New BATF ruling on stabilizing braces today

[Mgderf]

Since congress is the sole source of what actions and powers the AFT has - why doesn't congress just ask itself if this crap is legal?

They don't want to be the ones to **** off their constituents.
Toss the ball into the AFT's hands and the population is pissed at them, not congress.

It's not abdicating their authority as much as it is shirking their elected duties.

 

[nonobaddog]

They don't want to be the ones to **** off their constituents.
Toss the ball into the AFT's hands and the population is pissed at them, not congress.

It's not abdicating their authority as much as it is shirking their elected duties.

Oh yeah - something they are good at.

 

[Peacekeeper3073]

The House Judiciary Committee wants the ATF to come testify about why they think their brace rule is legal.

I think they are following orders from the top and know they don't have the authority and will likely lose in court(s). But have to keep sleepy Joe happy legal or not.

 

[Cameramonkey]

I think they are following orders from the top and know they don't have the authority and will likely lose in court(s). But have to keep sleepy Joe happy legal or not.

Yeah. Same senile old man that keeps saying he is going to ban "Assault Weapons" even though multiple VERY RECENT SCOTUS rulings say he cant. So recent he should know better. He's going on about it like it was an obscure mid 20th century ruling many may have forgotten about.

 

[tackdriver]

Yeah. Same senile old man that keeps saying he is going to ban "Assault Weapons" even though multiple VERY RECENT SCOTUS rulings say he cant. So recent he should know better. He's going on about it like it was an obscure mid 20th century ruling many may have forgotten about.

To him, "it seems like just yesterday"...really.

 

[Cameramonkey]

To him, "it seems like just yesterday"...really.

Then again, he did admit to doing something unconstitutional just so he could do what he wanted for a couple weeks until the courts smacked him down. 2 weeks of getting his way was better than nothing.

 

[Alamo]

I think they are following orders from the top and know they don't have the authority and will likely lose in court(s). But have to keep sleepy Joe happy legal or not.

you are quite likely right that they are following orders from the top, but it’s not to keep Joe Biden happy. I don’t know who is at the top, but clearly Joe is not in charge of anything, including himself. There was an insurrection during the last election, but it wasn’t some clown in a shaman outfit. Whoever is running, the executive branch was not elected.

 

[Ark]

They don't want to be the ones to **** off their constituents.
Toss the ball into the AFT's hands and the population is pissed at them, not congress.

It's not abdicating their authority as much as it is shirking their elected duties.

This is exactly how it works. Do nothing, let the executive do whatever it wants, make whatever squawking noises in response that the opinion polls tell them to make.

 

[DadSmith]

U.S. Supreme Court just gave federal agencies a big reason to worry

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday to from regulating greenhouse gas emissions is likely to put a big chill on rulemaking by other federal agencies.

www.reuters.com

I just ran across this.

Will this come into play with this brace ruling?

The major questions doctrine

 

[Mgderf]

U.S. Supreme Court just gave federal agencies a big reason to worry

The U.S. Supreme Court’s decision on Thursday to from regulating greenhouse gas emissions is likely to put a big chill on rulemaking by other federal agencies.

www.reuters.com

I just ran across this.

Will this come into play with this brace ruling?

Good!

 

[Cameramonkey]

Good!

Not to be a wet blanket, but thats from last June. Its not a new thing. But yes, still a good thing.

 

[DadSmith]

Not to be a wet blanket, but thats from last June. Its not a new thing. But yes, still a good thing.

I'm wondering if it will play out the same way it did for the epa.

 

[JAL]

I'm wondering if it will play out the same way it did for the epa.

The WV vs EPA decision is being cited in every lawsuit I've read in detail. In general, each of the lawsuits attack the Brace Rule on roughly a half-dozen fronts, not just one. The lawsuits enumerate them. One of them is the WV v. EPA decision -- that agencies cannot legislate -- with the kicker that Chevron Deference cannot be used with rules that carry criminal penalties, even if it's a combination of civil and criminal, only Rule of Lenity. Another cites the law requiring agencies to allow comment on proposed rulemaking . . . which wasn't done on the final rule which bore no resemblance to the proposed one. Then there's the deliberate vagueness and ambiguity that isn't allowed (aka "Void for Vagueness"). I don't recall all the points being used about BATFE acting illegally on the administrative part of it. We're not even to the 2nd Amendment infringement yet. I expect the lower District and Circuit courts will pick one or more of the admin reasons using the principle of "Constitutional Avoidance" -- not declaring something unconstitutional when there's a different fatal flaw that can be used -- and leaving the Constitutional question to SCOTUS if it goes there. That's not always done, but it's the norm. If I remember the 5th Circuit en banc opinion correctly, it used Constitutional Avoidance in citing BATFE illegally "legislating" by changing the definition of a "machine gun" in the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA when it has no authority to do so -- and ignored the Chevron Deference claim BATFE attempted to use, citing Rule of Lenity as the rule has criminal penalties. Note that the other Circuit Court that upheld the bump stock rule improperly used Chevron Deference. They'll get whacked eventually by SCOTUS.

Hope that helps understand it more.

 

[DadSmith]

The WV vs EPA decision is being cited in every lawsuit I've read in detail. In general, each of the lawsuits attack the Brace Rule on roughly a half-dozen fronts, not just one. The lawsuits enumerate them. One of them is the WV v. EPA decision -- that agencies cannot legislate -- with the kicker that Chevron Deference cannot be used with rules that carry criminal penalties, even if it's a combination of civil and criminal, only Rule of Lenity. Another cites the law requiring agencies to allow comment on proposed rulemaking . . . which wasn't done on the final rule which bore no resemblance to the proposed one. Then there's the deliberate vagueness and ambiguity that isn't allowed (aka "Void for Vagueness"). I don't recall all the points being used about BATFE acting illegally on the administrative part of it. We're not even to the 2nd Amendment infringement yet. I expect the lower District and Circuit courts will pick one or more of the admin reasons using the principle of "Constitutional Avoidance" -- not declaring something unconstitutional when there's a different fatal flaw that can be used -- and leaving the Constitutional question to SCOTUS if it goes there. That's not always done, but it's the norm. If I remember the 5th Circuit en banc opinion correctly, it used Constitutional Avoidance in citing BATFE illegally "legislating" by changing the definition of a "machine gun" in the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA when it has no authority to do so -- and ignored the Chevron Deference claim BATFE attempted to use, citing Rule of Lenity as the rule has criminal penalties. Note that the other Circuit Court that upheld the bump stock rule improperly used Chevron Deference. They'll get whacked eventually by SCOTUS.

Hope that helps understand it more.

Thank you.

 

[Trigger Time]

So when do they start locking up government beurocrats that infringe on our rights?
Where's that damn purple button

 

[nonobaddog]

The WV vs EPA decision is being cited in every lawsuit I've read in detail. In general, each of the lawsuits attack the Brace Rule on roughly a half-dozen fronts, not just one. The lawsuits enumerate them. One of them is the WV v. EPA decision -- that agencies cannot legislate -- with the kicker that Chevron Deference cannot be used with rules that carry criminal penalties, even if it's a combination of civil and criminal, only Rule of Lenity. Another cites the law requiring agencies to allow comment on proposed rulemaking . . . which wasn't done on the final rule which bore no resemblance to the proposed one. Then there's the deliberate vagueness and ambiguity that isn't allowed (aka "Void for Vagueness"). I don't recall all the points being used about BATFE acting illegally on the administrative part of it. We're not even to the 2nd Amendment infringement yet. I expect the lower District and Circuit courts will pick one or more of the admin reasons using the principle of "Constitutional Avoidance" -- not declaring something unconstitutional when there's a different fatal flaw that can be used -- and leaving the Constitutional question to SCOTUS if it goes there. That's not always done, but it's the norm. If I remember the 5th Circuit en banc opinion correctly, it used Constitutional Avoidance in citing BATFE illegally "legislating" by changing the definition of a "machine gun" in the 1934 NFA and 1968 GCA when it has no authority to do so -- and ignored the Chevron Deference claim BATFE attempted to use, citing Rule of Lenity as the rule has criminal penalties. Note that the other Circuit Court that upheld the bump stock rule improperly used Chevron Deference. They'll get whacked eventually by SCOTUS.

Hope that helps understand it more.

Thank you.
It seems the lower courts are less useful, less qualified and less correct than they used to be because they tend to let their personal biases and activist tendencies rule them.

 

[Ingomike]

So when do they start locking up government beurocrats that infringe on our rights?
Where's that damn purple button

This is a sorely lacking provision. I suspect the founders never envisioned a time when freedom was despised by so many. They expected that love of freedom to penalize those that infringe others rights I presume. (Probably also did not see getting justice for infringement taking years and years to achieve, while the infringing goes on.)

 

[Trigger Time]

This is a sorely lacking provision. I suspect the founders never envisioned a time when freedom was despised by so many. They expected that love of freedom to penalize those that infringe others rights I presume. (Probably also did not see getting justice for infringement taking years and years to achieve, while the infringing goes on.)

Spot on. It will be the end of our republic as it is now. I pray that when it is reborn we can do better but I'm losing hope

 

[Ingomike]

Spot on. It will be the end of our republic as it is now. I pray that when it is reborn we can do better but I'm losing hope

It does not bode well for us my friend, please list all the outcomes of wars that resulted in the creation of sustained freedom as we define it? Outlook is not good. That is why we must fight tooth and nail to keep what we have.

 

[JAL]

So when do they start locking up government beurocrats that infringe on our rights?
Where's that damn purple button

The only possible way is Title 18, United States Code, Part 1, Chapter 13, Section 242 . . .

18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of rights under color of law​

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/242

Getting a US Attorney to form a grand jury, get an indictment, and prosecute it is another matter. The whole series of laws from 241-250 are civil rights laws, the lower numbered ones dating back to 1948-1949, with various amendments over the years.