SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Runaway1956 (2926)
(email not shown publicly)
http://www.assaultweapon.info/
Howard wrote “that every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons.” https://www.14thamendment.us/articles/anchor_babies_unconstitutionality.html
Journal of Runaway1956 (2926)
There were fireworks at a Congressional hearing covering a critical topic not just to the firearm industry and Second Amendment supporters, but to all Americans. It wasn’t entirely unexpected. The U.S. House Subcommittee on Crime and Federal Government Surveillance’s hearing titled, “ATF’s Assault on the Second Amendment: When is Enough Enough?” posed a simple question. And the question gets to the heart of whether or not the ATF makes the rules.
Sorry ATF, You Don’t Make the Rules
Who writes law in the United States? That begged other questions. Can government agencies go rogue and create sweeping regulations that turn law-abiding citizens into criminals? Or does law-making authority reside with the people through their duly elected representatives in Congress?The Background
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) promulgated a new Final Rule in January. This new rule has drastic implications for millions of existing law-abiding gun owners. The agency unilaterally decreed that stabilizing arm braces attached to pistols are now defined as short-barreled rifles (SBRs). As such they are subject to registration under the National Firearms Act (NFA).That means owners who already legally purchased the firearm accessory must register their purchase. Likewise, they must submit photos and fingerprints, pass an additional background check and alert local law enforcement that they possess one.
If they don’t, they risk facing felony charges and imprisonment. The Congressional Research Service estimates there could be upwards of 40 million braces in circulation today.
Alex Bosco testified about how we got here today. The former Marine invented the forearm stabilizing brace in 2012 to help disabled veterans more safely participate in recreational pistol shooting.
Pretty long read, so I'm sticking a spoiler tag here.
https://www.personaldefenseworld.com/2023/03/atf-rules/
“Since I began my business, I’ve made every effort to comply with all the rules and regulations set out by ATF. After submitting the original brace to ATF for review, ATF responded in writing stating that attaching a stabilizing brace – quote – would not alter the classification of a pistol or other firearm, and that – quote – such a firearm would not be subject to National Firearms Act controls,” Bosco explained.
He added ATF has “repeatedly held that various pistol brace designs did not convert a pistol to a short-barreled rifle.”
That all changed once ATF reclassified stabilizing arm brace-attached pistols as SBRs. This put Bosco’s livelihood, and millions of other law-abiding Americans, at serious risk.
Whose Authority?
Subcommittee Chairman Rep. Pat Fallon (R-Texas) asked the central question of who writes law for the United States.“Ever since Mr. Biden took office, his administration has actively sought to infringe on the Second Amendment and I’m deeply concerned about the ATF and their recent actions,” Rep. Fallon said. “This rule will effectively turn millions of law-abiding gun owners into criminals if they fail to comply even though Congress did not act. We didn’t pass any new criminal laws or penalties related to pistol stabilizing braces. We had unelected bureaucrats do it. That’s not the way this works.”
Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) echoed, adding that bureaucratic rulemaking is wrong under Republican and Democratic administrations.
“This should send shivers down the spine of all members under Article II,” Rep. Roy said. “And look, I don’t view this through the lens of being a Democratic administration. I didn’t like it when the Trump administration was doing stuff like this. Whether it was the bump stock ban – I didn’t like that either.”
Constitutionally Problematic
Heritage Foundation’s Amy Swearer agreed the ATF rulemaking is Constitutionally problematic.“Our Constitution is set up with a separation of powers. You have the Executive Branch, whose job it is to enforce the law and you have Congress who passes laws because Congress is held accountable to the people,” Swearer said. “No official at the ATF… is elected and held accountable through that process.”
The overreach by ATF may be rectified in due time if recent precedent plays out. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit overwhelmingly overruled the Trump administration’s ATF Final Rule. It said the rule overstepped its authority to classify bump stocks as “machineguns.”
In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court overruled the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Clean Power Plan in West Virginia v. EPA because the agency overstepped its authority with similar rulemaking without clear congressional authorization.
The ATF stabilizing arm brace rule could be approaching a similar fate.
Know What You’re Talking About
Democratic lawmakers demonstrated they are uninformed about the arm brace accessory.Democratic lawmakers used terminology like “high-powered,” “increasingly lethal,” and “weapons of war.”
Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Texas) praised the ATF for usurping her congressional authority “to prevent…the misuse of stabilizing braces, which convert everyday firearms into killing machines.”
It was similar to when Rep. David Cicilline (D-R.I.) misidentified an arm brace, confusing it for a bump stock, during a previous debate.
Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-N.C), a Federal Firearms Licensee, asked Everytown for Gun Safety Senior Director for Policy Rob Wilcox about the accessory. “Will a pistol brace change the capacity of a firearm? Meaning the number of rounds?”
“No sir,” Wilcox responded.
“Will a pistol brace change the firing speed of a firearm?” Rep. Edwards continued.
“No sir.” Wilcox answered.
Rep. Edwards asked Bosco about the confusion.
“I think the problem is that a lot of people aren’t informed about what is and isn’t a pistol and what is and isn’t a rifle. It’s very nuanced,” Bosco replied. “A stabilizing brace is not a force multiplier.”
Gun Control Won’t Stop
The ATF pistol brace rule is yet another example of the Biden administration going beyond its authority to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans. Gun control groups have grown frustrated that more hasn’t been done. However, they ignore the criminals who are the ones committing violent crimes.Manuel Oliver, whose son was murdered in the 2018 Parkland high school shooting, disrupted the committee hearing, was removed, and subsequently arrested. Oliver also disrupted and was removed from a White House ceremony when President Biden announced several gun control executive actions.
The actions by gun control groups, Democratic lawmakers shaming companies for not doing their gun control bidding and the ATF overreaching its authority on the pistol brace Final Rule are a pattern. It shows the goal is not to hold criminals accountable. It’s about controlling law-abiding Americans.
Story originally posted to NSSF.org.
This question has come up before, and it has never been firmly dealt with. The Environmental Protection Agency has assumed authorities that it does not have, in the past. The Transportation Department has acted unilaterally under questionable authorities. Ditto the Federal Communications Commission.
The heart of the issue here, is the question: Who makes law in this country? Constitutionally speaking, only Congress may enact a law, change a law, or repeal a law. The Executive Branch's one and only responsibility and authority, is to enforce the law that Congress passes.
Donald Trump can't make certain gun accessories legal, or illegal. Joe Biden can't make certain guns legal or illegal. The ATF can't make certain gun accessories legal or illegal. Only Congress has the authority to do that.
It's high time that Congress took notice, and reigned in all government agencies!
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Reziac on Thursday March 30, @12:40AM (5 children)
...because technically the fee for a "short-barreled rifle" is a tax stamp.
Only Congress has the right to levy national taxes.
One might argue that this tax already existed, but in that case it becomes a retroactive tax.
My cynical little voice opines that at $200 a crack, the ATF sees $8 billion dollars in revenue that will magically fall from the sky.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Freeman on Thursday March 30, @01:44PM
I mean, we never had any issues with taxation as a country. Okay, sure it was "taxation without representation", but it certainly lead to things happening.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 30, @05:02PM (3 children)
ATF is a federal agency created with the authority to levy fees granted by Congress, ratified by the President and ruled legal by the Supreme Court.
National Firearms Act [atf.gov]
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday March 30, @06:23PM (2 children)
So, under Title II, how do they justify retroactively making 40 million people into criminals?
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 30, @07:31PM (1 child)
Actually, my reading of that would indicate that you are not required to register these firearms if you already own them when the definition is changed.
So that question should actually be asked of the opinion writer because I see a lot of grandstanding but no evidence supporting the claim that it retroactively does anything. I would not put it past these folks to be simply lying to get people riled up.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Reziac on Thursday March 30, @08:58PM
California has a habit of making something become unlawful or require a permit, then going around forcing long-existing stuff to either comply or pay up.
It was explained by some state legal entity (I don't recall which) that there is no requirement to "grandfather" anything under the law, and that it was only sometimes done as a "courtesy" that could be revoked at any time.
This is being used to force mostly-poor people out of their homes. Realworld example: LA County didn't require building permits in the unincorporated areas until 1975... But now it's -- no permit? Then you can't prove when your house was built. And even if it had a permit but you don't have a copy? Oh, so sorry, the downtown permit office had a fire and we pretend there are no copies at the Lancaster branch. Either cough up for the $38k permit, cash on the barrelhead, or tear it down.
So... it does happen, and now we're assured this not-exactly-a-law won't be retroactively applied, when that is pretty clearly the intent?
Of course, it's not practical to go door to door looking for what's decreed contraband. But if one is found, easily used to escalate some minor charge, and all of a sudden you're a felon who can't legally own guns.
Ya know, Bob is doing twenty years for having a brace in the truck when he got a traffic stop, maybe we should all turn 'em in...
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @03:22AM (34 children)
Seem to be ignorant of the law [house.gov], which explicitly gives the Attorney General rule-making authority. That authority was explicitly included by congress in that law.
Take a gander. You might learn something.
I won't hold my breath.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @03:50AM (29 children)
Congress can't pass a law to relinquish [cornell.edu] its law-making authority. It's unconstitutional.
For example, what's the intelligible principle by which "stabilizing arm braces attached to pistols" become short barreled rifles when the ATF had previously determined they were not? What keeps some future administration from completely reversing this determination on a whim?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @04:58AM (4 children)
As much as people like to talk about the nondelegation doctrine, the Supreme Court has only struck down a law using that doctrine twice. Ever. And the Administrative Procedure Act and Congressional Review Act cut much of those nondelegation arguments down even further as a side effect.
And the intelligible principle for their regulation is the Gun Control Act of 1968, specifically 18 U.S.C. 921 & 922 and the National Firearms Act of 1934, specifically 26 U.S.C. 5801, 5802, 5811, 5812, 5822, 5841, & 5845. It's all right there, including their reasoning of why it would fall under the definitions of "rifle," in black and white in the final rule. It even includes pretty pictures, in case the 98 pages has too many words.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @05:55AM
So in other words, it does happen. I notice that in a recent case, Gundy v. US [wikipedia.org] almost became number three in 2019.
Yea, right. I guess you missed the discussion of Cargill v. Garland [thetruthaboutguns.com] in Runaway's linked story which struck down a similar ATF decision on classifying bump stocks as machine guns. It will no doubt be appealed, but it's a very similar case decided on the same grounds.
So a Supreme Court that is willing to revisit their leniency on the delegation clause combined with a lower court already going there.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @08:11AM (2 children)
Those pictures tell the whole story, don’t they? I should play a game of “rifle or pistol” with them and my friends based on what the manufacturers labeled them. I bet I’ll get at least one accusation of changing the answer just to trip them up or showing the same weapon twice.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 01, @08:17AM (1 child)
I called it. Someone just accused me of mistakenly swapping the pistol and rifle on page 6494 (17 on the PDF).
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06, @01:14AM
Silly conservative ammosexuals! Wanting to have a AR-15 based SBR so they can play Russian Roulette!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @05:44AM (4 children)
Lawsuits? Public disapproval? Storm the White House? Legislation (assuming you can get POTUS to sign it)?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @05:58AM (3 children)
Notice that one is not like the others! The whole point here is that laws aren't something that should shift with the political wind. Do you really want to be in a situation where you have to make huge changes in your life and finances depending on who's in power and what they decide is illegal this year?
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 30, @05:10PM (2 children)
Ummm.....yes? The people who win the elections to the Legislative branch of government get to write the legislation....
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @05:32PM (1 child)
So right there, there's an acknowledgement that it's different. That plus the deliberate slowness of the legislation approach creates a much more stable and legal environment.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, @05:56PM
So you are saying Trump's supreme court licks should be disbarred and their decisions revoked? But you also argue that the situation you're complaining about creates a more stable legal environment?
I think you might be a ChatGPT bot.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 30, @05:28PM (18 children)
I like how your first example says they absolutely CAN delegate their authority so long as they express the intent behind the delegation.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @05:33PM (17 children)
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 30, @05:40PM (16 children)
Zero new laws were created by the EPA w/r/t defining the Waters of the United States.
Zero new laws were created by the ATF w/r/t defining Short Barreled rifles.
The existing laws already grant those agencies the powers to define those things while promulgating regulation.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @05:54PM
Facts don't really work for khallow. Can you check the Babylon Bee for a more conservative frenly approach?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @06:33PM (14 children)
Except that 1) the definition of the term is part of the law. By changing the definition just by itself, the EPA changes the law.
Same.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 30, @06:55PM (13 children)
Wrong. You are simply, objectively, factually incorrect.
The definition of "Waters of the US" is in the Code of Federal REGULATIONS (CFR)
As in 33 CFR PART 328 - DEFINITION OF WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES [ecfr.gov]
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 30, @07:01PM
And for the ATF: 27 CFR Part 479.11 Meaning of terms [atf.gov]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @09:54PM (11 children)
And? Let us look at the very first sentence:
This definition as included in the above reference is authorized by an explicit law. It also dates from 1986. As an exercise perhaps you could explain how the Sackett's land fell under the purview of this definition? For example, should we consider the alleged pools of the Sackett property as wetlands or swales. Qualifying features:
or disqualifying features:
Remember the Sackett land was landlocked and not adjacent to the lake. My take is that the pools and mildly marshy land are "swales" [wikipedia.org] which are a disqualifying feature:
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 30, @10:16PM (4 children)
Correct, the Clean Water Act authorizes the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to define the term "Waters of the US" for use in the relevant regulations.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @10:23PM (3 children)
Which they did by 1986. It didn't authorize them to redefine the term later. That's how new law crept in.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 30, @10:37PM (2 children)
It's happened about eleven times since the term was first used in 1972. [everycrsreport.com]
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @11:45PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, @05:58PM
Why?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @10:23PM (5 children)
Khallow has ruled that the land in question is a "swale". Case closed! Thanks, Justice Khallow! (BTW, who exactly did you clerk for?)
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @10:27PM (4 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, @06:06PM (3 children)
For those interested
https://www.nrdc.org/stories/what-you-need-know-about-sackett-v-epa [nrdc.org]
Sacketts wanted to fill in wetlands on the lake shore, got told no. Once again khallow prefers making money over the long term health and safety of humanity. Article points out how after 2000 the government winds shifted to allow much more corporate rapung of the land and people.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday March 31, @07:27PM (2 children)
From your link:
So right away, we get a bit of divergence from the narrative. The alleged wetlands were not on the lake shore!
In other words, heeding these arguments would radically expand what is covered under the Clean Water Act. Now, it's not just anything that is near qualifying bodies of water and wetlands, but anything mucky that "flows" into such. There are ways to legally get this sort of protection: 1) change the wording of the Clean Water Act to reflect this alleged scientific understanding, or 2) buy the property outright and put it into conservationship so that the sort of construction doesn't happen. To bluster that there's a "science shows" is not such a legal approach. Science does not show what is legal and illegal.
It also ignores the onerous burden on a property owner who now has to keep up with whatever science decides to show this year. Spend a huge sum of money and hope (which probably means bribe someone) that the science doesn't show your construction plans are to be scuttled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04, @01:55PM (1 child)
If you're too thick to understand a few hundred feet is still lajeshore property then best of luck to you with your reality optional approach to discussions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 04, @09:58PM
In other words, you're redefining what lakeshore means. This sort of gimmick, redefining words on the fly to expand an argument or an abuse of power, is a powerful technique of the EPA overreach in the first place.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday March 30, @08:00AM (3 children)
1. I've seen no evidence that the AG made this determination. I've seen lots of evidence that the White House directed officers of the ATFE to make this determination.
2. In the text you cite, the AG is granted some very specific authorities to make some decisions regarding special circumstances for transferring firearms. What is missing, is the authority to create new laws, or to change existing laws regarding firearms. That is, the AG cannot make a blanket decision that Thompson submachineguns will be exempt from the NFA, or that lever action rifles will suddenly be subject to the NFA.
In point of fact, ATFE is usurping congressional authority here.
Now, I would like to make clear here, that past decisions that braces are legal, have been bent, spindled, and mutilated in some cases. As clearly stated in the article, braces were invented to enable handicapped persons to use their pistols. Braces help to attach the pistol to the forearm, or in some cases, might use the upper arm for support. Braces do not properly provide a surface to rest the firearm against the shoulder - that is, a stock is not a brace.
If you want to search for them, you will find examples of braces which are pretty clearly stocks. IMHO, if a pistol is equipped with a stock, then the ATF is probably correct in determining that the firearm is a short barreled rifle, or SBR.
HOWEVER!!! The ATF has given written approval for many of those designs that I would deem to be SBRs in the past. Now, suddenly, the ATF is reversing not only those decisions for approval that I would have disapproved, but they are also reversing a boatload of approvals that I would have approved.
Re-read Khallow's earlier post about the laws changing at the whim of some bureaucratic appointee. The ATF has royally fucked up, and they intend to penalize many law abiding citizens with felony charges, and convictions.
How can you say 'third world shithole' without actually saying 'third world shithole'?
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @01:10PM
Arkansas? Or Tennessee?
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday March 30, @06:29PM (1 child)
I look at these braces, and consider that it's kind of the thumb-in-the-belt-loop argument. So, criminalize the braces. Some guy wraps an ace bandage around grip and wrist, and now he's a criminal??
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04, @08:11AM
Montana is full of criminals. Not as much as Alaska, though.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @03:31AM (15 children)
A classic example of that EPA overreach is their 19 year assault on the Sackett family in Priest Lake, Idaho. The family started construction on a home near a lake in 2004 which was subsequently blocked by the EPA as a violation of the Clean Water Act. In 2012, their case made its way to the Supreme Court where they won the right to sue the EPA. That's right, the EPA had claimed that the Sackett family couldn't sue the EPA until they had paid a huge fine. A lower court upheld that bizarre interpretation which was reversed by the Supreme Court. Now, the case itself is before the Supreme Court which will decide whether the EPA's expansive definition of "wetlands" is valid.
In the case, we see two instances: first, claiming that the Sacketts couldn't even sue until they paid up to $75k per day [reason.com]. And second, the novel interpretation of wetlands and navigable waterways that led to this.
That leads to Runaway's key question:
This is not just a gun control issue, but repeats itself throughout federal government regulation.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @06:02AM (14 children)
And Congress did (including the authority to regulate), so that's what the executive branch does.
Who gave the EPA, the SEC, the FAA, the FCC, the FDA and many other Federal Agencies the authority to regulate?
Any guesses? Yeah. You knew it.
And if, as you claim, Congress may not bestow regulatory authority on any Federal agency, Congress would be so bogged down (in terms of both the enormity of doing so and the lack of expertise within Congress to do so intelligently) with deciding appropriate wheelbase lengths for trucks, whether to approve a new drug, what additives may or may not be put in food, flight protocols for airplanes, detailed regulations on what is or isn't insider trading, etc., etc., etc. Literally hundreds of thousands to millions of individual regulations.
And given that Congress has a hard time just passing a budget (too busy investigating Hunter and trying to shut down the FBI, I guess), requiring them to write every specific regulation from storage temperatures for milk to rules that cover commodities trading and on and on.
But hey. You do you, friend.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @06:07AM (13 children)
Authority to regulate != authority to create law.
These abuses go beyond a legitimate need to regulate. The EPA doesn't get to expand the definition of wetland arbitrarily. That is specified by law. The EPA doesn't get to decide that people can't contest their decisions in court - again decided by law.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @01:13PM (12 children)
Does khallow get to relabel a violent insurrection to prevent democratic change of piwer? Absolutely not.
What is good for the goose is good for the gander! Or is today another reality-is-relative day?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @01:28PM (11 children)
Words mean things. No point to arguing from hypocrisy when no hypocrisy happening.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 30, @05:43PM (9 children)
If you and Runaway are free to conflate regulation with lawmaking and use the terms interchangeably then the rest of us are too!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @05:52PM
No interchange happening. J6 was the dictionary definition of an insurrection but Deer Leader Drumpf couldn't be arsed to actually lead. Or supposedly he tried and the secret service prevented him, hilarious that prez fash was restrained like a toddler in the back seat. Anyway, khallow and runaway shift definitions, intentions, and simple facts whenever their argument needs. Like the BoTH sIDeS bs it is just an attempt to mask their own misdeeds, but I appreciate the intent of your reply.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @06:31PM (7 children)
Show it happened first.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @08:35PM (6 children)
"Explain to me how I'm obviously wrong so I can deny facts over and over to try and fake a real point that suckers will believe enough to muddy the waters."
Debating with khallow is stupid. I saw a thread where someone actually felt like it was productive, and the end result was that khallow ended up agreeing! So drag a thread on long enough and brainwashed propagandists sometimes cede to reality, then turn around and immediately continue the propaganda.
Why bother when conservatives are still struggling to accept electing such an embarassing grifter.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday March 30, @09:16PM (5 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, @05:54PM (4 children)
Poor conservitives find reality so hard to deal with. They always want exact wording, then turn around to weaponize it by saying swimming pools which dump water back into the public sphere shouldn't be regulated by the EPA for reasons. Sadly those reasons are aleays so they can pollute to keep their costs down so they get more money. There is no problem here except for Republican whinging that they have to follow rules. Doubly strange when conservatives are busy dictating how people treat their own bodies or who gets the functional right to vote. We can discuss regulatory overreach once you have addressed your own issues regarding governance AND you have an actual issue worth talking about instead of water pollution which no one wants.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday March 31, @07:33PM
That's what law does. It specifies such boundaries. And occasionally, it is a disadvantage when someone can do harm through a legal edge case or loophole. I don't see anything that would be better if we allowed regulatory agencies to do things by feel.
Rules that can change year to year unpredictably.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday March 31, @09:21PM (2 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05, @08:44AM (1 child)
Are you threatening us with "scary conservatives" that will allow for infilling of the Waters of the United States of America? They do not so much twist wording as throw all regulations overboard, which, when you are water-front property, can be fatal.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 05, @09:53AM
Thus the point to exact wording. Do you really want to give them the power to twist wording as well?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05, @08:29PM
And khallow makes his relabel yell! YeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeHaaaaaa! What do you call a libertarian that flies a Confederate battle flag?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @04:18AM (4 children)
Only congress can give us net neutrality, not the FCC.
And the IRS! When are we going to control that beast?
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @05:47AM (3 children)
Absolutely! Hire those tens of thousands of new agents and start auditing! That will at least start to tame the beast of tax cheaters.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @08:38PM
They don't want to stop tax cheats, they just want to scream about it until it is their tax loophole to exploit.
Republicans are greedy and hateful, they want freedom to pillage the planet and abuse workers but no reaponsibility for any of it.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, @02:54AM (1 child)
Heh, I will believe you are serious when they go after real cheats, not some guy who fails to report his 600 dollar paypal receipt. *sigh* can always tell the democrats around here, they make it easy for republicans to keep congress in balance
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, @05:47PM
So you agree then needlessly make your commentary political. Interesting choice.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 30, @08:02AM (2 children)
Typical. Shirley you mean "rain on", not "reign in", or does the upcoming correlation of Charles the Turd have you all in tizzy? I guess some of these "country folk" are not cowboy enough to know the difference between tack and weather.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 03, @05:49AM (1 child)
Seems that there is a level of subtlety that is totally lost on SN. The Parent post was pointing out an error in Runaway's journal, where he called for the "reigning in" of agencies. This is not the correct word. "Reign" is what kings do, but curbing things like horses or Federal agencies requires the use of "reins", to "rein them in". But during a rain, things can get wet and murky, and soon many gun nuts like Runaway and khallow will conflate many things, and elide others, and storm some capital buildings, and loose their bearings.
(Score: 2) by DannyB on Wednesday April 12, @02:16PM
You won't get your point across even if you
razerays your voice.How often should I have my memory checked? I used to know but...
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 30, @04:51PM (6 children)
Federal Rulemaking Process [atf.gov]
(Score: 2, Touché) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 31, @11:44AM (5 children)
And congress creatures literally have the authority to change any rule they disapprove or, up to, and including, disbanding the agency involved.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, @03:13PM (3 children)
Time to stop voting R if you want any progress ;^)
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Friday March 31, @05:06PM (2 children)
That's a rather dumb observation. Establishment Joe is somehow better than the Republicans on offer? Not to mention that you've missed my voting record. I don't vote D or R if there is an alternative available. My votes almost always go to third party, unless there is something heinously wrong with the third party candidate. You know, like, worshipping Satan, or being a genuine card carrying Nazi, or a convicted murderer/rapist/child molester. I've never voted for a Catholic priest, for instance, but I have voted for Catholics.
I've made no secret of my voting record. No one on Soylent can pretend that I carry water for the Republican party. I am quite vocal about my belief that Republicans are bad, but Democrats are much much worse.
You turds at the bottom of the septic tank love to complain that I prefer the turds floating closer to the surface, closer to the air.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, @07:04PM
The mind boogles. Yes? Obviously? As Sarah Huckabee Sanders said, there is a choice between normal and crazy. Crazy is the Republicans, and Arkansas, as usual, is in the thick of it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05, @12:36AM
Then you are really fucking dumb to have lived through reagonomics and still not comprehend. You're a fascist who donated to build a wall, desires the murders of most of your fellow citizens, while pretending you stand for freedom. Your self-deception is sickening, and if it is just an act then you're truly psychotic.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, @09:19PM
And yet the ATF and this rule you are fretting about is still around.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 31, @07:11PM (9 children)
Runaway forgot to exclude ACs from commenting in his journal, to protect his feelings. But this has had the effect of doubling the number of comments this disingenuous entry has attracted. I am amazed that "gun rights" people constantly rail against "the gubermint" (otherwise know as "We, the People") and want to legalize the tools of criminals and gangs, like concealed carry, silencers, sawed-off shotguns (or rifles, done to make them more concealable), bump stocks, ghost guns, full auto conversion kits or weapons of war. I imagine organized crime made many of the same arguments against the banning of Tommy guns. Seems like they are trying to legalize criminal activity.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday April 04, @10:03PM (7 children)
In my case, I wish to legalize recreational drugs and various victimless crimes like prostitution and gambling. I also wish to come up with a more permissive system of immigration that has a near immediate path to green cards for hard working immigrants. Finally, I have no problems with mutual protection organizations in urban areas - often called "gangs" as long as they are law abiding.
That right there would legalize most criminal activity and steal away much of their economic power.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 04, @10:36PM (6 children)
Gangs? With truck loads of gravel? In Idaho? (We get why you want to legalize whoring, khallow. Must be terrible to live under the onerous burden of your livelihood being a crime. )
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday April 05, @09:33AM (5 children)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 05, @08:33PM (4 children)
The only thing that can stop a bad person with a truck-load of gravel, is a good person with a truck-load of gravel, and the EPA. It's not just good faith, my dear outlaw khallow, it's the Law!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday April 06, @09:23AM (3 children)
(Score: 2) by janrinok on Thursday April 06, @09:52AM (2 children)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 06, @10:30PM (1 child)
No, we're not!
APK
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday April 08, @12:35AM
C'mon! Bad form, old man! APK has been banned, so the proper moderation is -10 Spam! Do try and keep up, eh?
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 12, @07:16AM
He remembered in his latest entry, so we nasty anti-fascist ACs are not able to comment on his most recent "Adventures in Scrotum Tanning, with Cucker Tarlson". So sad, too bad.