Who Oversees the BATFE?

Status
Not open for further replies.
barnbwt

barnbwt

member
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
7,340
We've seen it before, and we see it on display once more today; the Bureau unilaterally deciding they have the authority to regulate something they admitted they didn't the day before. The ostensible reason the BATFE has this power of decision is that congress delegated this authority to them (the law they charged the Bureau is so vague and poorly written, that assumptions and interpretations must be made if they are to enforce anything and keep their jobs)

It stands to reason that any overreaches by the Bureau should then answer to the congress from which their power arises (their enforcement powers arise from the Executive, and I don't think their authority to arrest people is at issue, so much as their interpretation of the congressional mandate). Congress critters, busy and short of attention span as they are, have likely delegated their common oversight authority for the Bureau further to a subcommittee, which I would think is where we should start hammering for effect.

Does anyone know which subcommittee, and more importantly, which reps and senators, are directly responsible for ensuring the Bureau is held accountable for this exact breach of trust? If it's a bunch of anti's, I know there's not much we can do aside from supporting court battles (hopefully SIG will once again go to bat for us where the NRA and pro-gun party routinely demure). But we write our reps when bad laws are proposed, and find the technique effective, so why not see if the same is true when bad regulations are 'magicked' out of foggy legal gymnastics? It's gotta be more productive than complaining to the BATFE director or the president...:rolleyes:

More than anything, I think it would be interesting to learn from correspondence, whether or not the overseeing legislators have the slightest idea what is going on over at the Bureau. I will try my best in the next day or so, but I think a brief letter explaining the state of things (the NFA, the BATFE-FTB, and the SIG brace) and the consequences of this latest ruling, will be at best convincing and at worst revealing. We'd at least know if congress is even capable of resolving this dispute and others like it for us, or if the courts truly are our only vehicle for change.

TCB
 
The problem is...what can really be done? If SIG DOES try to litigate, what are they going to argue? The ATF didn't say the brace is illegal, just using it as a stock.

SIG claims the product is meant as an arm brace. ATF says it's legal when used as an arm brace. What grounds would SIG sue on? That people can't use their "arm brace" as a stock?

Look, at the end of the day, I'd love to see the NFA repealed. But, honestly? As far as I can see the ATF has two real choices concerning the braces while still enforcing the NFA.

1) You can use it as intended, but if you use it as a buttstock with some velcro straps hanging underneath, you've redesigned it into a buttstock, and the pistol it's on is an SBR.

2) They're outright not legal as they're too similar to a stock, and no one can have them.

If they just don't do anything and it gets more and more popular, and more varieties hit the marked, well, eventually you'll just see "Braces" that look like all sorts of varieties of stocks with velcro hanging underneath and that can just barely be strapped to a forearm. But they'll still be "braces" <wink wink, nudge nudge> right?
 
Because the ATFs reasoning behind any decision but calling the brace a stock and regulating accordingly is extremely bad and dangerous precedent (everything from Weaver grips to rifled shotgun slug barrels, to PGO shotguns, to rat shot pistol rounds, to long range sillouette pistols could be reclassified as restricted at the ATFs future discretion, if the mere way something is used defines its NFA status)

It would appear the relevant committees are the house/senate oversight committees. What that means, is that the ATF is probably operating without real oversight (Orwellian, I know, but this is the government, after all). With bigger stuff like NSA and IRS abuses distracting them, the committee likely dedicates little time to such a small group who's overreach a number of congressmen likely agree with, and who's impact is only felt by a small number of unsympathetic gun bullies. All I know, is the BATFE didn't appear on the committee lists of oversights, which makes me think the Bureau is invisible at the federal level until they royally screw up and embarass someone (F&F)

Relevant subcommittees (as far as I can tell, the ATF has multiple bosses which makes oversight even harder) appear to be Government Operations and the Interior Subcommittee. I'll try my hand at an exploratory letter on the subject to find where our reps stand, and put it here for review before submission for critique (since apparently identifying and contacting our relevant reps isn't Activism)

TCB
 
BATFE is overseen primarily by the head of their Department (that would be the US Attorney General) who is overseen by the Chief of the Executive branch of government.

They are not supposed to be directly "accountable" (influenced by) "the People" as part of our three-branch system of government.

OUR lever against their decisions and practices is two-fold: a) fight a decision in the Courts if the decision or action itself appears to be faulty in light of the law and legal precedent, or b) get our legislators to change THE LAW they are supposed to enforce so that it can't be enforced that way.

Unfortunately, when viewed in light of what the NFA actually says, this SIG brace situation falls pretty clearly on the side of the BATFE's current interpretation. Fighting through the Court and proving that they're interpreting the law incorrectly seems like it wouldn't even get off the ground. (Through the first level of courts and appeals.)

(Similarly, going to the Legislative branch Committee which might have a level of oversight on them is going nowhere. What are we going to say? We're mad that they made a BAD declaration and then reversed it? What are we punishing them for? Correcting their policy to come more in line with the text of the law?)

So we're left with the Legislative branch. Call your congressman and try to get him/her to author or sponsor a bill to repeal the part of the NFA that makes this decision possible.

Remember, that's the real answer that's happened before. FOPA '86 was just such an instance where Congress passed some very good laws that bound the BATFE to behave in a much more reasonable way. Unfortunately it had a pretty awful "poison pill" amendment in it, too, but the real value of FOPA can't be denied.
 
Yes, all that stuff COULD theoretically be interpreted differently by the ATF...

But they've shown no reason to. In the past the ATF HAS lost cases related to over judicious interpretation (Thompson Contender?) And didn't they just recently declare that you no longer have created an SBR if you go from Pistol to Rifle and back to Pistol?

The brace is a stock if it's used as a stock. It is not essential to the function of an AR pistol, it adds a convenient way to balance it, etc. However...they probably COULD have done that in a way that looks less like a stock and wasn't able to function as a stock. You find a legitimately bad ruling, take it to the courts, fight for it, protest it.

But you're not going to get ANY sympathy from outside fellow gun owners at all for your case on the SIG brace. And if you honestly think that congress or the courts are going to side with you on something that looks like a stock being used as a stock on a pistol that if it was just CALLED a stock would turn that pistol into an SBR right away...you're really just fooling yourself. I'd say just be happy they didn't outright say the things WE'RE stocks that had a creative description attached to them, use them the way they were intended...and if you want to do anything, try to fight for the repeal of the SBR/SBS clauses of the NFA as a start.
 
barnbwt We've seen it before, and we see it on display once more today; the Bureau unilaterally deciding they have the authority to regulate something they admitted they didn't the day before.
Click to expand...
I don't see any evidence to support that idea.


The ostensible reason the BATFE has this power of decision is that congress delegated this authority to them (the law they charged the Bureau is so vague and poorly written, that assumptions and interpretations must be made if they are to enforce anything and keep their jobs)
Click to expand...
EVERY regulatory agency in our government has to promulgate and enforce poorly written, arcane or outdated laws...its not just ATF.



It stands to reason that any overreaches by the Bureau should then answer to the congress from which their power arises (their enforcement powers arise from the Executive, and I don't think their authority to arrest people is at issue, so much as their interpretation of the congressional mandate). Congress critters, busy and short of attention span as they are, have likely delegated their common oversight authority for the Bureau further to a subcommittee, which I would think is where we should start hammering for effect.
Click to expand...
No argument there.



Does anyone know which subcommittee, and more importantly, which reps and senators, are directly responsible for ensuring the Bureau is held accountable for this exact breach of trust?
Click to expand...
There would be dozens of committees and subcommittees that could be involved in oversight of different aspects of any government agency.

I don't think the original determination letter was a "breach of public trust" as much as SIG and gun enthusiast taking liberties with their own interpretations of that letter.

Even by the most liberal interpretation of the NFA...........that was a shoulder stock from day one. ATF (IMHO) should have made it clear in that original letter that the ONLY legal way to use the SIG brace was as an arm brace. They didn't breach public trust by failing to include that tidbit.




If it's a bunch of anti's, I know there's not much we can do aside from supporting court battles (hopefully SIG will once again go to bat for us where the NRA and pro-gun party routinely demure).
Click to expand...
What Second Amendment battles has SIG fought?:scrutiny:



But we write our reps when bad laws are proposed, and find the technique effective, so why not see if the same is true when bad regulations are 'magicked' out of foggy legal gymnastics? It's gotta be more productive than complaining to the BATFE director or the president...

More than anything, I think it would be interesting to learn from correspondence, whether or not the overseeing legislators have the slightest idea what is going on over at the Bureau. I will try my best in the next day or so, but I think a brief letter explaining the state of things (the NFA, the BATFE-FTB, and the SIG brace) and the consequences of this latest ruling, will be at best convincing and at worst revealing. We'd at least know if congress is even capable of resolving this dispute and others like it for us, or if the courts truly are our only vehicle for change.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure Congress is aware of the shortcomings of ATF.
 
I don't think the original determination letter was a "breach of public trust" as much as SIG and gun enthusiast taking liberties with their own interpretations of that letter.

Even by the most liberal interpretation of the NFA...........that was a shoulder stock from day one. ATF (IMHO) should have made it clear in that original letter that the ONLY legal way to use the SIG brace was as an arm brace. They didn't breach public trust by failing to include that tidbit.
Click to expand...

This is unquestionably true.


If SIG had introduced their brace and the ATF had put out the first response saying "using this as a shoulder stock will constitute making an NFA Firearm," NOT A ONE OF US would have batted an eye. That would have been the logical and expected response.

What's got us all hot and bothered is that they rather fumbled their response, trying to get answers out to people and -- ironically -- IMHO trying to be as gentle and "hands-off" about it as they could. When pushed over and over to clarify this declaration -- which really didn't make sense to US, which is why we the gun crowd kept asking, "uhhhh, are you SURE???" -- they realized that they had said something more liberal than what the law actually could allow.

So we have this week's new letter. [paraphrasing]"Whoops, we screwed up. We have to follow the law. Sorry guys..."[/paraphrasing]

We, the gun crowd, are all PO'd only because we thought we were getting the BATFE to, effectively, ignore a chunk of the NFA. And now they're admitting they can't go so far.
 
DoJ....

In CNN's in depth doc a few years ago they said the US DoJ was the department for ATF.
Also it's ATF not BATFE.
 
dogtown tom said:
Take a peek at the top of their webpage.;)
http://www.atf.gov/
Click to expand...
The name of the agency is "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives," but the acronym they use is "ATF" not "BATFE." The page you linked to says ATF in giant letters at the top and ATF is used throughout the site. Didn't see a single use of BATFE anywhere on the site.
 
The name of the agency is "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives," but the acronym they use is "ATF" not "BATFE." The page you linked to says ATF in giant letters at the top and ATF is used throughout the site. Didn't see a single use of BATFE anywhere on the site.
Click to expand...

In the old days it would be USBATFE.

Due to the paper reduction act it is now the ATF.
 
"BATFE is overseen primarily by the head of their Department (that would be the US Attorney General) who is overseen by the Chief of the Executive branch of government.

They are not supposed to be directly "accountable" (influenced by) "the People" as part of our three-branch system of government."

You are right, of course, that as a law enforcement (technically tax enforcement) body, they tree up into the Executive. "Accountability" is perhaps too strong a phrase. What I mean, is that the Bureau was created specifically in order to effect the congress's statutes, so I expect there to be at least an informal means (if nothing else) for congress to telegraph its satisfaction in this regard. It seems very unreasonable that the only mechanisms we have to influence the police are ludicrously expensive and drawn out federal court battles and a single man sitting atop the executive branch.

If our system actually does work this way, that is perhaps even more worrisome than gun rights. But what I suspect is actually the case, is that there is a senate/house subcommittee (or individuals) in regular contact with Bureau officials, perhaps in a round table with Executive Branch muck-mucks as well. All three branches work together, so it stands to reason they can also influence each other as part of the process. After all, certain senate officials are in close contact with IRS officials as a matter of course, why not also the ATF?

My very limited research into this suggest there is in fact congressional oversight --just not direction, which of course comes from the JD and president, ultimately.

"Similarly, going to the Legislative branch Committee which might have a level of oversight on them is going nowhere. What are we going to say? We're mad that they made a BAD declaration and then reversed it? What are we punishing them for? Correcting their policy to come more in line with the text of the law?"
You don't fix a pin hole with a sledge hammer, which is what the ATF has done. If the SIG brace is too much like a stock, why did they not rescind the letter approving its use as a brace? The few people actually using the braces as braces would be affected, but it would be far more narrow an impact than making felons of law-abiding people using legal guns to shoot at legal targets in a particular manner. With this current ruling, everyone is at risk of felony every time they pick up these guns and shoot them; no other NFA rule works this way that I am aware of.

The only 'benefit' to putting the onus on us shooters is that the ATF doesn't have to put together an amnesty or confiscation for the current SIG brace owners (oh, and SIG/etc. get to keep selling their 'braces' that are now officially just as shady as 'solvent traps'). Not yet, anyway. I fully expect the approval letter to ultimately be rescinded, and the braces taken off the market...just as most of us had expected two years ago.

But I think broaching the subject with some worthy congressional reps might be productive. At least more productive than contacting the current president or attorney general. Who knows, it could even get the ball rolling on the legislative front that "I assume" the well-funded lobbying groups are working on for us (any evidence of this?). For that matter, we should be contacting NRA reps for that exact same reason.

"In the old days it would be USBATFE.

Due to the paper reduction act it is now the ATF."
The Tech Branch recently renamed itself, as well. The Bureau uses the three letter acronym because they already printed up the letterhead, windbreakers, and tanks ;)

TCB

*************************

"OUR lever against their decisions and practices is two-fold: a) fight a decision in the Courts if the decision or action itself appears to be faulty in light of the law and legal precedent, or b) get our legislators to change THE LAW they are supposed to enforce so that it can't be enforced that way."
I wholeheartedly agree, but this requires at a minimum hundreds of people in congress already agreeing to do something. My question is with regards to a much earlier point than that (sort of like how we ping our reps about individual amendments and executive branch excesses).

I have asked here and elsewhere before, where "our side's" treasure trove of pending legislation sits, ready to pounce when the time is right. There are the odd congressman who has a personal Reciprocity/etc. bill he's always pitching, but that really seems to be it. Certainly nothing among senior leadership like the AWB Mrs. Feinstein can yank out of thin air at the drop of a body. Nothing near that ambitious from the NRA, that I'm aware (just the odd amendment to defend some narrow interest, that we rarely hear about until it is time to rally for votes). I fully understand that very defensive tactics have been the proper strategy for the last decade(s) or so, but if we never formulate an offense strategy to forward our own interests, we can only hold our ground at best.
 
You don't fix a pin hole with a sledge hammer, which is what the ATF has done. If the SIG brace is too much like a stock, why did they not rescind the letter approving its use as a brace? The few people actually using the braces as braces would be affected, but it would be far more narrow an impact than making felons of law-abiding people using legal guns to shoot at legal targets in a particular manner. With this current ruling, everyone is at risk of felony every time they pick up these guns and shoot them; no other NFA rule works this way that I am aware of.
Click to expand...

I think you're looking at this backwards. The SIG brace is sold as an ARM BRACE. TO help disabled persons shoot. Saying the ATF should have said "screw those disabled guys" and outlawed a product that works perfectly well to help disabled people in the way it was patented to do, would be a cruel sort of kindness don't you think?

Again, no one who saw this product used as a stock -- NO ONE -- ever expected that ATF would be totally cool with that. And we were all shocked when they seemed to be accepting it at first. Now that they're a little closer to reality, we're mad because of the tantalizing taste of more liberty we THOUGHT we were sneaking out from between their claws, and now realize we are not.

Does that mean we now get to answer the same question for those folks who put a cane-tip end on their buffer tube and/or shoulder the bare tube as a ("hee hee, this ain't a") rifle? Well? Maybe. But that's the question we've all been facing since the phenomenon of AR "pistols" arose.

While we really don't LIKE IT, the case against ATF heavy-handed misrule here is laughable. We're just looking like P.O.'d kids, angry when the repair man comes along an fixes the vending machine so it doesn't drop free candy bars any more.

:)
 
"think you're looking at this backwards. The SIG brace is sold as an ARM BRACE. TO help disabled persons shoot. Saying the ATF should have said "screw those disabled guys" and outlawed a product that works perfectly well to help disabled people in the way it was patented to do, would be a cruel sort of kindness don't you think?"

On the contrary, the ADA has nothing to do with the Bureau's mandate. Just because some guy somewhere has super sensitive hearing doesn't mean silencers should be legal, if they are still clearly banned in the statute. I also don't see any right to 'bear-able' arms, for that matter, either; just that they may be borne. I do think the disability angle was a clever way to get the brace into the ATF's good graces, but I also know it was deceit from the start, otherwise the foam flaps would have been flimsier straps from the get-go ;)

"Again, no one who saw this product used as a stock -- NO ONE -- ever expected that ATF would be totally cool with that. And we were all shocked when they seemed to be accepting it at first. Now that they're a little closer to reality, we're mad because of the tantalizing taste of more liberty we THOUGHT we were sneaking out from between their claws, and now realize we are not."

Like I said, the ATF has had a clear means to rectify their mistake from the very beginning. I seriously doubt they did not recognize the mistake rapidly (I remember shouldered-brace talk within a week of the device's sale). I do think they tried their best to ignore what was then an extreme-fringe issue, but had their hand forced as the braces and tactical pistols became unexpectedly popular. Having waited too long to deal with the brace itself as they should have initially by rescinding the ruling, they have more difficult options.

All the current ruling does is allow the ATF ultimate discretion to nail someone if they care to (probably in connection with far more serious charges, as usual). They don't have to admit they screwed up, they don't have to make trouble for SIG, and they get to pretend nothing's changed most of all. The problem is the SIG braces remain a new and very serious landmine for all owners. The ATF is supposed to restrict and properly regulate these sorts of things to prevent this very sort of risk to gun owners. No other gun can land you in hot water simply by being held a certain way. All other AOW* and SBR/SBS classifications are carefully avoided at the point of sale/manufacture, but not with the SIG brace, which can/will be sold without a warning.

TCB

*I don't count the 'concealment' loophole here because the act of concealing firearms is already subject to so many rules/etc. that there is a certain expectation of proper research on the part of anyone seeking to carry them hidden (at least, I do). Simply holding the gun to shoot at something, not so much.
 
All this is predicated on the commonly accepted idea that a stocked weapon is more accurate than one that isn't.

In terms of enhancing one's ability to fire accurately, yes. It's a nice to have accessory. It definitely reduces the amount of inaccuracy a new shooter has by diminishing the amount of movement at one end of the sight plane. We hold the stock up to our shoulder and then deal with getting the same cheek weld and pointing the other end.

But that's all it does, help the inexperienced shooter or those who allow it to create a dependency. If you've seen handgunners hitting steel at 400m it then becomes a matter of who is exercising more skill from practice.

If you can't shoot well and need a stock - or brace - then the use of either "prosthetic" device is pretty clear to you.

We rant about the limitations of freedom a lot, no argument the ATF has backtracked on this. But I see it as a political move more than legal - first it opens them up for others to seek declaratory relief, which could cut the ground right out from under them. Second, it's a matter of enforcement. Our complicit reaction to the reversal with hundreds of brace owners selling them off is exactly what they want - many are now toeing the line.

The Friday afternoon announcement just before SHOT 2015 where new braces and guns equipped with them are being offered was an easy decision, too. It kills the desire to buy them if retailers see the public shying away.

More evidence in a declaratory relief judgement, tho. It hurt businesses who made decisions based on letters issued by the ATF that said otherwise. They had material orders, research and development costs, prototypes, advertising, and plenty of legal expenses wrapped up in selling more braces.

And the Court is exactly where the law says that the people can get relief from arbitrary and capricious regulations. It doesn't put the ATF out of the checks and balances system at all - the AG may direct their activities to limit 2A freedoms in accordance with the current Administrations agenda, but it doesn't make them the final decision maker. Agencies have lost decisions before under the judge's hammer and will again.

If the businesses at SHOT - right now - perceive they can win, then expect legal action. It's their option to weigh the potential profit or loss, but consider that under some new state laws they found that the costs of moving to another state were worth it. Suing the ATF looks pretty good here, too.

The ATF cannot legally proscribe the simple use of an object as being illegal, only what it may be. The NFA regulates features, state law handles use. There are lots of problems with the latest letter, but it does exactly what the ATF needed - throws a monkey wrench in the ownership or purchase of a brace. Sadly, it also points out the limit of how they can enforce it. They can't arrest the thousands of users out there, and won't even try. Maybe the legendary "That Guy" might be, you are more likely to be in a traffic accident this year. Worry about your driving.
 
The problem with any government regulatory agency is that they legislate without constitutional authoity, they are not accountable to the voters, they take their orders from the executive branch, and their "legislation" typically must be overridden by real legislation through congress. because they are a regulatory agency, and not a legislature, they can randomely change their minds and rules at will, while legal action to counter take years to make it to a courtroom.

To me, its not a matter of whether or not such simple features are legal, but how dumb that there is actually a difference, with or without it to argue about. As Ted Cruz asked the Baltimore police chief in some dumb hearing, "Can you tell me exactly what is is about this 2" block of plastic, that when I put it on the gun, will make it more deady and dangerous?"
 
But that's all it does, help the inexperienced shooter or those who allow it to create a dependency. If you've seen handgunners hitting steel at 400m it then becomes a matter of who is exercising more skill from practice.
Click to expand...

I think you may have mistakenly said something you certainly couldn't have meant: That any person of any level of achievable competence can shoot as accurately and as quickly at ranges over a very few yards with a handgun, as they can with a stocked rifle.

Regardless of Bob Munden's trick shooting, or the uber-long-range bench-rest "handgun" crowd, or even a few of the internet personalities making the odd 100 yard shot with a J-frame, dismissing the difference between any shooter's ability to make effective hits with a handguns vs. a rifle would be somewhere in "Through the Lookinglass" or "Twilight Zone" territory.
 
The problem with any government regulatory agency is...
Click to expand...
Well, now, hold on a moment....
... that they legislate without constitutional authoity,...
Click to expand...
No they don't. They regulate (not legislate, that means something else) exactly the range of functions that they are endowed with a Congressional mandate to regulate. No Agency is self-creating and regulates whatever it wants to regulate. The Agencies are established by Congress to enforce certain laws, and given the power to read those laws and figure out practical rules which the citizens have to follow in order to comply with those laws.

Look, there are lots of federal regulatory agencies and they all write rules which explain to the citizen how they are going to proceed in enforcing THE LAW that Congress has passed. No law written can spell out every answer to each question that might be touched on by that law. The law would be millions of pages long, filled with every "what if" and condition. So Congress passes laws and sets up regulatory agencies which administer those laws. As in, determines whether a certain act complies with it or does not.

... they are not accountable to the voters, they take their orders from the executive branch, and their "legislation" typically must be overridden by real legislation through congress.
Click to expand...
That's kind of funny, because the laws they are enforcing are passed by Congress itself. Occasionally, yes, Congress does decide a regulatory agency is applying the law in ways it should not be applied, and passes a new law to explain better what they want that agency to do (or to limit that agency's reach in a particular way). But no, beyond the Chief Executive and his 2nd, the Executive branch is not SUPPOSED to be beholden to the voters. That's part of our checks and balances system. (Neither is the Judiciary, you might have noticed.) It helps to keep down the effect of wild public opinion swings (mob rule) and maintain a semblance of fairness in enforcement that is not controlled directly by which political party comes into power.

...because they are a regulatory agency, and not a legislature, they can randomely change their minds and rules at will, while legal action to counter take years to make it to a courtroom.
Click to expand...
Sure they can change their minds. They have to be able to react to new conditions and new questions, unforeseen by the writers of laws. Just look at the National Firearms Act for a perfect example. The Congress wanted to pass a set of (stupid and appalling) restrictions that seemed like a good idea at the time. But firearms technology at the time was where it was. In the last 90 years, firearms tech has changed A LOT. Without a regulatory agency to determine exactly how those laws were to be applied to all this new tech, you could be arrested for anything, or arrested for nothing, and every new turn of the screw would open up people to having to be criminally charged and to fight through the courts to even find out if the law should apply to their situation. We many not like how regulatory agencies choose to administer the laws that are on the books, and it is a lot of fun to rail against the enforcers, but the fault and the corrections of it, now and always lie at the feet of the Legislature.
 
TimSr said:
The problem with any government regulatory agency is that they legislate without constitutional authoity, they are not accountable to the voters, they take their orders from the executive branch, and their "legislation" typically must be overridden by real legislation through congress....
Click to expand...
Poppycock.

Sam covered this really well, but I'll add three details:

  • A regulatory agency may adopt regulations, which have the force of law, only as authorized by Congress in the particular legislation with respect to which the regulations apply. So a law passed by Congress and signed by the President must say that [agency] may (or shall) adopt regulations to do XYZ.

  • Regulation must be adopted using a formal "rule making" procedure in which the agency publishes the proposed regulation and invites public comment. Sometimes an agency will also hold public hearings on the proposed regulation. A regulation may not become final until after a minimum public comment period.

  • A regulation is different from an administrative policy. Any organization, from regulatory agencies to police departments to your local gun shop, has administrative policies to add some order to what they do and how they do it. An administrative policy of a regulatory agency does not have the force of law, but it does tell everyone something about how the agency is going to view and act regarding some matter within its jurisdiction.
 
You have the way it is supposed to be, and the way it actually is. Whether they call it "legislation" or hide behind the word "regulation", its like arguing whether something is a "fine" or a "tax". The citizen gets the same consequences, and rarely have much recourse against those who impose it.
 
The citizen gets the same consequences, and rarely have much recourse against those who impose it.
Click to expand...
The fine, tax, regulation, or law is imposed on the citizen(s) because enough citizens voted for certain people and (in one fashion or another) asked that these fines, taxes, regulations, and laws be imposed on themselves and their neighbors.

The way to really fix this is to change the law that calls for or allows those fines, regulations, taxes, and so forth. You'll need to convince your fellow citizens to put pressure on legislators to (and/or elect other legislators who will) remove or alter those laws if you want them to go away.

That's how representative government works. An individual citizen doesn't have recourse to fight against the agency imposing these things, if these things are LEGAL under the laws your society has enacted.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
more hearings on BATFE, will these be web cast, or so schedule proclaims.
Replies
2
Views
316
Strings
S
P
  • Locked
NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (HR 2640) revisited
Replies
2
Views
443
Winston_Smith
W
J
  • Locked
More on the "sporting purposes" clause
Replies
3
Views
613
jmonarch
J
C
  • Locked
BATF Backs Down on Background Checks for Wyoming CCW Holders
Replies
8
Views
868
txgho1911
T
D
  • Locked
With "Friends" Like These ... We're in Trouble
Replies
1
Views
388
Art Eatman
A
Back
Top