<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>

      <rss version="2.0">		
        <channel>
          <title>WashingtonWatch.com - Comments for H.R. 1791, The Fairness in Firearm Testing Act</title>
          <link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills</link>
          <description></description>
          <managingEditor>info@washingtonwatch.com</managingEditor>
          <generator>http://www.pjdoland.com/chai/?v=0.1</generator>
          
<item>
<title>Comment by Defender (July 20, 2008, 23:19:31)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1791.html#39188</link>
<description>If the ATF disdains the Bill of Rights itself, I doubt a law requiring them to obey the law that requires them to obey the law will make a difference.  Defund, disband, prosecute, imprison....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">39188@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Sun, 20 Jul 2008 22:19:31 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by Joey (July 19, 2008, 14:04:28)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1791.html#39158</link>
<description>Every cop in the country has a camera in his cruiser, but the primary firearms regulatory body for the country has no cameras or procedures.

ATF sez:
1. a shoestring is a machine gun.
2. a double barrel shotgun that fires 2 barrels with one pull of the trigger: a machine gun.

Fact, not fiction, folks. Straight from ATF's mouth....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">39158@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 13:04:28 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by SGF (July 19, 2008, 09:13:21)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1791.html#39149</link>
<description>Seems like a no-brainer to document all tests.  If somebody is guilty, this is stronger evidence.  If he is innocent, then everybody wants to exculpate him....</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">39149@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jul 2008 08:13:21 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by DJK - fixed typos (May 19, 2008, 11:02:11)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1791.html#35211</link>
<description>DJK

What I want to know is why WOULDN'T you want them to film their tests? Doesn't it seem that if they film them there will be better oversight and less of a chance that they'll manipulate the outcome for their own ends? Vis a vis the Olofson case???...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">35211@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 10:02:11 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
<item>
<title>Comment by DJK (May 19, 2008, 10:55:06)</title>
<link>http://www.washingtonwatch.com/bills/show/110_HR_1791.html#35210</link>
<description>What I want to know is why WOULDN'T you want them to film their tests?  Doesn't it seem that if they film it their will be better oversight and less of a chance that they'll manipulate the outcome for their own ends?  Vis a vis the Olofson case???...</description>
<guid isPermaLink="false">35210@http://www.washingtonwatch.com</guid>
<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 09:55:06 EDT</pubDate>
</item>
        </channel>
      </rss>
  		