Federal Agencies and Texas Right to Carry.

[old lady new shooter]

IME when lawyers talk about a regulation we mean a regulation supported by statutory authority and adopted through formal rulemaking. These may be challenged on various grounds, including that they are outside the scope of the authority delegated in the statute

Regulatory agencies also have policies, or issue guidance, or publish interpretive bulletins. These sorts of things help tell people how the agency is interpreting and applying the law. These may be challenged on various grounds, including that they don't properly apply applicable law.

Regulatory agencies basically have two types of functions: quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial. In their quasi-legislative role, they adopt regulations which have the force of law and have broad applicability. Agencies adopt regulations as I've described.

Regulatory agencies also perform quasi-judicial functions. These functions include such things as issuing licenses, authorizing or declining to authorize acts of entities licensed by them or subject to their jurisdiction, and adjudicating charges of misconduct by persons or entities subject their jurisdiction. Examples of quasi-judicial regulatory agency action include: a medical board revoking a physician's license for a breach of professional obligations; a department of insurance issuing a company a license to operate an HMO; a department of consumer affairs licensing real estate brokers fining a real estate broker for an unlawful failure to properly maintain a trust account; or the ATF rejecting an application for an FFL.

These are quasi-judicial because they involve determining the facts of a particular matter, identifying and interpreting the applicable law and making a decision by applying the law to the facts. In most cases, an adverse quasi-judicial act of a regulatory agency is subject to multiple levels of appeal. For example, the physician unhappy about losing his license to practice medicine usually first has a right to an administrative hearing conducted by the agency. If he's still unhappy, he can seek judicial review.

Regulations are adopted by regulatory agencies as part of their quasi-legislative function. Policies, guidance, or interpretive bulletins generally relate to a regulatory agency's quasi-judicial function.

I don't know if anything like this exists in any area of law other than tax, but in tax besides the two flavors of regulations there are also something called "Revenue Rulings", which are the IRS' answers to actual taxpayers who request guidance. They don't have the force of law for anyone except the taxpayer who applied for the ruling in question, but are a good way to see what the IRS thinks about something. Another quirk was that those nice publications you can get from the IRS for free did not have probative value, and relying on something IRS told you over the phone was not a valid reason for an error. (I'm putting these statements in the past tense because I haven't practiced in the area for almost 40 years now (!), so some of this may have changed.) It would be interesting to know if there are similar varieties/levels of guidance in other areas of law.

 

[Berger.Fan222]

The relevant authorities are pretty serious about enforcement of the carry rules in the Army COE parks.

I won't blame anyone for taking a "better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6" approach to the matter. However, I do encourage you to be very discrete and work to avoid confrontations that may reveal your carry status.

I tend to weigh whether carrying in each situation is more likely to get me into trouble or get me out of trouble. I've started to simply avoid COE parks that have become "criminal empowerment zones."

One great thing about the training that comes with so many self-defense courses is it has kept me in condition orange. And condition orange should help you spot trouble a ways off in most park situations. Once the creepy person factor exceeds a certain threshold, I just avoid the location. My experience in parks is that folks who do not fit into the normal, legitimate reasons for common park usage usually turn out to be up to something illegal if watched for a few minutes. They are usually at the park for privacy rather than to prey on others, but I go ahead and leave and give them their privacy.

 

[hso]

Got off topic pretty quick. Debate over what a regulation is or is not should continue in Legal.