Re: BATF Reclassifying Previously Legal Firearms

4
He looked apoplectic...

A lot more of this look is coming down the pipe as more wing-nuts realize they were sold out by the Trumpenfurer long ago.
"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of non-violence to cover impotence. There is hope for a violent man to become non-violent. There is no such hope for the impotent." -Gandhi

Re: BATF Reclassifying Previously Legal Firearms

5
First of all, pretty accurate video commentary.

Secondly, all of those idiots that rant about Obama being anti-gun don't understand that Obama lowered the bar on NFA weapons (NFA weapons used to require that the head LEO, usually the local Sheriff, sign off on the application and in many places only "friends" of the Sheriff got that sign off) and, in fact, said that he had no interest in restricting firearms.

I personally can't get real excited about the BATF changes. An unrifled barrel on an AR makes the weapon practically useless. Bump stocks are kinda dumb unless you want to spray the crowd, which is what a certain anti-Islamic activist evidently had in mind when he bought his.

Re: BATF Reclassifying Previously Legal Firearms

8
So...when our friends and members insist that "at least Trump's for the 2nd Amendment", show them this.

But he's wrong. Trump is not a gun-grabbing liberal New Yorker, he's a gun-grabbing racist fascist seeking to disarm Anti-Fa, Redneck Revolt, the SRA, and all the other liberal and anti-reactionary gun groups. He is a far bigger threat to universal gun rights than ANY Liberal, because he'll only take them from his "enemies".
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: BATF Reclassifying Previously Legal Firearms

10
Having watched the MAC vid, it's clear this guy realizes Trump let them down. But what he does NOT realize is that Trump will ALWAYS betray them and everyone else. Unlike every other man in the Oval Office, including Nixon (and possibly excluding Andrew Johnson), Trump has NOT grown into the job, because he does not ever change. Even George W. Bush, in his last 2 years FINALLY began to "get" the job.

MAC doesn't get that Trump will lie to get their votes, then betray them. He's done it with virtually every promise he's made--broken it. He says what he thinks will get him votes, and what he thinks will win the moment's argument, but there's nothing ever behind it except how can HE make money off it.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: BATF Reclassifying Previously Legal Firearms

11
lurker wrote: Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:18 am
YankeeTarheel wrote: Fri Dec 27, 2019 9:08 am bigger threat to universal gun rights than ANY Liberal, because he'll only take them from his "enemies".
fear not, eventually everyone will be his enemy. they tend to work that way. it's not obvious at first, but if you've seen it before and you're paying attention, you'll see, a system driven by hate always needs enemies.
But that's why he's buddying up to psychopathic killers like this SEAL, Gallagher, 7 of whose men testified against him and he calls them all "liars" and "cowards"--SEALs! He needs ethics-lacking psychos around him. I'm sure Gallagher would go and kill anyone Trump "suggested", to paraphrase "Will no one rid me of this troublesome House Speaker?" Remember, Betsy De Vos's brother is another military psycho, Erik Prince, as is Trump defender Tom Cotton.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Re: BATF Reclassifying Previously Legal Firearms

12
I agree, he's not partisan. Thanks Andy for posting the video. I like his firearms reviews too. ATF part of US DOJ and writes regulations (rule making authority) based on federal laws, the regulations give the details.

Recent SCOTUS case Kisor vs Wilkie
The Code of Federal Regulations now runs over 180,000 pages long, touching upon virtually all areas of American life. The rules on these pages, while often quite detailed, may often prompt further questions from the public. How do the rules apply to an emerging technology? How should a business comply with the rules in light of a new requirement from another agency? Do an agency’s rules allow untimely applications to be filed in extenuating circumstances? The Supreme Court recently issued a decision that may affect how such questions are resolved. While some have called the decision “one of the most important administrative law decisions in decades” that will “dramatically narrow” agency deference, this piece concludes that the effects are likely to be modest given the existing state of the law and the incentives facing agencies.

The public often asks federal agencies to give them guidance on the types of questions outlined above. Sometimes agencies do this by interpreting their rules (often called “regulations”). Many of these agency interpretations are routine and receive little attention. However, some are sufficiently controversial to prompt a legal challenge. When that happens, how much weight should courts give to the agency’s interpretation of its rule? The Supreme Court held in 1945 that courts should defer to the agency’s interpretation of its rule unless it is “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation,” a standard referred to today as Auer deference. This has generally been viewed as giving agencies a fair amount of latitude (or “deference”) to interpret their rules.

Critics of this deference standard[1] argue that it grants agencies too much power. They claim that such deference allows agencies to effectively change their rules without consulting the public and with little judicial oversight. Over time a campaign has mounted to abolish or at least severely limit such deference and require courts to engage in more searching review. If successful, courts would likely overturn agency interpretations of their rules more frequently, shifting some power from agencies to courts.

This deference debate came to a head this year when the Supreme Court decided Kisor v. Wilkie. The case arose when a Vietnam veteran (Kisor) applied for benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs for post-traumatic stress disorder. The Department interpreted its regulations as prohibiting retroactive benefits and the lower court deferred to that interpretation. The Supreme Court considered whether that lower court deference was appropriate.

The Court’s liberal wing provided four votes in favor of retaining but specifying the conditions under which agencies receive deference. The conservative wing cast four votes to eliminate the longstanding deference doctrine. Chief Justice John Roberts sat in the middle, joining the liberal block to avoid overturning precedent but underscoring a limited scope for judicial deference to agency rule interpretations. The upshot: a closely divided Court limited but did not abolish deference to agency rule interpretations. Specifically, the Court held that agencies ought to receive deference to their own rules only when the rules are legitimately ambiguous and the agency’s interpretation is reasonable, among other factors.
https://www.brookings.edu/research/the- ... it-matter/
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Re: BATF Reclassifying Previously Legal Firearms

13
The CFR is like a library under the Dewey Decimal system and is how Federal laws are implemented.

When I worked in data processing for clinical trials, data and patient records that were not on paper but electronic were covered by 21 CFR 11-- a fairly short but INCREDIBLY impactful reg. Having been trained in "houses" like the Consumer Price Index, I was far more familiar and receptive to all the levels of testing and validation of software handling and processing data and the software Life Cycle. But my colleagues who did not work in places where programming was recognized as only a minor element of the development process were uncomfortable with the all the pre- and post-programming activities that 21 CFR 11 required, and what an FDA audit could mean.
"Even if the bee could explain to the fly why pollen is better than shit, the fly could never understand."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], sikacz and 2 guests