If you treat it like real mail it ends up exactly the way the OP describes: a few high-value messages at risk of being lost in a deluge of low-value, often unsolicited, noise. My real mail is so full of stuff I don’t want and don’t care about that it makes me resistant to looking at it at all - in fact, the only reason I do (and irresponsibly infrequently at that) is because of mail that occasionally arrives that has legal or financial implications.
I think it’s reasonable to expect that sender-controlled messaging ends up in this state, particularly when the messaging platform is incentivized to support this model.
The question, though, wasn’t whether ATF agents might interpret the regulations one way or another, but what the regulations are. Millions of people purchase legal and freely available components for their legal firearm with a serial number, and do not run afoul of the law. As soon as we are talking about components or firearms requiring a NFA tax stamp we’re in a different category though.
The only part that is actually considered a firearm under federal regulations is the lower receiver, so it is the only item that is controlled and requires paperwork. Everything else (with the exception of prohibited or specifically regulated items such as suppressors) is a generally available component that does not require the ATF to approve the purchase. Laws state to state on other components may vary, such as magazine capacity.
> She had gone straight to the lethal option and had no other recourse.
Not true. I presume that PSNI, like any law enforcement agency in the U.S., operates with some form of a use of force continuum that ranges from officer presence to deadly force. One of the most important aspects of that continuum that is taught to officers is that you can move up and down the continuum as the situation dictates. If you draw your sidearm you are not obligated to remain at that level of the use of force continuum. You should continue to make every effort to gain control of the situation, and deescalate.
At the same time, you are not obligated to use a lower level of force than that which you are facing, and a kitchen knife is a deadly weapon. It's very much a training issue as much as anything to educate officers in deescalation techniques, less-lethal weapons and control techniques, and scene management to minimize casualties. In the situation you describe though, it was absolutely appropriate for her to draw her sidearm, while still doing everything in her power to regain control of the situation so that she would not need to use it.
> Wait if the county police become your police if there's no other police department, then why does any city spend their taxes on their own police?
Policy-wise the motivations for retaining a city police department can be differences in crime between urban and suburban/rural areas, and population density & subsequent patrol officer density - and as a subset of that, response times. I would imagine that cities, and specifically the elected leaders, are also under significant pressure from police unions to retain their departments. Furthermore, disbanding a police department for any major city means that the county or state police department suddenly has to take on the workload of what was previously being done by hundreds (or sometimes thousands) of city police, and no department is prepared for that.
> And presumably if there's no county police the state police have jurisdiction.
There are many cities in the US that are outside of any county, and are their own incorporated entity on par in the hierarchy with the surrounding counties. As such the state police would be the most likely department to take over policing. Again though, that's a major resource burden and logistics problem; any feelings about the pros and cons of reduced police presence aside no policy maker is likely going to be comfortable with that kind of impact.
The county police became the de facto police department for Camden, which is a model for what would likely happen in any city: the police or sheriff’s department for the next largest jurisdiction encompassing the city would start policing the city.
I think it’s reasonable to expect that sender-controlled messaging ends up in this state, particularly when the messaging platform is incentivized to support this model.
ETA: typo fixes