I understand what you are trying to say and this was not my personal experience.
I NEVER SAID IT WAS, just justifying what PJD832 said and because I know him too
In person , and I know the facts from him in person
The case was heard en banc, by all five members of the Court, and all agreed in the outcome. Justices Valihura, Vaughn and Traynor were on our side in the state parks case. Chief Justice Seitz joined the dissent in that case. The other member of the en banc panel was Vice Chancellor Sam Glasscock, sitting by designation; I believe that's because there was a vacancy on the Supreme Court at the time the case was heard.
The complaint says several times that the straw purchaser listed a false address on the 4473. It *doesn't* say that the address failed to match the ID the straw purchaser presented, nor does it say that Cabela's failed to check the ID against the 4473 (which is their normal practice). Paragraph 34 says that "providing information on the 4473 that does not match the identification provided for the background check" is an indicator that the sale might be unlawful. Maybe so, but the complaint doesn't allege, not even "on information and belief," that that happened with this sale.
Of course! I understand it and I'm gonna try it. thanks for sharing .
Detailed information and guide to process Azerbaijan Visa can be found here.