National So ATF won't come knocking on our doors?

[Yarome]

No one got perturbed about states rights or separation of powers when SCOTUS decided Heller.

Just a wild guess... but maybe because SCOTUS has the legitimate authority to make such determinations??

I could be wrong, but I recall hearing that someplace or other....

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Congress and the Presidency have been sewn up in both the Trump and Bush Jr. eras and they didnt repeal ANYTHING. If your representatives wanted you to have a non-NFA SBR, they would have passed a law on your behalf.

And not just NFA / SBR's they didn't really do much of anything* except say how much money they needed us to donate to their campaigns so they could get reelected for the sole purpose of coming back to "fix" the things they actually could have fixed right then and there


*Other than adding judges

 

[Yarome]

If your representatives wanted you to have a non-NFA SBR, they would have passed a law on your behalf.


Ask yourself why that didn't happen.

Simple! That's not how lawmaking or freedoms work. Absent any prohibitive act of law, it is presumed "legal".

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Simple! That's not how lawmaking or freedoms work. Absent any prohibitive act of law, it is presumed "legal".

Except in the time period he specifically specified

both the Trump and Bush Jr. eras

There were laws that did qualify as "prohibitive acts of law" when it came to NFA / SBR issues and presumed "illegal"

 

[Flopsweat]

And not just NFA / SBR's they didn't really do much of anything* except say how much money they needed us to donate to their campaigns so they could get reelected for the sole purpose of coming back to "fix" the things they actually could have fixed right then and there


*Other than adding judges

Adding the judges was arguably the best possible course of action. I will agree that many "conservative" politicians are conservative only because that they couldn't win running as a Democrat in their jurisdiction. I think very few on either side are there to serve their constituents. That said, defending the party with the stated goal to take away your guns is perhaps not the most productive use of one's time.

 

[Yarome]

Except in the time period he specifically specified

There were laws that did qualify as "prohibitive acts of law" when it came to NFA / SBR issues and presumed "illegal"

Yeah... not really. The founding principles of lawmaking doesn't change with the administration. Those items that are expressly "prohibited" by act of law are "prohibited". There is no legal presumption that any item not expressly prohibited by the text of the law is "illegal". The exact opposite is true. It is presumed "legal".

There may be allowed some latitude in interpretation through chevron deference or other administrative authority, but there are limitations on that authority... as many gooberment alphabets are beginning to learn.

 

[American123]

In general, our Congress does not spell everything out in the verbiage of law. Government agencies and the courts do that. And that process has multiple kinds of oversight. But Congress hasn't seen fit to bother with the technology branch in a very long time because they usually dont see a point or are getting what they want out of it.

This fuming about the rogue ATF doesnt seem like a reaction to finding out how government works as much as a reaction to how our special interest is specifically being handled this week.


No one got perturbed about states rights or separation of powers when SCOTUS decided Heller.

People who can understand what the phrase, "shall not be infringed" means, generally won't complain when the courts reiterate something that was plainly written more than 200 years ago.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Adding the judges was arguably the best possible course of action.

But is it really an "either / or" situation?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Yeah... not really. The founding principles of lawmaking doesn't change with the administration. Those items that are expressly "prohibited" by act of law are "prohibited". There is no legal presumption that any item not expressly prohibited by the text of the law is "illegal". The exact opposite is true. It is presumed "legal".

There may be allowed some latitude in interpretation through chevron deference or other administrative authority, but there are limitations on that authority... as many gooberment alphabets are beginning to learn.

Yeah, sure, but please explain why we can't hold the administrations and elected officials responsible for not doing anything about removing the "prohibitive acts of law" that existed during the time frame specified

 

[Yarome]

Yeah, sure, but please explain why we can't hold the administrations and elected officials responsible for not doing anything about removing the "prohibitive acts of law" that existed during the time frame specified

I think we've delved way too deeply into the political rabbit hole as is... and surprised the mods haven't shut it down... so I'll leave that for a different venue to answer... if you want to pursue it.

 

[wired]

Yeah, sure, but please explain why we can't hold the administrations and elected officials responsible for not doing anything about removing the "prohibitive acts of law" that existed during the time frame specified

Of course you can do something. Voting. Yeah I know, nobody does it and theres other people doing it that screw up the program but thats what its for. Bar that you can impeach but they kinda have to do illegal stuff for that to happen and it hardly ever actually works.

 

[RX-79G]

Simple! That's not how lawmaking or freedoms work. Absent any prohibitive act of law, it is presumed "legal".

The NFA would be repealed by the passage of a law. No?

 

[CamoDeafie]

The NFA would be repealed by the passage of a law. No?

It could also be overturned and nullified in SCOTUS...

 

[wired]

The NFA would be repealed by the passage of a law. No?

Sure it could. It's a package of laws. One law would wipe it away. wont happen but it could

 

[Yarome]

The NFA would be repealed by the passage of a law. No?

Ok. I get it now. You're talking about how they didn't repeal the entire NFA... not about the topic of the thread and specific items they are trying to lump in under "chevron deference". My bad. It's difficult to follow the leaps in logic with all the random and unrelated mid discussion interjections.

Let's open the scope even further to make it an even more futile discussion on the actual topic. Why didn't they shut down the ATF when they had the chance? Right!?

 

[RX-79G]

It could also be overturned and nullified in SCOTUS...

Sure. But that doesn't have anything to do with elected officials or government agencies, so it's a little off topic.

 

[RX-79G]

Ok. I get it now. You're talking about how they didn't repeal the entire NFA... not about the topic of the thread and specific items they are trying to lump in under "chevron deference". My bad. It's difficult to follow the leaps in logic with all the random and unrelated mid discussion interjections.

Let's open the scope even further to make it an even more futile discussion on the actual topic. Why didn't they shut down the ATF when they had the chance? Right!?

No, they didn't need to repeal the NFA in its entirety, but if Jim Jordon is torqued up about pistol braces, he could have sponsored a bill to take SBRs out of the NFA, instead of investigating why the ATF is treating short barreled rifles like... short barreled rifles.

 

[CamoDeafie]

No, they didn't need to repeal the NFA in its entirety, but if Jim Jordon is torqued up about pistol braces, he could have sponsored a bill to take SBRs out of the NFA, instead of investigating why the ATF is treating short barreled rifles like... short barreled rifles.

Sens. Rick Scott, Roger Marshall and Colleagues Reintroduce SHORT Act to Roll Back ATF’s New Pistol Brace Rule

www.rickscott.senate.gov

Just Senate though but I believe that there are also House bills talking about removing SBRs from the NFA as well... I do know one was introduced in the 117th Congress session 2021-2022...

 

[wired]

Sens. Rick Scott, Roger Marshall and Colleagues Reintroduce SHORT Act to Roll Back ATF’s New Pistol Brace Rule

www.rickscott.senate.gov

Just Senate though but I believe that there are also House bills talking about removing SBRs from the NFA as well... I do know one was introduced in the 117th Congress session 2021-2022...

Even if something like that sailed through Congress, it wouldn't by a longshot, it would be DOA on Bidens desk. He is adamantly anti gun more than probably any President we've ever had short of maybe Johnson . Different times. The 68 GCA was oddly supported and would have gotten through without Johnsons arm twisting. Biden doesn't know how to twist arms, neither did Trump outside of some of his own party, but Biden's own party isn't going to cross him on this and even if they did he'd veto it in a New York second. This whole thing is because of Biden.

 

[RX-79G]

Even if something like that sailed through Congress, it wouldn't by a longshot, it would be DOA on Bidens desk. He is adamantly anti gun more than probably any President we've ever had short of maybe Johnson . Different times. The 68 GCA was oddly supported and would have gotten through without Johnsons arm twisting. Biden doesn't know how to twist arms, neither did Trump outside of some of his own party, but Biden's own party isn't going to cross him on this and even if they did he'd veto it in a New York second. This whole thing is because of Biden.

It wasn't really oddly supported - Republicans weren't conservatives at that time and guns weren't considered particularly conservative or Republican. Nixon was not pro gun.

A good question is why Republican's introduce pro gun legislation during periods when it can't pass and don't do it when they have the House, Senate and President.