3 ms·

That’s not “making” a law. The law already says certain types of firearm are legal and certain are illegal. Now if this law were to be maintained by congress, t

That’s not “making” a law. The law already says certain types of firearm are legal and certain are illegal. Now if this law were to be maintained by congress, they’d need, I don’t know, a group of experts who understand firearm and congress will constantly revise and add or remove items from a list. May be they’ll give this group a name at some point and then they’d realise that it’s really hard to manage all this while also having to make new laws. So they’ll hire someone to execute this for them and assign this group of people to that executive.

salawat 4y ago
Look up Administrative Law. It is lawmaking; even if you have such linguistic elides as aliasing the primary verb to 'rulemaking' instead.
notch656c 4y ago
Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, section 478.11 defines a “firearm receiver” as, “[t]hat part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” ATF has "regulated" that an AR-15 lower "receiver" is legally a "firearm receiver." Now show me where the "bolt or breechblock" is housed in the lower receiver. I promise you will not find it. They are basically making law.
- projektfu 4y ago
  Two things: first, are you referring to a regulation and saying that another regulation is inconsistent? It seems that neither is making "law" in the sense of an act of Congress. It would be different if the law had its own definition. Second, your citation appears to be out of date and the current regulation defines "frame or receiver" differently.
  - notch656c 4y ago
    ATF acts are not congress acts. Brilliant statement. No one is saying ATF is congress, so by definition their act is not an act of congress. >Second, your citation appears to be out of date and the current regulation defines "frame or receiver" differently. At the time of US v Rowald there were pretty clear inconsistancies. If you're referring to recent changes there's barely been enough time to create a historical record as the judicial process is slow, so it seems kind of silly to constrain to only post-latest change examples.

salawat 4y ago

Look up Administrative Law. It is lawmaking; even if you have such linguistic elides as aliasing the primary verb to 'rulemaking' instead.

notch656c 4y ago

Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations, section 478.11 defines a “firearm receiver” as, “[t]hat part of a firearm which provides housing for the hammer, bolt or breechblock, and firing mechanism, and which is usually threaded at its forward portion to receive the barrel.” ATF has "regulated" that an AR-15 lower "receiver" is legally a "firearm receiver." Now show me where the "bolt or breechblock" is housed in the lower receiver. I promise you will not find it. They are basically making law.

projektfu 4y ago
Two things: first, are you referring to a regulation and saying that another regulation is inconsistent? It seems that neither is making "law" in the sense of an act of Congress. It would be different if the law had its own definition. Second, your citation appears to be out of date and the current regulation defines "frame or receiver" differently.
- notch656c 4y ago
  ATF acts are not congress acts. Brilliant statement. No one is saying ATF is congress, so by definition their act is not an act of congress. >Second, your citation appears to be out of date and the current regulation defines "frame or receiver" differently. At the time of US v Rowald there were pretty clear inconsistancies. If you're referring to recent changes there's barely been enough time to create a historical record as the judicial process is slow, so it seems kind of silly to constrain to only post-latest change examples.