voter rolls.
I hope you’re right. This guys seems like no slouch.I think it may also be he is at a better spot in his life where the denial wouldn't hinder him as badly (as say 20 or 30 years ago) and is ready to finally start the fight. He could have been planning this for years and building a case to go to battle
I hope you’re right. This guys seems like no slouch.
He probably has the means to fight now and he didn't 50 years ago too.I have zero knowledge outside of the article posted and everything is speculation just like many others are doing.
But to me it feels like, he played the game for the last 50 years because he had to, now I'm wondering if maybe he has decided he wants to semi-retire, and revocation/denial whatver we ant to call it, may have less of an impact on his life now than say it did 20 years ago. And so he decided it's the perfect time to strike...
That is giving him a benefit of the doubt that might not be there.I think he got fed up and wanted to fight this in court.
Being a good lawyer, he knew that if he provided the documents they would have approved the renewal and then he wouldn't have been able to sue.
I have zero knowledge outside of the article posted and everything is speculation just like many others are doing.
But to me it feels like, he played the game for the last 50 years because he had to, now I'm wondering if maybe he has decided he wants to semi-retire, and revocation/denial whatver we ant to call it, may have less of an impact on his life now than say it did 20 years ago. And so he decided it's the perfect time to strike...
He probably has the means to fight now and he didn't 50 years ago too.
Plus, 50 years ago the war was not so apparent. He may have just seen it as an annoyance then, but in the last 10 or 20 years it has become obvious that these aren't annoying inconveniences, they are purposeful infringements.
I agree. I didn’t think you had insider knowledge. I was thinking this from the beginning as well.I have zero knowledge outside of the article posted and everything is speculation just like many others are doing.
But to me it feels like, he played the game for the last 50 years because he had to, now I'm wondering if maybe he has decided he wants to semi-retire, and revocation/denial whatver we ant to call it, may have less of an impact on his life now than say it did 20 years ago. And so he decided it's the perfect time to strike...
Maybe not, but we have zero evidence to suggest otherwise either.That is giving him a benefit of the doubt that might not be there.
Well duhit means that it's a call to action to organize and strategize politically. Clearly, the current incarnation of the GOP is a failure at outreach and action, whether intentional or not.
It’s not plausible that his income isn’t there anymore to justify it? You do know what plausible means, right?Maybe not, but we have zero evidence to suggest otherwise either.
And there hasn't been any other plausible explanation for why he decided to stop turning over the bank records now.
There is no suggestion anywhere that the income is no longer there.It’s not plausible that his income isn’t there anymore to justify it? You do know what plausible means, right?
All I know is this guy had no problem with it for 50 years because he was taken care of. As soon as that stopped he now all of a sudden wants to fight it and do what’s right.
There is no suggestion anywhere that the income is no longer there.
What makes you think that happened ?
justify it
It’s plausible isnt it? As people get older they tend to work less and make less. This is the rule not the exception. Plausible.There is no suggestion anywhere that the income is no longer there.
What makes you think that happened ?
Doesn't matter how hard he works.It’s plausible isnt it? As people get older they tend to work less and make less. This is the rule not the exception. Plausible.
Please look up the definition For plausible. Is it uncommon or unreasonable for a business in 2021 to be making less money than in the past? Do you live under a rock?Doesn't matter how hard he works.
He still owns the businesses.
He could sit at home in his PJ's all day, and just tell the guy he's got managing the place to fax over a copy of the financials to the NYPD.
They aren't asking for proof that he does any work with any cash. All they're asking for is proof that some business that he has some relationship with handles some cash.
I *don't* think it's plausible that someone in his position couldn't come up with some flimsy justification if he wanted to.
Doesn't matter if their sales dropped 90%.Please look up the definition For plausible. Is it uncommon or unreasonable for a business in 2021 to be making less money than in the past? Do you live under a rock?
Plausible.
So the constitution only applies to wealthy people? If he stops making a certain amount of money then he doesn’t need to protect himself?It’s plausible isnt it? As people get older they tend to work less and make less. This is the rule not the exception. Plausible.
I said and inferred none of that whatsoever.So the constitution only applies to wealthy people? If he stops making a certain amount of money then he doesn’t need to protect himself?
I know this isn’t your point directly but this is what NYC says and your statement says indirectly. Sounds like a great court case to me.
It's racist if they only give permits to wealthy white guys, right ?So the constitution only applies to wealthy people? If he stops making a certain amount of money then he doesn’t need to protect himself?
I know this isn’t your point directly but this is what NYC says and your statement says indirectly. Sounds like a great court case to me.
We’d need to see the requirements. If anyone in any business whatsoever met the standards, well, we already know that’s not the case or everyone would have the permits.Doesn't matter if their sales dropped 90%.
He just needs to show he's got *some* cash flow.
If they're still in business they almost surely meet that standard.
There are no requirements, you know that.We’d need to see the requirements. If anyone in any business whatsoever met the standards, well, we already know that’s not the case or everyone would have the permits.
So nyc gives out CC permits like candy? What world are you living in? I’m getting concerned for your well being.There are no requirements, you know that.
No, they give them out when they feel like it, and not when they don't.So nyc gives out CC permits like candy? What world are you living in? I’m getting concerned for your well being.
I’m sure a quick search will reveal outlined requirements.No, they give them out when they feel like it, and not when they don't.
The process is completely arbitrary, there are no clearly defined requirements.
You know this.
You are free to try.I’m sure a quick search will reveal outlined requirements.