The EPA and OHSA have been using that playbook for about 40 years to enact their self-serving rules.Actually the 'playbook; has been in effect for 70 yrs. Same reason interstate commerce 'law' applied. Courts have allowed over-reach for long time, NOW is the time to quash it.
I would give that man $100 to never again say the words "geek out."Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk,
FYI; The Supreme Court is holding an oral hearing on the 'bump stock' case with a ruling probably in June or July. Depending how it goes the court may rule that ATF exceed its authority and say bump stocks rule NOT OK and restrict other rules (pistol braces, ghost guns, reset triggers) by ATF. Or go in opposite direction and allow them to make rules which amount to laws which put people in jail.If there's something I can read, I will. I will not listen, with my bad hearing, to someone drone for endless minutes. Cliff's notes, anyone? If not, is there a transcript?
I hate videos.
Well those two outcomes certainly cover the waterfront.FYI; The Supreme Court is holding an oral hearing on the 'bump stock' case with a ruling probably in June or July. Depending how it goes the court may rule that ATF exceed its authority and say bump stocks OK and restrict other rules by ATF. Or go in opposite direction.
OopsWell those two outcomes certainly cover the waterfront.
well, I know why agencies have rule-making capabilities so have no general problem there but sometimes you need to fast-track an issue. Either that or agencies need to approach it like the Amish do, "Does this make our life better or does it interfere?"Oops![]()
![]()
, Prior right up was very badly written so I revised it. Supreme court hopefully will take the ATF down or allow it to continue its unconstitutional rule making as laws. Important issue here is who makes laws; Congress or the Executive Branch. The Constitution is very clear on this issue but in the 21st century Congress has allowed the Exec branch to get away with a lot with rule making and administrative procedures.
At issue is whether courts should defer to interpretation by federal agencies when a law could have multiple meanings, a practice known as Chevron deference.
In practical terms, this means the court is considering whether to weaken the ability of a presidential administration to put forward regulations meant to counter pollution or climate change or to protect consumers without clearer authorization from Congress.
Such a feat would advance a long-sought goal of anti-regulatory interests, whose hopes are bolstered by some conservative justices’ recent skepticisms of Chevron. It is one of multiple, major cases at the high court this term implicating the administrative state.
Besides the above cited by T. Grieve cases cited there other SCOTUS cases that may impact federal agencies especially ATF rule making. Read more at Red State blog.
This week the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which has the potential to dramatically change the way the federal government issues regulations.
If you are late to the discussion on bump stocks here is recap from the AmmoLand blog. In a few months we will have a Supreme Court decision on the accessory and more important...
The outcome of Garland v. Cargill could have a broad impact on the administrative state’s ability to legislate that goes well beyond bump stocks. The Biden administration has often adopted creative and expansive interpretations of federal firearm statutes to push a gun control agenda that they have been unable to secure through the legitimate legislative process. These efforts include ATF’s 2022 “Frame or Receiver” rule, and ATF’s proposed “Engaged in the Business” rule – which seeks to restrict private firearm sales in a manner Congress has repeatedly rejected. In seeming acknowledgement of the dubious nature of their actions and likely to avoid the type of scrutiny visited upon the bump stock rule, ATF went out of its way to make clear that their proposed “engaged in the business” scheme “shall not apply to any criminal case.”