dogtown tom
Member
Let me help YOU out.......its not in the US Code. Its in the Code of Federal regulations
Title 27 Part 478.11
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=70394195a3edf623eba7ce77a1bddff1&node=27:3.0.1.2.3&rgn=div5#se27.3.478_111
No pistols/No revolvers =?
- Thread starter guyfromohio
- Start date
- Status
Title 27 Part 478.11
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=70394195a3edf623eba7ce77a1bddff1&node=27:3.0.1.2.3&rgn=div5#se27.3.478_111
dogtown tom
Member
What do you mean "You're not helping me out..."?
I handed it to you on a platter......click on the link and scroll down to the definition of "pistol". The CFR is administrative law, ie the rulemaking required under the enabling legislation.
Nope, you drew the distinction quite nicely with the term "enabling legislation." Laws come from the legislature, and that is the US Code. The CFR is not legislation. Try rolling into a US District court and calling the CFR "federal law." It's not, it's merely regulations developed to help implement the "the law."
Nowhere in "federal law" (which is the US Code) will you find a definition of a pistol, nor a definition that makes a derringer a pistol. They are both defined by "federal law" (18USC921) merely as "handguns."
Nowhere in "federal law" (which is the US Code) will you find a definition of a pistol, nor a definition that makes a derringer a pistol. They are both defined by "federal law" (18USC921) merely as "handguns."
dogtown tom
Member
I didn't draw any distinction. ATF regulations carry the weight of law, just as do USPS regulations do.
Uh.......Federal regulations are administrative law..............and must be followed. (ask Mr Abramski how administrative law works.
)No kidding?
As I posted, the definition is contained in the CFR.
Rather than bore you with the legalese, I'll point you to the easy to understand Wikipedia explanation of the US Code:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Code
Please note
So, yeah.......the CFR IS Federal law.
Abramski was convicted of violating federal law that is actually in the US Code. Neither he, nor you, can be convicted of violating the CFR. He violated 18USC924(a)(1)(A), and 18USC922(a)(6). He was not convicted of violating any CFR, because the CFRs are not "laws."
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/12-1493/
Further, please don't cite Wikipedia if you want to be taken seriously on any subject, but particularly on matters of the law.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/573/12-1493/
Further, please don't cite Wikipedia if you want to be taken seriously on any subject, but particularly on matters of the law.
Last edited:
dogtown tom
Member
The Form 4473 he signed, as well as the certifying statement that he was the actual transferee/buyer......is an ATF regulation.
If you read even the remotest shred of the Abramski case you would know how much of his case fell on administrative law.
Then step up to the plate and post a source that supports YOUR argument AND disproves Wikipedia.
I linked to Wikipedia in an effort to provide you with an easy to understand explanation. Apparently that doesn't work.........so here's another:http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/laws/administrative-procedure/
I don't have to disprove anything. Laws are passed by the legislature, and become part of the US Code. Abramski was charged with, and convicted of violating two sections of the US Code, ie "federal law." He was not charged with, nor convicted of, violating any portion of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
I've read Abramski, and unlike you, I know Abramski was charged with, and convicted of, violating two sections of the US Code, NOT the Code of Federal Regulations. Abramski was relevant in federal cases in which the task force I'm on investigated, before it was decided, and I was following it closely as it went from the 4th Circuit to the Supreme Court of the United States.
CFRs are not law, they are exactly what the name states, regulations.
I'll also note that the "federal law" you cited, Title 5, Section 551 through 559, does not state that regulations are "law."
However, here is the reality of CFRs since you want "proof":
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/related.php
Notice the fine folks at Cornell Law School distinguish between "Regulations" and "Statutes."
Black's Law Dictionary defines "statutes" as "a law passed by a legislative body." Ergo, the US Code is "federal law" as it's created by Congress, the legislative body for the US. Regulations are not law, as they are not created by Congress.
I've read Abramski, and unlike you, I know Abramski was charged with, and convicted of, violating two sections of the US Code, NOT the Code of Federal Regulations. Abramski was relevant in federal cases in which the task force I'm on investigated, before it was decided, and I was following it closely as it went from the 4th Circuit to the Supreme Court of the United States.
CFRs are not law, they are exactly what the name states, regulations.
I'll also note that the "federal law" you cited, Title 5, Section 551 through 559, does not state that regulations are "law."
However, here is the reality of CFRs since you want "proof":
https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/related.php
Notice the fine folks at Cornell Law School distinguish between "Regulations" and "Statutes."
Black's Law Dictionary defines "statutes" as "a law passed by a legislative body." Ergo, the US Code is "federal law" as it's created by Congress, the legislative body for the US. Regulations are not law, as they are not created by Congress.
Last edited:
dogtown tom
Member
Well, yes you do. You belittle my reference to a Wikipedia explanation, yet you offer no better source.
You challenged my quote from the Wki artice, now prove it wrong. If you can't, we can assume that your knowledge is no better than Wikipedia.
us.gov disagrees: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/Utilities/faq.jsp
So...........when the ATF regulation defines a revolver or pistol.......it has the force and effect of law.
Again, you continue to ignore the concept of administrative law. Walk into a Federal court and claim you can ignore ATF regulations "because they aren't law" would be foolish.
You are stuck on the idea that the US Code is the only part of "Federal law"......that is plainly incorrect.
Offered no better explanation? I provided citations from Cornell Law School and Black's Law Dictionary.
As for your quote from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President: Having the "force and effect" of law, is much different than actually being law. Further, that info comes from the Executive Branch (which is not the entire "us.gov") who creates the regulations, and has a vested interest (and obvious bias) in pushing the idea that regulations are the final say. However, anyone that's read the Constitution, and the Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison, and actually understands them, knows that's not reality.
However, as the info from Cornell Law School pointed out "courts will, upon occasion, hold that regulations which appear in the Code of Federal Regulations are invalid because they conflict with a Federal statute." (again reference the definition of "statute" from Black's Law Dictionary) Meaning the actual law (the US Code) is controlling, not the regulations which, have "general applicability and legal effect," but are NOT law.
Finally, as to what happens in federal court, I actually spend several days a month, often several days a week in US District Court, and have done so for over a decade. I know what carries weight there, and a District Court Judge (and the Circuit Court Judges and Supreme Court Justices above them) might consider the "general applicability and legal effect," but will ultimately rule based on the law, as in the US Code and Constitution of the United States. Those judges follow the law, not regulations. Unlike you, I see it in action on a regular basis.
As for your quote from the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President: Having the "force and effect" of law, is much different than actually being law. Further, that info comes from the Executive Branch (which is not the entire "us.gov") who creates the regulations, and has a vested interest (and obvious bias) in pushing the idea that regulations are the final say. However, anyone that's read the Constitution, and the Supreme Court ruling in Marbury v. Madison, and actually understands them, knows that's not reality.
However, as the info from Cornell Law School pointed out "courts will, upon occasion, hold that regulations which appear in the Code of Federal Regulations are invalid because they conflict with a Federal statute." (again reference the definition of "statute" from Black's Law Dictionary) Meaning the actual law (the US Code) is controlling, not the regulations which, have "general applicability and legal effect," but are NOT law.
Finally, as to what happens in federal court, I actually spend several days a month, often several days a week in US District Court, and have done so for over a decade. I know what carries weight there, and a District Court Judge (and the Circuit Court Judges and Supreme Court Justices above them) might consider the "general applicability and legal effect," but will ultimately rule based on the law, as in the US Code and Constitution of the United States. Those judges follow the law, not regulations. Unlike you, I see it in action on a regular basis.
It's not semantics, it's the legal realities of what is "law" from the Legislature, and what is "regulations" used to implement the law from the Executive.
The CFR are created by the Executive Branch to carry out the laws enacted by Congress. However, as I've pointed out, by quoting the fine folks at Cornell Law School, "courts will, upon occasion, hold that regulations which appear in the Code of Federal Regulations are invalid because they conflict with a Federal statute." Those statutes, which in the federal system are the US Code, are "law," the regulations are not, so when they are in conflict the "law," ie the US Code, is controlling.
So, for you to be "handcuffed and arrested," and more importantly, "convicted" the government must, for an arrest, show probable cause that you violated a portion of the US Code (federal law), and, for a conviction, prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that you violated a portion of the US Code. Arrest warrants, and judgments of conviction show a violation of the US Code, not the CFR. Why? To arrest, prosecute and convict someone the government must prove they violated "federal law," which is the US Code, not a regulation.
dogtown tom
Member
Neither disproves the Wikipedia quote does it?
Really?
That info comes from the Executive Branch?
No kidding?Well....duh. I know where it comes from.....I'm the one that linked to it.
As far as a "vested interest and obvious bias"............tell us where that quote is wrong. And BTW, nothing in on that page says anything at all about :the idea that regulations are the final say". I never said that, none of the links say that, no one has suggested that but you. Don't obfuscate the issue with paranoia.
Well, courts have also ruled that portions of the US Code are invalid..........so what's your point?
No one has claimed that the US Code does not control the CFR, on the contrary the CFR is guided by the US Code. The CFR would not exist without the US Code. That doesn't make it any less authoritative. The US Code has numerous mentions of revolver and pistol, yet it relies on administrative law, (the Code of Federal Regulations) to go into much greater detail and actually define what is or is not a pistol. The Form 4473 is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the US Code.........yet it is required under federal law for transactions between dealer and customer.
Are you an attorney?
I'm not, that's why it is shocking to me that you don't recognize a shred of what administrative law is.
No kidding? We know that.
The US Code guides the CFR............the freaking CFR carries the force and effect of............THE LAW.
Unlike you, I deal with ATF regulations every day. I fully understand that those regulations carry the full effect and force of the law as outlined in the US Code.
One is intertwined with the other..........you are arguing semantics.
Steve CT
Member
So what is the message in this sign at our local City Hall entrance:
Although I don't believe my pistol or knife are "dangerous" I err on the side of common sense when confronted with this sign.
I do see building contractors going to the Building Inspectors office with tool belts bearing hammers, screwdrivers, drywall knives, etc.
Although I don't believe my pistol or knife are "dangerous" I err on the side of common sense when confronted with this sign.
I do see building contractors going to the Building Inspectors office with tool belts bearing hammers, screwdrivers, drywall knives, etc.
dakota1911
Member
That one instance of no pisols and then no revolvers sort of cracks me up. I guess the guy carrying the AR would have thought, "Well this is O.K."
OP
OP
guyfromohio
Member
Exactly. Sure, I know the intent and have no intention of being stupid, but what a goofy way to do it.....
- Status
Similar threads
