Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 3/10/2015 11:44:16 AM EDT
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."

Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:46:20 AM EDT
Incrementally, "Olympus is falling".
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:49:18 AM EDT
“Because an agency is not required to use notice-and-comment procedures to issue an initial interpretive rule, it is also not required to use those procedures when it amends or repeals that interpretive rule,” Sotomayor wrote
View Quote
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:50:17 AM EDT
........I'm actually shocked. Literally shocked at a 9-0 decision for this. US vs Abramski was 5-4 at least showing some of the judges had some sense but this is 9-0?
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:50:56 AM EDT
Fuck those dudes.

Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:51:12 AM EDT
One step closer to this:



In 1933 the GESTAPO was born.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:51:18 AM EDT
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."
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:52:21 AM EDT
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:52:43 AM EDT
So the "Agencies" now have unfettered ability to change, interpret and administer rulings.




Welcome to thine kingdom ye serfs.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:54:13 AM EDT
Like the shitbags going to prison, lifetime term should mean 15 years and you are out.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:54:16 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sedona:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.
View Quote

Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:54:16 AM EDT
There has to be more to this.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:54:33 AM EDT
WE ARE SO FUCKED AS A NATION, now you will not know you have violated a new BATFE REG until they kick your Fucking door down...
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:54:44 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By hockeysew:
So the "Agencies" now have unfettered ability to change, interpret and administer rulings.

Welcome to thine kingdom ye serfs.
View Quote

And it appears they don't even have to notify the public when they make that change.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:55:40 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jack_T:

And it appears they don't even have to notify the public when they make that change.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jack_T:
Originally Posted By hockeysew:
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.

Ignorance is no excuse!
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:55:46 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sedona:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.
View Quote


Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:56:03 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2015 12:06:10 PM EDT by disco_jon75]
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."
View Quote


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.
View Quote
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:56:46 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Beach:
WE ARE SO FUCKED AS A NATION, now you will not know you have violated a new BATFE REG until they kick your Fucking door down...
View Quote


Won't matter anyhow since most of us receive our information via internet these days and they'll soon be monitoring that as well. Tin foil hat...ON.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:57:57 AM EDT
Things are really getting pushed to far.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:58:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2015 11:58:39 AM EDT by MK4Mod0]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sedona:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.
View Quote
Once "Amnesty" is forced down our throats..you won't see an "R" in the White House again!!................look how well they stacked the deck in DC and other progressive areas, R's don't stand a chance!
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 11:59:12 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By 1fromtx:
Things are really getting pushed to far.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
View Quote


We actually going to push back or continue being sheep and taking it? I'm guessing the latter.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:00:32 PM EDT
Great....
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:01:21 PM EDT
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0
View Quote



Someone was holding something to their heads, I wonder what that was ?
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:03:28 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jagrmaister:


We actually going to push back or continue being sheep and taking it? I'm guessing the latter.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jagrmaister:
Originally Posted By 1fromtx:
Things are really getting pushed to far.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile


We actually going to push back or continue being sheep and taking it? I'm guessing the latter.


There is no means of pushback. This is a rollercoaster.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:03:50 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By durabo:


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By durabo:
Originally Posted By Sedona:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.




You don't think the entrenched bureaucrats will want a mechanism to slow down anything the R's want accomplish?
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:04:18 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:04:26 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jack_T:

And it appears they don't even have to notify the public when they make that change.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jack_T:
Originally Posted By hockeysew:
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.



There is no need to inform slaves of new rules. Shut the fuck up
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:04:45 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By disco_jon75:
Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote....



From the actual ruling...

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By disco_jon75:
Looks like the opposite of what SCOTUSBlog wrote....

"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.


I think SCOTUSblog is smarter about these things than The Hill
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:04:58 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MK4Mod0:
Once "Amnesty" is forced down our throats..you won't see an "R" in the White House again!!................look how well they stacked the deck in DC and other progressive areas, R's don't stand a chance!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MK4Mod0:
Originally Posted By Sedona:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.
Once "Amnesty" is forced down our throats..you won't see an "R" in the White House again!!................look how well they stacked the deck in DC and other progressive areas, R's don't stand a chance!


Depends on what flavor of R they decide to try to run, a Chris Christie type might be attractive to the FSA crowd.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:05:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/10/2015 12:12:02 PM EDT by Atomic_Ferret]
Wow, what an utterly shocking ruling.

The democratic process has been dead for a long time, this pretty much confirms it.

What bills other then Obamacare have been signed into law versus how much "change" Obama has effected via regulatory instead of legislative methods?

From the sounds of it, the ATF could use something like this to instantly run roughshod over the almost the entirety of the second amendment.
Or the EPA could essentially destroy entire industries.

No time for a legislative response against regulatory changes, just "we want it this way" and it is done. Sounds like this means there would be no timeframe to become compliant without penalty either.
Those friday afternoon document dumps from the WH could prove to be a whole lot more interesting.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:06:34 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sedona:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.
View Quote


I wouldn't hold your breath.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:07:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:08:41 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:10:37 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sedona:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.
View Quote


orly?

9-0 bud
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:10:49 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By disco_jon75:
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...

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By disco_jon75:
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.
Yeah, but, Nazi pictures and internet patriot cliches!
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:12:20 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cedjunior:
Yeah, but, Nazi pictures and internet patriot cliches!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By cedjunior:
Originally Posted By disco_jon75:
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.
Yeah, but, Nazi pictures and internet patriot cliches!



Indeed
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:14:40 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sedona:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.
View Quote


Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:16:31 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By disco_jon75:
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...

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By disco_jon75:
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.

Thank you. . .I think.

Now it's just a matter of blurring the line between legislative and interpretive ;-)
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:18:48 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MK4Mod0:
Once "Amnesty" is forced down our throats..you won't see an "R" in the White House again!!................look how well they stacked the deck in DC and other progressive areas, R's don't stand a chance!
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MK4Mod0:
Originally Posted By Sedona:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.
Once "Amnesty" is forced down our throats..you won't see an "R" in the White House again!!................look how well they stacked the deck in DC and other progressive areas, R's don't stand a chance!


If an R does not win in 2016 they liberal loons will get control of the SCOTUS and on top of amnesty thing it is truly game over.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:20:51 PM EDT


GD never disappoints.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:22:26 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HenryReardon:
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."
View Quote

QFT
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:24:31 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sedona:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.
View Quote


I see you got your AZ medical card. Probably want to slow down a bit on the "prescription".

Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:27:20 PM EDT
So how does this apply to something like 41p?
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:29:02 PM EDT
And the good men still do nothing.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:29:47 PM EDT
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:30:43 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Sedona:
This might change drastically, once an R is occupyign the White House.
View Quote

Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:31:02 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By strider98:
So how does this apply to something like 41p?
View Quote


Oh lawd
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:31:16 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:
http://www.ar15.com/media/viewFile.html?i=51926
View Quote


Yup. This and the assault gun thread are proof positive.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:31:23 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Saladman:
........I'm actually shocked. Literally shocked at a 9-0 decision for this. US vs Abramski was 5-4 at least showing some of the judges had some sense but this is 9-0?
View Quote
It is almost certainly a discretionary procedure of the agency.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:31:43 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Beach:
WE ARE SO FUCKED AS A NATION, now you will not know you have violated a new BATFE REG until they kick your Fucking door down...
View Quote


They better have some good armor.
Link Posted: 3/10/2015 12:33:55 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jack_T:

And it appears they don't even have to notify the public when they make that change.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jack_T:
Originally Posted By hockeysew:
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.



So.....how are we supposed to know what I legal or not, after said rule change?
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top