A Supreme court rulling could have an impact on firearm regulations.

[MichaelTech]

Monday the 9th the Supreme court decided that Federal agencies do not have to go through a Notice and Comment period to change current interpretation of regulations.

Article http://thehill.com/regulation/court...s-with-administration-in-rulemaking-challenge

Now I am not trying to spread FUD. But this does hit home for the gun community and can shed light on what the ruling takes away if you connect the recent dots.

The dots are this; This very procedure of Notice and Comment was used by the ATF to put out there their intention to look at M855 Ammo and see if it should be banned. They wanted to reinterpret the original 1986 regulation to include M855sThey Gave Notice and then the comment period was to last till the 15th at which time they would of made their decision.

For this the M855 garnered heavy support both from the populous and the politicians causing them to announce they were shelving the proposal.

The thing is that Monday's ruling by the Supreme Court means that in the future the ATF can just go ahead and make the change like taking away m855's exemption in the 1986 Regulation and we would only find out abot it afterwards.

As I said i am not here to spread FUD but the Ruling by SCOTUS and then the ATF shelving of M855 is probably coincidence. There is also the point of the Damage is done that there was so much overwhelming support to block ATF's move that they wouldn't dare go behind the back and use the new ruling to do it.

But this SCOTUS ruling coming on the heals of this shows that there is now a backdoor in place for anti-gun rulings to be made without public input that just shelved the m855 fiasco.

 

[bama47]

Two things. This was not a coincidence. And you bet your ass they are going to use this.

This is not good and when they do use this, it will take a major outrage (even bigger than what just happened)and there will have to be tons of court cases filed and that have to be won. - and in the mean time, you guessed it, we're screwed.

Sorry if I'm not all sunshine here but I see bad things developing from here on out.

I have said this before; these assholes have a plan and they are carrying it out!

Monday the 9th the Supreme court decided that Federal agencies do not have to go through a Notice and Comment period to change current interpretation of regulations.

Article http://thehill.com/regulation/court...s-with-administration-in-rulemaking-challenge

Now I am not trying to spread FUD. But this does hit home for the gun community and can shed light on what the ruling takes away if you connect the recent dots.

The dots are this; This very procedure of Notice and Comment was used by the ATF to put out there their intention to look at M855 Ammo and see if it should be banned. They wanted to reinterpret the original 1986 regulation to include M855sThey Gave Notice and then the comment period was to last till the 15th at which time they would of made their decision.

For this the M855 garnered heavy support both from the populous and the politicians causing them to announce they were shelving the proposal.

The thing is that Monday's ruling by the Supreme Court means that in the future the ATF can just go ahead and make the change like taking away m855's exemption in the 1986 Regulation and we would only find out abot it afterwards.

As I said i am not here to spread FUD but the Ruling by SCOTUS and then the ATF shelving of M855 is probably coincidence. There is also the point of the Damage is done that there was so much overwhelming support to block ATF's move that they wouldn't dare go behind the back and use the new ruling to do it.

But this SCOTUS ruling coming on the heals of this shows that there is now a backdoor in place for anti-gun rulings to be made without public input that just shelved the m855 fiasco.

 

[Alea Jacta Est]

Uh oh...we been had.

Not likely a coincidence. Highly improbable.

Three branches...checks and balances....epic fail.

 

[Jim12]

Congress needs to step in with a statute to change that.

Congress has long ago abdicated its responsibilities by enacting controversial legislation despite unresolved disagreement by inserting fuzzy language and a "let the courts interpret it" attitude. Each side thought the courts would agree with them.

Well, the courts are packed with liberals, more so all the time, and guess how that's turning out. And federal court appointments are for life.

 

[Gryphon]

Mixed thoughts on this. It applies to revising interpretations not the adoption of the rules themselves. This shouldnt empower agencies to misapply unambiguous regs. Second, you bet your ass that the agencies will abuse this. They will claim they dont need Owe, his pen and his phone, but rather they have the power to use all their pens and phones.

 

[KSFrostie]

Call me ignorant or naive. But assuming that we get a 2A friendly administration in the White House, Couldn't this backfire on Libs and be positive for us. The ATF under a 2A friendly administration could reinterpretation NFA rules to be more favorable or reinterpretation 7.62x39 "AP" bullet ban. I am not saying it will, but it could go the other way

 

[AntiGun]

Justice Samuel Alito said the Paralyzed Doctrine likely stemmed from fear that federal agencies were becoming too powerful and concerns that Congress was affording them too much lawmaking authority
“I do not dismiss these concerns, but the Paralyzed Doctrine is not a viable cure for these problems,” he said.

a supreme court justice said people might be right when they believe federal agencies have become too powerful...

 

[Jim12]

Call me ignorant or naive. But assuming that we get a 2A friendly administration in the White House, Couldn't this backfire on Libs and be positive for us. The ATF under a 2A friendly administration could reinterpretation NFA rules to be more favorable or reinterpretation 7.62x39 "AP" bullet ban. I am not saying it will, but it could go the other way

Some things, like rights, shouldn't be subject to the political whims of whoever is the incumbent in the WH.

 

[danb]

Really cannot blame the SCT for ambiguous regulations. If Congress throws something ambiguous over the wall in the middle of the night for the sake of passing something, that is Congress' fault. Cannot then blame regulatory uncertainty (because the rules change every 8 years) on the SCT or WH. Scorpions sting. Executives are prone to overreach no regardless who is in the office.

Congress can set the rules by which agencies administer rules. They can force agencies to put even interpretive rules through a public comment period if they have the votes.

I agree with the sentiment, but elections do have consequences.

I also don't think this will mean much, or not what people think. This only applies to interpretations, not rules themselves. The SCT said that the plaintiffs waived the argument that this was an actual rule. What four justices said, really, is that courts should give less deference to rules that an agency promulgates, and do more scrutinizing of rules initially.

 

[MikeTF]

We are watching a dictatorship unfold right before our eyes.

 

[Gskwared]

So what is stopping the ATF reinterpreting all ammunition as AP and therefore banning it all? They wouldn't care about guns at that point because there would be no ammunition. This would be a liberal wet dream. It would be total gun control without needing to fight to take away guns. Its a win/win for the antis

 

[embermage]

I seem to remember that arms by nature included ammunition, just like freedom of the press cannot be supressed by taking away ink, paper, ditigital media, etc.

Personally, I think we need to do better ourselves and force either Congress to put some amendments out for adoption or force state legislatures to do an article 5 amendment process. Either path does not require approval by the executive or judicial branches, they do not get a say in the matter. If it goes the Article 5 route, Congress does not get a say in the matter either.

1. Supreme Court Justices would serve for 8 years, at which time they can be renewed by Congress (majority vote in BOTH houses, notice not the President) for one more 8 year term for a total of 16 years. If not confirmed for the second term, then the President gets to nominate just as normal.

2. Supreme Court rulings can be overturned within two years by 2/3 of the state legislatures. If not done by then, the ruling stands unless overturned by amendment.

3. Term limits for Congress, you get 12 years total. Serve it all in the House or the Senate or split it up, I don't care. You get 12 years, no extensions for any reason. Vacancies filled as normal in the case of someone hitting their 12 years and having to step down.

4. All Federal agencies are required to put out all proposed regulation changes for public comment for a period of not less than 180 days. At the end of the comment period Congress must review the changes and comments and approve/disapprove them (both Houses) simple majority vote. Said changes must in in compliance with the letter of the law.

5. Executive actions or orders MUST be in compliance with current law and are subject to review by Congress and/or the Supreme Court if there are doubts.

6. 17th Amendment is hereby repealed.

 

[Decoy]

I think this ruling only applies to the Labor Department, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.

 

[bama47]

Exactly. And there has been NO oversight of the Supreme Court by congress. Which it is their job to do. Because unlike popular belief, the Constitution is the law of the land, not the SCOTUS!

Congress needs to step in with a statute to change that.

Congress has long ago abdicated its responsibilities by enacting controversial legislation despite unresolved disagreement by inserting fuzzy language and a "let the courts interpret it" attitude. Each side thought the courts would agree with them.

Well, the courts are packed with liberals, more so all the time, and guess how that's turning out. And federal court appointments are for life.

 

[daNattyFatty]

I think this ruling only applies to the Labor Department, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the National Labor Relations Board.

Does the ruling state that specifically? Even if it does, it certainly doesn't prevent an attorney arguing in the future that the ruling should apply to all federal agencies, and of course it's also not a stretch to imagine the SCT agreeing with that. Just my two cents.

 

[fightinbluhen51]

We are watching a dictatorship unfold right before our eyes.

Worse, an autocracy.

 

[WeaponsCollector]

Sometimes I think it could be a good thing if the government would ban ammunition and alcohol. Overnight the prices and demand will skyrocket and I have enough now that I could become quite wealthy by selling some of it. "$100 for a box of ammo? I have some for $75 per box! Best deal in town!"

 

[Jim12]

Exactly. And there has been NO oversight of the Supreme Court by congress. Which it is their job to do. Because unlike popular belief, the Constitution is the law of the land, not the SCOTUS!

Congress doesn't, and cannot oversee the Supreme Court. They are separate but equal branches.

Congress makes the laws, the President signs them or Congress overrides a veto, and the Supreme Court is the final interpreter of them.

If Congress doesn't like the Supreme Court's interpretation, or if a law is struck down, Congress has to change or enact a new law -- either with a presidential signature or an override of his veto.

 

[Mark75H]

Congress has the power to limit the action of the Federal courts. They rarely if ever do so, but its in the constitution

 

[n1hook]

And no 100% pension or exemption from any law that passes. In fact let them be required to be in social security or give us opt out.