Good Government Plan: Urge People to Get Revenge on Their Ex-Lovers

Not unconstitutional, to be sure, or illegal; and indeed genuinely bad guys (ones who sell guns to violent felons, for instance) are likely sometimes caught because someone is trying to get their revenge. Still, turning it into an overt advertising campaign, on Valentine's Day yet, is not exactly a way to promote the better angels of our nature, it seems to me.

Valentine's Day can still be fun even if you broke up. Do you have information about a former (or current) partner involved in illegal gun activity? Let us know, and we will make sure it's a Valentine's Day to remember! Call 1-888-ATF-TIPS or email [e-mail]. pic.twitter.com/OdDIPdIzkr

— ATF HQ (@ATFHQ) February 14, 2022

Thanks to Robert Shibley (FIRE) at InstaPundit for the pointer.

 

Comments

[Longtobefree]

https://reason.com/2022/02/14/the-atf-suggests-you-call-swat-raids-on-your-exes-for-valentines-day/

[Eric VonSalzen]

This can't be for real, can it? Not even in the Biden Administration?

[Queen Amalthea]

Sigh.

https://thecrimereport.org/2022/02/11/southern-police-departments-launch-turn-in-you-exes-valentines-day-campaign/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2022/02/10/police-department-encourages-people-to-snitch-on-exes/

[DWB]

You do know they have Democrats in the south, right?????

[Queen Amalthea]

"Not even in the Biden Administration?"

Try harder.

[Armchair Lawyer]

Remind us again who the ATF works for?

https://reason.com/2022/02/14/the-atf-suggests-you-call-swat-raids-on-your-exes-for-valentines-day/

[Queen Amalthea]

You doofus, the point is you can't 'even the Biden administration!' when a bunch of GOP chiefs did it at the same time!

[TwelveInchPianist]

Now that's a correct example of a tu quoque fallacy.

[Leo Marvin]

"Not even in the Biden Administration?" implies "Not even in the exceptionally awful Biden administration?" A number of police departments running the same operation rebuts the exceptionality. That's a valid counter-argument, not tu quoque.

[Eric VonSalzen]

Leo, if the Podunk Police Dept. did the same thing, I wouldn't be surprised. If a major dept. of the US Govt did it, whether under Biden or Trump or Obama or Bush. yes, I'd be disappointed. Wouldn't you?

[Leo Marvin]

I think it's eff'd up, whoever does it. I'm just responding to TIP's erroneous accusation of tu quoque.

[DWB]

You are the one deflecting...

[Queen Amalthea]

And, lo and behold, yeah I looked them up and they're not Southern Democrats, so irrelevant and incorrect.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Not unconstitutional, to be sure, or illegal..."

Also likely to generate unreliable information. One would hope that a claim generated by admonition to seek revenge on one's exes would not by itself be probable cause or reasonable suspicion of anything.

[Queen Amalthea]

"admonition to seek revenge on one's exes"

Where does it say that?

[Joe_dallas]

Queen Amalthea
February.14.2022 at 5:40 pm
Flag Comment Mute User
"admonition to seek revenge on one's exes"
"Where does it say that?"

Queen " of ignorance" Amalthea
Do you seriously need to ask that question

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Where does it say that?"

Do you know of a different way that snitching on your ex can be fun? If so, I guess I'll defer to your superior expertise.

[Queen Amalthea]

How about civic mindedness? The feeling you may have prevented deadly weapons from getting into some 'bad hombres' hands?

It doesn't say 'revenge' at all, you just went there right away for some reason.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"How about civic mindedness? The feeling you may have prevented deadly weapons from getting into some 'bad hombres' hands?"

I think most people would consider that a gut-wrenching ethical dilemma, not fun. You do you though.

[Queen Amalthea]

Turning in an ex, someone you've split with, perhaps because you found out they're really awful people doing really awful things, and your turning them in may stop them from doing them?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Your idea of a fun valentine's day? As I said, you do you.

[Armchair Lawyer]

So..Biden takes an "unaccompanied minor"...lets them cross the border without really checking enough. Puts them with a nice family. And the "minor" (who is really 24) murders the family...

https://nypost.com/2021/11/04/illegal-immigrant-who-posed-as-minor-while-crossing-border-charged-with-murder/

[Queen Amalthea]

Oh, not for me, but I'm attached. The ad in question was for unattached folks explicitly. I don't know what such people do for Valentines Day, but I imagine making a civic contribution to your fellow man's well being is as good as whatever else might be there.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Does it ever occur to you that when you have to claim such obvious bullshit, maybe your viewpoint has issues?

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, whatever Commander Bubba Data!

[Michael P]

The ad in question was for people who have an ex, not specifically for unattached people.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, because nothing says civic mindedness like Valentine's Day. Or encouraging the "fun" of turning in one's ex.

Are you clueless, or do you just play a clueless person on TV?

[Flight-ER-Doc]

ATF is not overly much bothered by unreliable information.

They have to keep those SWAT teams trained up somehow.

[DaivdBehar]

This is a propsal for lawfare. Most allegations between people who know each other are false. The ARF and the ex should be held fully liable for any fake tips.

[Queen Amalthea]

Nut job authoritarian, now with 5% less nutty authoritarianism!

[DaivdBehar]

Queenie, you are a vile serial denier. STFU.

[Queen Amalthea]

Watch out for ARF Mayor McNut!

[DaivdBehar]

Only Volokh is stupider than Queenie in this blog.

[Queen Amalthea]

I think Behar thought it was the Autistic Regulatory Force (ARF) and got really upset.

[DaivdBehar]

Now Queenie, the denier, is mocking people with autism.

[Queen Amalthea]

Well, it's no 'snitch on your teacher' line but...

[TwelveInchPianist]

How is commenting on the performance of public employees in public 'snitching'?

[Queen Amalthea]

In the literal sense of informing or tattling?

[DWB]

They are public SERVANTS -- if they fail to serve the public I am not sure what your problem is ... Unless of course you believe that the public should serve and not be served????

[Queen Amalthea]

Do you think a governor promoting a tip line to report librarians who are promoting 'divisive books' is a keen idea?

[TwelveInchPianist]

What's wrong with it?

[DWB]

Are you saying that parents do not have a right to know?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Do you think that complaining about a public employee who is fucking you over by providing you inadequate public service is tattling? Maybe we're just quibbling over semantics.

[Queen Amalthea]

Well, you've got this weird defense thing going where you like the tribalism of it but don't want to be for the obvious censoring elements of this movement and so would like to reinterpret them as 'misuse of public funds.' But I don't have any such conflict and see no need to follow you in such contortions.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"but don't want to be for the obvious censoring elements of this movement..."

To be clear, you're referring to the public censoring the government, correct?

"...see no need to follow you in such contortions."

You're way ahead of me, bro.

[Queen Amalthea]

Well, I guess you could call citizens pushing to, say, get a book banned from a public library to be 'the public censoring the government' if that makes you feel better about the censoring. But you know, the 'public' usually is on the winning end of censoring, right?

[TwelveInchPianist]

"Well, I guess you could call citizens pushing to, say, get a book banned from a public library to be 'the public censoring the government' if that makes you feel better about the censoring."

Or you could call the public choosing which information it wants to disseminate. How is citizens pushing to get a book banned different than a librarian choosing not to stock a book?

That's why free expression at public institutions is a contradiction. If people don't want to pay somebody to shove a fist up somebody else's ass, they aren't going to.

But in any event, this has nothing to do with my original comment, which is that tiplines based on revenge motives are likely to elicit unreliable information.

[Queen Amalthea]

"That's why free expression at public institutions is a contradiction."

Yeah, well, at least you've got to the heart of it for you, you can't imagine free expression via public institutions (which is the most meaningful venue many have). So, protecting 'the snowflakes' by just saying 'well we don't want to expend funds on that book/idea' is your way to how you learned to love censorship and live with it.

"tiplines based on revenge motives are likely to elicit unreliable information."

So it's really just a 'good government' thing after all? Lol. Most tiplines produce mostly garbage. And that's going to be the same for Youngkin's. The real point of it is the chilling.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So, protecting 'the snowflakes' by just saying 'well we don't want to expend funds on that book/idea' is your way to how you learned to love censorship and live with it."

Whatever. Somebody's got to say that, though, unless you want to expend unlimited funds. So I guess you love censorship too.

"So it's really just a 'good government' thing after all? Lol. Most tiplines produce mostly garbage. And that's going to be the same for Youngkin's. The real point of it is the chilling."

If Younkin were asking people to rat out jilted exes for teaching CRT, the same concern would apply. But you don't have an example of something like that, do you?

[Queen Amalthea]

" Somebody's got to say that, though, unless you want to expend unlimited funds."

Holy shit, you have bought it!

So I guess those public schools, parks, etc., that would have to expend more funds for security for controversial speakers shouldn't because, well, we need a tight public fisc, amirite?

You've obviously just contorted yourself to love this attack on an attack on your tribe.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"So I guess those public schools, parks, etc., that would have to expend more funds for security for controversial speakers shouldn't because, well, we need a tight public fisc, amirite?"

Holy non-sequitur, Batman!

[TwelveInchPianist]

I mean, if it's censorship when citizens do it, then it's censorship when the librarians do it. When public institutions speak, somebody decides what gets said and what doesn't.

[ducksalad]

Twelve, you're right, the essential point here is that someone will have to be the decider.

But could one take the position that since it's got to be someone, we let it be the librarian, the same way that we have judges for matters of law?

Like a judge, you do the best job you can picking fair-minded librarians at the time of hiring. Once you've picked, you respect their decisions unless it's something so egregious it merits the school equivalent of impeachment.

It's arbitrary and librarians will be influenced by their personal ideologies. But I'm not sure that's worse than having school boards or state legislatures do it routinely. Maybe they should only get involved at the "impeachment" state.

[Stephen Lathrop]

How is citizens pushing to get a book banned different than a librarian choosing not to stock a book?

The librarian deciding not to stock a book is doing it in the context of collection management, and husbanding a limited resource of shelf-space. A citizen is never doing that.

[Michael P]

Citizens are never librarians? Now that's a curious conspiracy theory!

Stephen Lathrop is shocked, shocked to find that not all people are librarians.

[ducksalad]

Stephen, a couple questions:

1. Suppose a librarian voluntarily decides not to stock a book after receiving input from parents and students. Censorship or not-censorship?

2. Out of all the players in a public school system - state legislators, local school boards, principals, librarians, parents, and students - does the First Amendment somehow privilege the librarian on deciding which books the school will buy? Or is this just a job title issue that could be resolved by renaming the librarian "Custodian of Books Chosen by Others"

3. Suppose we do privilege librarians. If a librarian and an assistant librarian disagree on which book to buy for that last space on the shelf, how do we tell which one is the censor and which one is the victim of censorship?

[David Nieporent]

The librarian deciding not to stock a book is doing it in the context of collection management,

What if s/he is not? What if s/he is doing it because s/he doesn't like the content/viewpoint of the book?

[Don Nico]

Of course, all of the above happen.
But SL's point is rather simple and obviously true: a library cannot purchase all books. Someone, we'll call them librarians, have to make those decisions. Decisions are based on reasons. deep or shallow.
When my book is not purchased, I'll call it censorship. When your book is not purchased, that is just "collection management."

[Queen Amalthea]

You could also say 'hey, this isn't censorship, it's just that this book is so dumb and wrong that having it in the library amounts to a misuse of funds! So it's just a good government measure to get rid of all those terrible books!'

[ducksalad]

I do think TwelveInch deserves a direct answer to his question. The fact is, any established library that has reached capacity will be dumping books every year and replacing them with "better" ones. I don't think you (or anyone) is really against that or denying that it needs to happen.

The question is who should have input on that decision. As a matter of policy giving the librarian the lead role is probably a good idea, but I don't see it as the librarian's First Amendment right. And even it is, someone has to pick the librarian.

Guessing that like me, it's the censorious motivation you don't like. But I don't see that librarians are necessarily free from that.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Your views on providing information to authorities is quite selective, tending toward the appeasement of gun nuts, bigots, and other clingers.

[Queen Amalthea]

But of course. Can you imagine if Youngkin pushed a tip line to report sheriffs and local police who weren't doing enough to enforce gun laws? Or, hell, just a tip line to report unprofessional conduct of the police in general. They'd run him out on a rail for that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

Lol. Imagine whatever you want, but please keep both hands on the keyboard.

Do you think a tip line that you described would be unlikely to generate false complaints?

[Queen Amalthea]

Uh, when someone says 'can you imagine' they are kind of invoking the idea that *they* cannot....

[Queen Amalthea]

"Do you think a tip line that you described would be unlikely to generate false complaints?"

And Youngkin's teacher snitch line wouldn't?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Why would it?

[Queen Amalthea]

Because non-teachers are bad judges of what teachers do? Because empirically most tip lines generate mostly garbage? Because the criteria is incredibly vague?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, parents are great judges of what teacher do. Even better than the teacher themselves.

But none of your claims are anything like "motived by revenge an ex" which is the claim you are countering, in case you forgot.

[Queen Amalthea]

Are parents better judges of pediatricians too?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Well, depends on whether or not the parents pick a good pediatrician.

But it’s true that some pediatricians have succumbed to some of the bizarre cult-like superstitions that infest the Ed schools.

[TwelveInchPianist]

"...tending toward the appeasement of gun nuts, bigots, and other clingers."

You think that's the demo that's disproportionally arrested for gun crimes, Arthur?

[DaivdBehar]

This is a propsal for lawfare. Most allegations between people who know each other are false. The ATF and the ex should be held fully liable for any damage from fake tips.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

Hold the ATF or it's agents liable?

Are you new to this universe?

[Brett Bellmore]

As the old joke goes, you can't drink them, you can't smoke them, and you can't fire them.

[dwb68]

People wonder wonder why the ATF has a bad reputation. Do they intentionally sabotage their own image? Sometimes I wonder.

[Queen Amalthea]

No one wonders that. Everyone knows they 1. are a federal agency that 2. enforces gun laws. So they're going to have a bad reputation with a certain set of people no matter what they do.

If this were Border Patrol asking people to inform on former exes that were undocumented most of the same set would be fine with it.

[TwelveInchPianist]

You just love you some imaginary counterfactual hypocrisy, don't you.

[Queen Amalthea]

No, it's disappointing to see it so much, but there's that.

[TwelveInchPianist]

I think you mean to imagine it so much. You understand that you're not seeing it on this thread, right? That it's all in your head?

[Queen Amalthea]

Lol, then Brett comes right in and cuts your legs. Who saw that coming?

[TwelveInchPianist]

Did Brett claim that the Border Patrol soliciting tips from jilted exes would likely generate reliable information, or are you imagining that too?

[Queen Amalthea]

Sorry bro, this subthread is about the initial post of "Everyone knows they 1. are a federal agency that 2. enforces gun laws. So they're going to have a bad reputation with a certain set of people no matter what they do."

[TwelveInchPianist]

(cont)
"If this were Border Patrol asking people to inform on former exes that were undocumented most of the same set would be fine with it."

[Queen Amalthea]

So to be clear, you concede that "Everyone knows they 1. are a federal agency that 2. enforces gun laws. So they're going to have a bad reputation with a certain set of people no matter what they do."

[Frank Drackman]

African Americans??? arrested WAY out of proportion for violating gun laws. (and drug laws, traffic laws, etc etc)

[Brett Bellmore]

Where that set of people are "people who actually CARE about civil liberties violations".

Rather than delighting in them because they want that civil liberty violated.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem here is you thinking you've identified hypocrisy. Immigration laws are constitutional. Gun control laws aren't. That's a pretty important difference.

[Brett Bellmore]

1) They're a federal agency whose job is to violate a civil right. Of course they're going to be hated. If you had a federal agency dedicated to violating the 1st amendment, they'd be hated, too.

2) They've got a really bad history of racism. I mean, really bad. Well, they are in charge of maintaining the one remaining element of Jim Crow, I suppose that stands to reason.

3) Biden tried to nominate a new head to the agency, David Chipman, who fit in on both scores. No surprise there.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I worked with ATF for decades. I am not aware ATF has a bad reputation, except perhaps among low-quality gun nuts.

[Frank Drackman]

thats because you're an Idiot.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

You are an illiterate right-wing bigot, Frank Drackman . . . and the precise target audience of this disaffected, ankle-nipping, right-wing blog.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

If the ATF is so lacking in business that they are driven to advertising for more, it's time to roll up the agency.

[Queen Amalthea]

It's kind of common for law enforcement agencies to 'drum up business'/'solicit tips.'

[Michael P]

I look forward to QA's defense of the DEA launching a tips campaign with the slogan "Be free from drugs! Narc on your neighborhood dealer for Juneteenth!"

[Dan Schiavetta]

Of course, she can wait until the unstable ex with an illegal gun comes by to blow her head off. 2A, you know.

[Eugene Volokh]

captcrisis: I think if the ad had been framed as, "Are you afraid that an ex-lover is going to come after you with a gun? If so, then if his gun is illegal, we might be able to help you prevent that," that would have been a quite different matter. (It wouldn't have made Valentine's Day "fun," though it might have made it a relief.)

The unusual thing about this ad is that it isn't trying to appeal to people's reasonable worry for their safety, or to people's general public-spiritedness. Rather, it's trying to appeal to their desire for revenge against their exes.

It's rather like if the ad had said the same but about drugs rather than guns (and it came from the DEA rather than the BATF). Sure, there might be good reasons for people to alert the government to their exes' illegal drug use or sales -- for instance, if they're reasonably worried that the exes will attack them when the exes are high, or that the exes will drive with the couple's children in the car, or that the exes will get involved in drug-related violence when the children are around. (There are likely also many illegal-drug-buyers/sellers who aren't a danger to their exes, just as there are likely many illegal-gun-buyers/sellers who aren't a danger to their exes.) But I wouldn't much care for a DEA ad that simply urged people to have "fun" on Valentine's Day by turning in their exes, seemingly out of revenge rather than reasonable concern about safety.

[Dan Schiavetta]

You really don’t think that having an illegal gun is a red flag for domestic violence?

[Toranth]

Then why not report the person with the illegal gun before your "fun" Valentine's day?

Unless you think this tip line ad was established purely for the purpose of getting calls from civic minded people that just happened to both break up with their ex- AND just learned about the illegal guns this very day...?
I'm going to go ahead and suggest that there are not a large number of people that meet that criteria - certainly not enough to advertise revenge services towards.

[Brett Bellmore]

Probably not, it's wildly over-inclusive. Otherwise law abiding people routinely violate gun control laws, because they're not viewed as even remotely legitimate.

It's like, if the government started banning books, would you feel some moral obligation to not own any banned titles?

Do you think having some bottles of beer during Prohibition would have been a red flag for criminality?

[VinniUSMC]

What you wrote:

You really don’t think that having an illegal gun is a red flag for domestic violence?

What EV wrote:

"just as there are likely many illegal-gun-buyers/sellers who aren't a danger to their exes".

No, captmanufacturedcrisis, having an illegal weapon is not, by itself, a red flag for domestic violence. Being an authoritarian douchebag is though. So, maybe we should hope for a SWAT raid to be in your near future.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Did you have much to say about the tip lines Republicans have established lately to solicit leads on library books or classroom presentations that White supremacists dislike, Prof. Volokh?

This low-grade hackery endears you to the bigoted clingers this blog cultivates as an audience, which appears to be all that is important to you these days. What the hell has happened to you?

[MatthewSlyfield]

All My Ex's Live In Texas

[DaivdBehar]

Assortative Mating. The girlfriends of criminals are likely to be criminals, with similar moral abilities. Their reports are not likely to be reliable.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-016-0016

[Frank Drackman]

IINAL but wouldn't "having information about a former (or current) partner involved in illegal gun activity? " and not previously reporting it be some kind of Federal Infraction?? "Conspiracy?" "Obstruction of Justice?" "Mopery with Intent to Creep"? (Seriously, if standing around while a 3 time loser OD's on Fentanyl rates Federal Civil Rights Charges) and what if her/his current partner reports him/her for not reporting the "Information", I've watched enough "Judge Judy" to know Hearsay when I hear it.

[Michael P]

Relatively few people have an obligation to report that kind of adverse information. People with security clearances, if the other person also has a clearance, might be the biggest group. (Criminal behavior both casts doubt on the person's fitness to hold a clearance and makes them more vulnerable to blackmail.)

And presumably the ATF would not try to convict a person based only on the unsworn statement of that person's ex. They would use that to get search warrants or subpoenas that provide more direct evidence, so they would not use hearsay in a trial.

[John F. Carr]

"Misprision of felony"

[dwb68]

Why bother calling the ATF when revenge porn is so much more satisfying, am I rite?

[Jimmy the Dane]

Advice from Chris Rock - Never getting into a car with a mad woman.
Words to live by.

[PeteRR]

When you get divorced, or I suppose break up with a long time partner, keep something in mind: they know all your secrets. Did you install that backyard deck without getting a permit to build it? Did you shade the truth when it comes to doing your taxes? Did you remove/disable the pollution equipment on your 4x4.

[Jimmy the Dane]

True story. A friend's grandfather would always tell his wife (friend's grandmother) when she asked about the origins of things - the less you know the better. Cars just showed up in the driveway when one was needed. When a new baby came along that required an addition to the house, that just happened. Same with furniture or just about anything else in life. When his kids needed a job one materialized out of thin air. College - same deal. His grandfather would never divulge the origins of any of it. The grandmother hated this and people just thought the grandfather was a bit of jerk. But, the guy provided so everyone put up with it.

Turns out he died at the age of like 85 and left a list of "things you need to know" in a safe deposit box. So about a month after he passed away a random lawyer calls up and discloses the origins of this box. In it were all kinds of fun things about the man's life. He was apparently a great barterer which is how he traded for just about everything in life and also entered into some questionably ethical business dealings. Once when he was supposed "on vacation" he was really in jail in some SE Asian country on a deal gone wrong. That and a bunch of other cool stories were written down in a journal.

He knew one thing though - tell no one. So for all those years he was doing all these dealings and even sat in international prison and didn't tell anyone even on his death bed. Interesting stuff.

[Brett Bellmore]

Don't Be Surprised if Gun Owners Don't Comply With Gun Control Laws

"But trying to compel compliance by belatedly imposing registration requirements is also a losing bet. Gun policy is a divisive issue and people know that some politicians want to outlaw and even confiscate what is currently legal; they don't seem inclined to make that goal easy to achieve. When Connecticut required owners of so-called "assault weapons" (really, semi-automatic rifles with a military appearance) to register their property with the state, it achieved all of 15 percent compliance; compliance in New York with a similar rule topped out at 5 percent."

The basic problem here is that if you just searched random gun owners' homes without any particularized basis for suspicion, you'd likely find a fair number of violations, because gun control laws simply aren't viewed as legitimate by gun owners, they're only obeyed to the extent it isn't safe to violate them.

So, all the BATF is looking for is an excuse to conduct those searches.

[CFred]

“Hello, ATF? A guy I used to go with ran guns to Mexican cartels for years, he went by the name Barry Soetoro”

[John F. Carr]

And is today, February 15, "snitches get stiches" day?

[M L]

Some good replies:

I have information on some guys who trafficked guns to Mexican drug cartels
@EricHolder masterminded the whole scheme, and then had his best friend @BarackObama assert executive privilege to protect him from having to testify

their co-conspirator was an agency called @ATFHQ

[M L]

"Yes I do. This govt organization shot a mother holding her child and a dog without provocation. And what’s weirder is that like a few months later that same organization burned a bunch of school children alive."

[M L]

Hunter Biden Reportedly Violated Federal Law by Lying on Background Check

Sources: Secret Service inserted itself into case of Hunter Biden’s gun

[M L]

"These Google search terms will get you started:
Fast and Furious
Eric Holder
Border Patrol Officer Brian Terry (deceased)
Maria Susan Flores Gamez "Miss Sinaloa" (deceased)
ATF gun-running operation
You can also try these search terms:
Humberto Benítez Treviño
Mexican attorney-general
150 Mexican civilians killed
ATF gun-running operation
One more:
George Gillett
ATF supervisory agent
Personally-owned FN Five-Seven 5.7 mm pistol
Used in cartel shoot-out to kill 5

[M L]

"Google "Ruby Ridge" for gemstone ideas.

[ducksalad]

Question for the equal protection experts here: Is marital/domestic partnership status a fully protected class, and does that have any relevance here?

Consider the sentence: Do you have information about a former (or current) partner involved in illegal gun activity?

Suppose they'd written: Do you have information about a Catholic (or person of other belief) involved in illegal gun activity?. Pretty sure that would be a problem, and the parenthetical qualifier wouldn't entirely fix it, especially if it was embedded with graphics and other statements hitting the religion theme.

Most people would at least pretend to agree the ATF shouldn't target specific religions, races, etc. Is it OK to target divorced people?