What if the ATF had to go through the legislative process?

[Jackal]

I was thinking, if the ATF had to actually go through the legislative process instead of being able to change its "opinion" willy-nilly, would it be a good thing for Americans? It seems pretty ridiculous that the ATF can just change its mind whenever it wants. Kind of an interesting train of thought, would love to hear opinions.

 

[entropy]

It'd be a wash. Sometimes, more often than not, it has be troublesome, but there are instances where it has been beneficial, such as reversing the 'putting an armbrace against the shoulder is a felony' thing. They actually have a tough job, trying to make sense of some of the idiotic things that make it through the legislative process.

 

[femoralis]

The NRA is afraid if congress were to legislatively ban bump stocks, they would ban a bunch of other things too, like light trigger pulls, etc. Who knows. That's why they wanted the BATFE to do it.

 

[AlexanderA]

The NRA is afraid if congress were to legislatively ban bump stocks, they would ban a bunch of other things too, like light trigger pulls, etc. Who knows. That's why they wanted the BATFE to do it.

Congress getting involved would be the only way the Hughes Amendment could be overturned. The NRA missed a golden opportunity. Reopening the registry could be couched in terms of regulating that which is now unregulated, and removing the incentive for things like bump stocks. The NRA showed a distinct lack of imagination. But then, they don't want to win. They just want an endless fight so they can raise more and more money.

 

[alsaqr]

The US congress has responsibility to oversee rule making by the federal agencies. The US congress can nullify rules made by federal agencies. The decision of the Social Security Administration to report the names of certain recipients to NICS was overturned by J. R. 40. J. R. 40 was signed into law by president Trump.

 

[RPZ]

The 'ATF shouldn't have been permitted to make regulation in the first place. No need for any of it, and it would be better if the legislative branch leave it alone as well. In fact there really isn't a legitimate use for the ATF at all.

 

[Hummer70]

And if we lose this bump stock comment period we have major problems. There were 30,000 hits first 24 hours.

 

[Frank Ettin]

I was thinking, if the ATF had to actually go through the legislative process instead of being able to change its "opinion" willy-nilly, would it be a good thing for Americans? It seems pretty ridiculous that the ATF can just change its mind whenever it wants. Kind of an interesting train of thought, would love to hear opinions.

I think it's time that you learned a little something about administrative agencies.

1. Administrative agencies are created by legislative process. A legislature (in the case of federal agencies that would be the Congress) passes a law establishing the agency and defining the nature and scope of its authority. And the legislature can change the law and thus change the nature and scope of the agency's authority.
   
   
2. The conduct of federal administrative agencies is regulated by federal law enacted by Congress (see Part I of Title 5 of the United States Code).
   
   
3. Administrative 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.
     
     
     • In order to adopt regulations, the agencies must be specifically authorized by statute. Regulations are subject to challenge if they are inconsistent with the statutory authority.
       
       
     • In general agencies must follow certain procedures to adopt regulations. In the case of federal agencies these procedures are set out in 5 USC 553. These procedures generally included a requirement that proposed regulations be published for public comment before adoption.
     
     
   • 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.

The 'ATF shouldn't have been permitted to make regulation in the first place. No need for any of it, and it would be better if the legislative branch leave it alone as well. ...

That horse left the ban a long time ago. It's not going to be changing.

 

[DoubleMag]

And to Frank's post giving a brief outline of the process (thanks!) I could only add, Congress does still retain the right to overturn via legislation, any rule etc. that any subordinate agency promulgates.

The NRA is afraid if congress were to legislatively ban bump stocks, they would ban a bunch of other things too, like light trigger pulls, etc. Who knows. That's why they wanted the BATFE to do it.

Remembering the sausage making called the legislative process. This post ^^ is 100% correct. Moderate (R)s would, in an attempt to appease (some would say get along I think we are beyond that) the Left, would actually ADD dumb stuff. Then, the Left would add egregious stuff. Some place in there would be funding totally unrelated to the topic,and the sausage is made. Then, the MissLeadership would say
'yes that's what we actually originally wanted' 'it was worse but we saved you' and , the POTUS would reluctantly sign it and say something perhaps like, ''this process was all wrong, I'll not sign something like this again.''
Yup, I am forced to agree, the NRA knows how Congress navigates rocky waters

 

[AlexanderA]

BTR said: ↑

The NRA is afraid if congress were to legislatively ban bump stocks, they would ban a bunch of other things too, like light trigger pulls, etc. Who knows. That's why they wanted the BATFE to do it.​

Remembering the sausage making called the legislative process. This post ^^ is 100% correct. Moderate (R)s would, in an attempt to appease (some would say get along I think we are beyond that) the Left, would actually ADD dumb stuff. Then, the Left would add egregious stuff. Some place in there would be funding totally unrelated to the topic,and the sausage is made. Then, the MissLeadership would say
'yes that's what we actually originally wanted' 'it was worse but we saved you' and , the POTUS would reluctantly sign it and say something perhaps like, ''this process was all wrong, I'll not sign something like this again.''
Yup, I am forced to agree, the NRA knows how Congress navigates rocky waters

On the other hand, submitting the bump stock issue to Congress could result in a better outcome than going the regulatory route. The regulatory route is leading to a flat ban, with no compensation or grandfathering. People that bought bump stocks are going to suffer an economic loss. In light of this, I would expect Congress to at least grandfather existing bump stocks. (Congress doesn't like sticking people with economic losses, because these result in guaranteed negative votes at the next election.) More importantly, Congress would have a chance to take another look at the Hughes Amendment.

The ultimate problem is that the NRA is so used to playing defense, that it's forgotten how to play offense. And also, that "machine guns" are dirty words at NRA HQ. As supposed "gun advocates," they don't advocate for this segment of the gun world.

And, BTW, the NRA wanting to send the issue to the ATF was a delaying tactic. They didn't expect the ATF to reverse its previously-published position, and the ATF wouldn't have until Trump got involved. This was a colossal miscalculation on the part of the NRA. Trump's role is not what the NRA expected.

 

[hdwhit]

AlexanderA wrote:
The regulatory route is leading to a flat ban, with no compensation or grandfathering. People that bought bump stocks are going to suffer an economic loss.

Where are you coming up with this?

Has someone in DOJ shared a green sheet copy of the draft regulations with you?

 

[DoubleMag]

''AlexanderA wrote:
The regulatory route is leading to a flat ban, with no compensation or grandfathering. People that bought bump stocks are going to suffer an economic loss.''

Where are you coming up with this?

Has someone in DOJ shared a green sheet copy of the draft regulations with you?

It's spelled out including depreciation, how many stocks are in circulation , how many companies are manufacturing, a monetary value is assessed to stopping something like this from happening again etc.

Its all plain engerish in the 55page DoJ proposal

 

[Frank Ettin]

....I would expect Congress ....

Why? Who in Congress have you discussed this with?

....Congress would have a chance to take another look at the Hughes Amendment....

And why would you think that would be helpful?

......The ultimate problem is that the NRA is so used to playing defense,...

The problem here is that folks tend to forget that the NRA has a presence in Washington. NRA lobbyists have access to members of Congress and staffs. They have "boots on the ground." They are talking to members of Congress and staffs and others who are there and directly involved. That is how major lobbying organizations work.

So the NRA has a much better idea of what's actually possible than any of us sitting at our keyboards daydreaming.

 

[dogtown tom]

And if we lose this bump stock comment period we have major problems. There were 30,000 hits first 24 hours.

It's not a contest.
The comments can be a million to one against and the regulation can still be adopted.
The only benefit to a lot of "comments"? ATF has to answer each one. That's what delayed the implementation of 41P (now 41F, regarding changes to the NFA transfer process).

 

[saltydog]

With all do respect, its pretty obvious that the bump stock makes a semi auto rifle shoot as a fast semi auto. Not as a Machine Gun defined by the law of 1934! Bump stocks are a Congressional issue. Its up to them what they determine it to be and how they would handle them by due process and not an opinion made by the DOJ Period! On the other hand, my opinion is the AR15 or most any other semi auto firearm would fall under the category of "easily converted to full auto" under the 1934 Law! What's not funny is the DOJ could re-define what "easily converted" means. Be careful when due process of law is trampled on!

 

[Frank Ettin]

With all do respect, its pretty obvious that the bump stock makes a semi auto rifle shoot as a fast semi auto. Not as a Machine Gun defined by the law of 1934...

If ATF adopts the proposed regulations, that will be up to the courts to decide.

....Bump stocks are a Congressional issue. Its up to them what they determine it to be and how they would handle them by due process and not an opinion made by the DOJ Period!...

And it will be up to the courts to decide if ATF has exceeded its rule making authority delegated to it by Congress.