Federal Regulation Freeze

[Grayfox]

Among the E.O.s signed by Trump today is a freeze on new federal regulations. While this is in effect for all federal agencies, if I'm understanding this right, it will mean that BATF&E can no longer bend federal laws in such a way as to restrict our 2A rights. No more making legal firearms or accessories suddenly illegal with the stroke of a pen.

Am I wrong? Thoughts? Discussion?

 

[ameridaddy]

I hope so! Add EPA to the list. They were very much needed ~50 years ago, but now they're so far down the diminishing returns road, it costs the economy countless billions for fractional percent improvements.

 

[stansdds]

Huzzah! A step in the correct direction!

 

[tomahawk223]

didnt scotus do this

I thought SCOTUS decided this last year, or was it that biden allowed them to continue business as usual. this makes it official.
should be the gallows for anyone who disobeys.

 

[rosewood]

I thought SCOTUS decided this last year, or was it that biden allowed them to continue business as usual. this makes it official.
should be the gallows for anyone who disobeys.

This is correct. Chevron Deference was ruled Unconstitutional by SCOTUS.

Effectively, that case ruled no new Chevron Deference could be done, but it didn't overturn any previous "rules" that federal agencies have enacted. They will have to be challenged in court and overturned on a case by case basis.

Chevron meant that when the law from congress wasn't clear on a given subject, the federal agency that regulates that field could interpret the law, basically the courts were "deferring" to the agency who supposedly is expert in the field. The SCOTUS that ruled Chevron Deference was being lazy, instead of doing their job. It also kept Congress from having to write clearer laws. Thank you Herring fishermen!

Rosewood

 

[yeti]

YES, correct! This freeze is long overdue and most welcome.

 

[BE Mike]

The freeze is only temporary. For some agencies, i.e. the FAA formulating regulations is often tied to aviation safety.

 

[WCCPHD]

The freeze is only temporary. For some agencies, i.e. the FAA formulating regulations is often tied to aviation safety.

It seems "safety" today is a code word for more restrictions.

 

[reddog81]

So he won't ban bumpstocks this time around?

 

[biku324]

Before anyone gets all stirred up, understand that executive orders are a specific thing that that go through a specific process. Things signed yesterday did not. It doesn't mean the new President won't eventually get most of what he wants; it means documents signed yesterday have no legal effect.

Once properly in effect, either Congress or SCOTUS can overturn (and have overturned) them.

"The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power, and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer | 343 U.S. 579 (1952) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

 

[stansdds]

It seems "safety" today is a code word for more restrictions.

Don't forget the phrase "common sense".

 

[BE Mike]

It seems "safety" today is a code word for more restrictions.

If restrictions mean doors not blowing off Boeing airplanes in flight, I wouldn't be opposed. Having said that, yes, in regards to 2A issues, "safety" is used to chip away at our constitutional rights.

 

[LVSteve]

So if ATF rule making is limbo, remind me where we are on the subject of shouldering pistol braces.

 

[rosewood]

So if ATF rule making is limbo, remind me where we are on the subject of shouldering pistol braces.

Exercise discretion. Don't take pictures or videos and post online. More than one court overturned the ATF pistol brace rule. So it is back on the menu. But no sense tempting fate.

Rosewood

 

[Telecaster]

Does it mean no new regulations? Can they repeal or change existing ones?

 

[DWalt]

Chevron Deference was always a very serious overreach of regulatory agency authority. But it took far longer than it should have to get it overturned. That SC decision does not eliminate or prevent oppressive regulations but it does prevent regulatory agencies from having Carte Blanche authority to regulate whatever they want to regulate with impunity. I think the presidential EO is at present a temporary thing pending a more permanent regulatory policy. And of course, future presidents can override earlier EOs.

 

[rednichols]

Before anyone gets all stirred up, understand that executive orders are a specific thing that that go through a specific process. Things signed yesterday did not. It doesn't mean the new President won't eventually get most of what he wants; it means documents signed yesterday have no legal effect.

Once properly in effect, either Congress or SCOTUS can overturn (and have overturned) them.

"The Founders of this Nation entrusted the lawmaking power to the Congress alone in both good and bad times. It would do no good to recall the historical events, the fears of power, and the hopes for freedom that lay behind their choice. Such a review would but confirm our holding that this seizure order cannot stand." Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer | 343 U.S. 579 (1952) | Justia U.S. Supreme Court Center

But then there is this recent holding:

"The exclusive constitutional authority of the President “dis- abl[es] the Congress from acting upon the subject.” Id., at 637–638. And the courts have “no power to control [the President’s] discretion” when he acts pursuant to the pow- ers invested exclusively in him by the Constitution. Mar- bury, 1 Cranch, at 166.

"But once it is determined that the President acted within the scope of his exclusive authority, his discretion in exercising such authority cannot be subject to further judicial examination".

Of course, arguable above. That's what lawsuits are made of. But it has been held in the above case, that first the claim of a president exceeding his authority m/b determined before the case can proceed.

I would argue that the legal effect of a president's order is simply that: he (in this case) has ordered those under his control to take certain actions. That is a 'legal effect' without becoming a law. The FBI and others, work for the President who is the sole member of a single branch of government (same SCOTUS case).

 

[biku324]

The bottom line is that executive orders, proclamations, and declaration by a president cannot contravene the Constitution nor laws passed by Congress, but may address issues for which there is no such law nor provision. Beyond that, EOs must be published in the Federal Register in order to be valid.

By the way, the normative reporter put together by William Cranch was Las used in 1815.

 

[WCCPHD]

If restrictions mean doors not blowing off Boeing airplanes in flight, I wouldn't be opposed. Having said that, yes, in regards to 2A issues, "safety" is used to chip away at our constitutional rights.

Safety is the term the media uses anytime they advocate for some new hair brained idea that restricts our freedoms. Like many other terms the media and their masters have co opted innocuous words/terms to "sell" their ideas to the populace.

 

[rednichols]

The bottom line is that executive orders, proclamations, and declaration by a president cannot contravene the Constitution nor laws passed by Congress, but may address issues for which there is no such law nor provision. Beyond that, EOs must be published in the Federal Register in order to be valid.

By the way, the normative reporter put together by Wolliam Cranch was Las used in 1815.

And I'm genuinely not being argumentative, in saying that an academic worked out by the 1980s that all decisions require the confluence of three states: 'authority, power, and influence' to become fact.

In this case, in issuing his directive to those under his control, they hold the power, the President holds the authority, and those who have advised him hold the influence until the decision is made. He is not 'making law', which is the province of Congress; instead he is ordering that action be taken.

My example of what's called 'CAPI' (coalesced power, authority and influence) is a drinking fountain in a public place, such as at a high school. If an enrolled student chooses to drink from the fountain in a hallway while legitimately out of class, he/she has the authority to do so because he/she is enrolled. If he is physically able and is present at the fountain, then he also has the 'power' (he/she can press the button, then drink); while a disabled student might have to use his/her 'influence' might have to ask another person present to use their 'power' press the button, for example.