User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:40:34 PM EDT
[#1]
If EPA can latch onto this, we're fucked (but I'm gunna get paid)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:43:57 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
orly? 9-0 bud Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House. orly? 9-0 bud Yes? You think that any of the Supremes are freedom leaning? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:46:21 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see you got your AZ medical card. Probably want to slow down a bit on the "prescription". Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House. I see you got your AZ medical card. Probably want to slow down a bit on the "prescription". The people who run the government are not the ones elected to government, it is the men and women who work in the offices of the FCC, FDA, etc. Their only goal is to increase power and to keep their power. Democrats give them more power, republicans restrict their power (In theory). They will work against R's and for D's. This is basic stuff that I am surprised so many here miss. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:48:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes? You think that any of the Supremes are freedom leaning? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House. orly? 9-0 bud Yes? You think that any of the Supremes are freedom leaning? Well, you could read Justice Thomas's concurrence in the Judgment (which means "I agree with the result; but not the reasons you used to justify that result") in the case. It would go a long ways towards answering that question and explaining how someone who has a very positive pro-freedom outlook might still agree with the decision in this particular case. But we all know that GD isn't the place for anything that can't be explained in one or two punchy catchphrases. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:50:33 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House. BS..... R voted for it |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:51:12 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, you could read Justice Thomas's concurrence in the Judgment (which means "I agree with the result; but not the reasons you used to justify that result") in the case. It would go a long ways towards answering that question and explaining how someone who has a very positive pro-freedom outlook might still agree with the decision in this particular case. But we all know that GD isn't the place for anything that can't be explained in one or two punchy catchphrases. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House. orly? 9-0 bud Yes? You think that any of the Supremes are freedom leaning? Well, you could read Justice Thomas's concurrence in the Judgment (which means "I agree with the result; but not the reasons you used to justify that result") in the case. It would go a long ways towards answering that question and explaining how someone who has a very positive pro-freedom outlook might still agree with the decision in this particular case. But we all know that GD isn't the place for anything that can't be explained in one or two punchy catchphrases. You got that right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:54:44 PM EDT
[#7]
Wow. We're really going down the shitter fast now.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 12:55:53 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey Chicken Littles! READ THIS: Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote.... Make sure you notice the differences between interpretive rulings and legislative rulings. One is advisory, the other has the force of law. The M855 ban will have the force of law and is therefore a legislative ruling. From the actual ruling... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey Chicken Littles! READ THIS: Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote.... Make sure you notice the differences between interpretive rulings and legislative rulings. One is advisory, the other has the force of law. The M855 ban will have the force of law and is therefore a legislative ruling. "When a federal administrative agency first issues a rule interpreting one of its regulations, it is generally not required to follow the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA or Act). See 5 U. S. C. §553(b)(A). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has nevertheless held, in a line of cases beginning with Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F. 3d 579 (1997), that an agency must use the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from one the agency has previously adopted. The question in these cases is whether the rule announced in Paralyzed Veterans is consistent with the APA. We hold that it is not." From the actual ruling... The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes the procedures federal administrative agencies use for “rule making,” defined as the process of “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” 5 U. S. C. §551(5). The APA distinguishes between two types of rules: So-called “legislative rules” are issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, see §§553(b), (c), and have the “force and effect of law,” Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 302–303. “Interpretive rules,” by contrast, are “issued . . . to advise the public of the agency’s construction of the statutes and rules which it administers,” Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U. S. 87, 99, do not require notice-and comment rulemaking, and “do not have the force and effect of law,” ibid. So easy to dance around it's not even funny. "Deviates significantly" is in the eye of the jackboots. With the M855 decision they could easily argue that the ammo has actually been AP forever, they just had an exemption for it....so classifying it as AP now isn't a "significant" change. Bingo bango bongo, no comments. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 1:09:07 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House. an R actually has to get into the White House first. Then they will have a hell of a mess to clean up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 3:00:11 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House. Hahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 3:04:43 PM EDT
[#11]
Wow... it's hard to believe that SCOTUS justices lack basic reading ability.
wow |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 3:05:22 PM EDT
[#12]
So basically the 80,000 comments on m855 is the last time ATF will ever hear from us, period.
That's some heavy bs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 3:06:17 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just another brick in the wall (of tyranny). This government is slowly but surely no longer "of the people, by the people, [or] for the people." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 3:12:10 PM EDT
[#14]
Thomas Jefferson was right.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 3:13:29 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So basically the 80,000 comments on m855 is the last time ATF will ever hear from us, period. That's some heavy bs. But it doesn't have the force and effect of law! You're good! Ignorance of the changing interpretations of the law is an excuse, right? Until the judge sides with the ATF because the ATF's interpretation is "reasonable." 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 3:21:10 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And it appears they don't even have to notify the public when they make that change. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So the "Agencies" now have unfettered ability to change, interpret and administer rulings. Welcome to thine kingdom ye serfs. And it appears they don't even have to notify the public when they make that change. Bureaucratic shades of "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" and "Brazil" rolled into one. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 3:25:55 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey Chicken Littles! READ THIS: Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote.... Make sure you notice the differences between interpretive rulings and legislative rulings. One is advisory, the other has the force of law. The M855 ban will have the force of law and is therefore a legislative ruling. From the actual ruling... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hey Chicken Littles! READ THIS: Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote.... Make sure you notice the differences between interpretive rulings and legislative rulings. One is advisory, the other has the force of law. The M855 ban will have the force of law and is therefore a legislative ruling. "When a federal administrative agency first issues a rule interpreting one of its regulations, it is generally not required to follow the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA or Act). See 5 U. S. C. §553(b)(A). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has nevertheless held, in a line of cases beginning with Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F. 3d 579 (1997), that an agency must use the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from one the agency has previously adopted. The question in these cases is whether the rule announced in Paralyzed Veterans is consistent with the APA. We hold that it is not." From the actual ruling... The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes the procedures federal administrative agencies use for “rule making,” defined as the process of “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” 5 U. S. C. §551(5). The APA distinguishes between two types of rules: So-called “legislative rules” are issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, see §§553(b), (c), and have the “force and effect of law,” Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 302–303. “Interpretive rules,” by contrast, are “issued . . . to advise the public of the agency’s construction of the statutes and rules which it administers,” Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U. S. 87, 99, do not require notice-and comment rulemaking, and “do not have the force and effect of law,” ibid. Whats that mean in laymans terms? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 3:44:27 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Whats that mean in laymans terms? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hey Chicken Littles! READ THIS: Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote.... Make sure you notice the differences between interpretive rulings and legislative rulings. One is advisory, the other has the force of law. The M855 ban will have the force of law and is therefore a legislative ruling. "When a federal administrative agency first issues a rule interpreting one of its regulations, it is generally not required to follow the notice-and-comment rulemaking procedures of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA or Act). See 5 U. S. C. §553(b)(A). The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has nevertheless held, in a line of cases beginning with Paralyzed Veterans of Am. v. D. C. Arena L. P., 117 F. 3d 579 (1997), that an agency must use the APA’s notice-and-comment procedures when it wishes to issue a new interpretation of a regulation that deviates significantly from one the agency has previously adopted. The question in these cases is whether the rule announced in Paralyzed Veterans is consistent with the APA. We hold that it is not." From the actual ruling... The Administrative Procedure Act (APA) establishes the procedures federal administrative agencies use for “rule making,” defined as the process of “formulating, amending, or repealing a rule.” 5 U. S. C. §551(5). The APA distinguishes between two types of rules: So-called “legislative rules” are issued through notice-and-comment rulemaking, see §§553(b), (c), and have the “force and effect of law,” Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281, 302–303. “Interpretive rules,” by contrast, are “issued . . . to advise the public of the agency’s construction of the statutes and rules which it administers,” Shalala v. Guernsey Memorial Hospital, 514 U. S. 87, 99, do not require notice-and comment rulemaking, and “do not have the force and effect of law,” ibid. Whats that mean in laymans terms? That "interpretive rules" are not law, but you still get raped when you go to court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 3:47:55 PM EDT
[#19]
So much for participatory democracy
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 4:06:06 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Just another brick in the wall (of tyranny). This government is slowly but surely no longer "of the people, by the people, [or] for the people." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 4:07:57 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted:
Hope I'm misreading this. . . "The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that federal agencies do not have to follow procedures for notifying the public and collecting comment when changing the interpretations of rules, effectively removing steps from the process that can take months and sometimes years to complete." http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/235054-supreme-court-sides-with-administration-in-rulemaking-challenge Interpretive rules did not have the force and effect of law. So this is not the same as legislative rules, which require a comment period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 4:08:08 PM EDT
[#22]
Is there a specific law from congress stating an agency can not change internal rules? As long as congress and/or judge doesn't slap their dick for interpreting the law wrong?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 4:25:13 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interpretive rules did not have the force and effect of law. So this is not the same as legislative rules, which require a comment period. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Hope I'm misreading this. . . "The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that federal agencies do not have to follow procedures for notifying the public and collecting comment when changing the interpretations of rules, effectively removing steps from the process that can take months and sometimes years to complete." http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/235054-supreme-court-sides-with-administration-in-rulemaking-challenge Interpretive rules did not have the force and effect of law. So this is not the same as legislative rules, which require a comment period. These days, it's difficult to know the difference between tin foil and prudent skepticism. The logical part of my brain is saying, "Well, that's a relief and not nearly as bad as I thought." The cynical, lizard part of it is saying, "That's nice. They just tried to ban lead-core rifle ammo as steel-cored pistol ammo and half-won because it still only has an 'exemption' rather than being off the LEOPA list entirely." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 4:27:38 PM EDT
[#24]
Thomas always pens a good opinion.
A shame, though, that the media awards more points for quippy verbal comments from the bench. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 4:29:18 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.  At the very least, they'll put some conservative judges in there. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 4:34:08 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
But it doesn't have the force and effect of law! You're good! Ignorance of the changing interpretations of the law is an excuse, right? Until the judge sides with the ATF because the ATF's interpretation is "reasonable." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So basically the 80,000 comments on m855 is the last time ATF will ever hear from us, period. That's some heavy bs. But it doesn't have the force and effect of law! You're good! Ignorance of the changing interpretations of the law is an excuse, right? Until the judge sides with the ATF because the ATF's interpretation is "reasonable." 
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1726789_ATF_suspending_any_action_on_banning_M855____for_now___For_reals_this_time__.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 4:38:03 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 4:45:12 PM EDT
[#28]
Nothing will change until someone starts systematically taking out elected officials.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 4:45:43 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House. 
Why do people still believe that these people actually oppose each other |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 4:54:11 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Just another brick in the wall (of tyranny). This government is slowly but surely no longer "of the people, by the people, [or] for the people." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 5:10:59 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So basically the 80,000 comments on m855 is the last time ATF will ever hear from us, period. That's some heavy bs. But it doesn't have the force and effect of law! You're good! Ignorance of the changing interpretations of the law is an excuse, right? Until the judge sides with the ATF because the ATF's interpretation is "reasonable."
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1726789_ATF_suspending_any_action_on_banning_M855____for_now___For_reals_this_time__.html I'm not sure what your point is. Shoestring machinegun anybody? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 5:30:17 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
At the very least, they'll put some conservative judges in there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.
At the very least, they'll put some conservative judges in there. Come on, I expect better from *you*, read the entire thread and my justification of same. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 5:33:34 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why do people still believe that these people actually oppose each other Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.
Why do people still believe that these people actually oppose each other Sigh, reading sucks here. D's expand government historically, R's contract it, supposedly. And that is how government workers vote, at least in DC. Those same government workers instead of making things smooth sailing for D's, will provide roadblocks to R's, not allowing them to pass much stupid shit. Government is not run by politicians, it is run by government bureaucrats who are only looking to expand their power and to maintain their power. They do this by helping those politicians who expand and/or maintain agency power. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 5:55:14 PM EDT
[#34]
I can tell who didn't read the ruling, or even the comments on this thread. This isn't a big deal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 5:57:53 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I can tell who didn't read the ruling, or even the comments on this thread. This isn't a big deal. It's a very big deal because courts defer to agency interpretations. The Court misread the statute too. Did you read any of the 3 concurrences? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 6:15:13 PM EDT
[#36]
So what exactly the fuck does this ruling mean?!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 6:28:04 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House. Can you think of an example of a time when a politician or an elected official has surrendered power back to the people? Why would they? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 6:28:51 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House. Is it possible that Hank was being sarcastic and we missed it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/10/2015 9:48:48 PM EDT
[#39]
So is this a non-issue or the biggest GD over reaction to date?
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
