4 ms·

> The ATF can release a rule right now stating owning an AR-15 with a pistol grip is a felony, active at midnight and you best hope you pay attention to the few

by schoen 4y ago

> The ATF can release a rule right now stating owning an AR-15 with a pistol grip is a felony, active at midnight and you best hope you pay attention to the few hours notice you've been given. ATF rules get published in the Code of Federal Regulations https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/chapter-II https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/chapter-II and are subject to the Administrative Procedure Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(... and therefore are announced ahead of time in Notices of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRMs) published in the Federal Register https://www.regulations.gov/search?agencyIds=ATF&documentTypes=Proposed%20Rule https://www.regulations.gov/search?agencyIds=ATF&documentTyp... https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%5Bagencies%5D%5B%5D=alcohol-tobacco-firearms-and-explosives-bureau&conditions%5Btype%5D%5B%5D=PRORULE# https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/search?conditions%... and later, upon finalization, published again in the same place. I don't mean to defend the scope of ATF's (or other agencies') power or discretion, which is quite broad, but the ambush rule with just a few hours' notice is pretty implausible under the APA. Normally the APA calls for at least 30 days' notice, and months are more typical. https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaking_process.pdf https://www.federalregister.gov/uploads/2011/01/the_rulemaki... There is an emergency rulemaking exception under the APA for "good-cause", but this is comparatively rarely used and (like other aspects of a rule) may be reviewed by the courts. ATF knows that it has a lot of critics who are likely to sue to challenge its rulemakings, and has often taken a considerable amount of time to make new rules even when there was a lot of political pressure brought to bear in favor of expanding regulations. It's unfortunate that you might have to go to court to vindicate your rights under the APA, but that's almost equally unfortunately true of almost anything improper that any part of government might do to you. If a police officer decided to randomly seize your weapons because he just thought they looked scary and you oughtn't own something so dangerous-looking, you would also need to go to court to establish that the police office wasn't entitled to do that. Or if, like in the Hitchhiker's Guide, a local government authority decided to demolish your house without proper notice, you'd probably also have to go through the courts to get a remedy.

Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
Great response, thank you. To add, I’m down to talk to about governmental overreach if we can rationally prioritize issues. Gp seems to prioritize absolutist gun rights. I’m keen to consider extrajudicial murder, extrajudicial armed robbery by police, the separation of church and state, or the Supreme courts usurpation by the federalist society - before I think it’s worth discussing the loosening of gun rights in this country that has more gun involved MCEs (military conflicts excluded) than every other country combined. As I’ve strayed a bit from the topic I’ll bring my point back by saying; sure there’s issues worth complaining about in almost every us regulatory process, but let’s prioritize by how many lives we can improve instead of lesser reasons that are used as a fundraising platform by the minority political party without regard for the trail of destruction their reckless policies engender.
- schoen 4y ago
  I'm sure I'm quite a bit more sympathetic to the other poster's views than you are, but I found the idea of the ATF surprising people by banning something overnight to be implausible in terms of the way the U.S. administrative system works. I worked on an issue a few years ago where the FCC was attempting to completely ban something, and it took them somewhere around a year to complete the process of actually banning it, despite having been very clear on their goal. If they'd simply said that people shouldn't have this, full stop, right away, well, I imagine the D.C. Circuit would have been even more upset with them than it actually was. :-) I'm glad you found my reply helpful.
  - Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
    We’re agreed on U.S. courts, lawmakers, and regulatory bodies inability to effectively respond to emergent issues on a human time scale. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me on much, but if everyone could agree with that we need strong regulation to reduce gun violence, well thatwould be swell. I’ll even hold my tongue and not gloat when the statistics begin the inevitable sharp drop in MCEs. If your interest in regulatory hell take a look at the fdas campaign against vaping. Then compare it to the nhs to see what a semi functional system can accomplish.

by schoen 4y ago

Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago

Great response, thank you. To add, I’m down to talk to about governmental overreach if we can rationally prioritize issues. Gp seems to prioritize absolutist gun rights. I’m keen to consider extrajudicial murder, extrajudicial armed robbery by police, the separation of church and state, or the Supreme courts usurpation by the federalist society - before I think it’s worth discussing the loosening of gun rights in this country that has more gun involved MCEs (military conflicts excluded) than every other country combined. As I’ve strayed a bit from the topic I’ll bring my point back by saying; sure there’s issues worth complaining about in almost every us regulatory process, but let’s prioritize by how many lives we can improve instead of lesser reasons that are used as a fundraising platform by the minority political party without regard for the trail of destruction their reckless policies engender.

schoen 4y ago
I'm sure I'm quite a bit more sympathetic to the other poster's views than you are, but I found the idea of the ATF surprising people by banning something overnight to be implausible in terms of the way the U.S. administrative system works. I worked on an issue a few years ago where the FCC was attempting to completely ban something, and it took them somewhere around a year to complete the process of actually banning it, despite having been very clear on their goal. If they'd simply said that people shouldn't have this, full stop, right away, well, I imagine the D.C. Circuit would have been even more upset with them than it actually was. :-) I'm glad you found my reply helpful.
- Red_Leaves_Flyy 4y ago
  We’re agreed on U.S. courts, lawmakers, and regulatory bodies inability to effectively respond to emergent issues on a human time scale. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me on much, but if everyone could agree with that we need strong regulation to reduce gun violence, well thatwould be swell. I’ll even hold my tongue and not gloat when the statistics begin the inevitable sharp drop in MCEs. If your interest in regulatory hell take a look at the fdas campaign against vaping. Then compare it to the nhs to see what a semi functional system can accomplish.