Supreme Court Grants Cert in Case That Could End Deference to Regulatory Agencies
- Thread starter Decoy
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
CrabcakesAndFootball
Active Member
- Jun 14, 2017
- 697
Wow very interesting
DanGuy48
Ultimate Member
Thanks for posting that, interesting indeed.
Interesting but I always wonder about the timeline when it comes to the courts ...
Meaning what, in the context of the case in question?
Well, since you asked, due process in a red flag law case. Sarcasm. Don't answer that please.
I am not even sure what granting CERT means so I will respectfully recant my statement.
Well, since you asked, due process in a red flag law case. Sarcasm. Don't answer that please.
I am not even sure what granting CERT means so I will respectfully recant my statement.
Granting cert means the court will hear the case.
http://www.uscourts.gov/about-feder...ational-outreach/activity-resources/supreme-1
delaware_export
Ultimate Member
- Apr 10, 2018
- 3,208
Going to be interesting. Imagine all the regs that all fed agencies have that end up making folks or companies violators.
All the alphabet soup groups. I am nothing like a lawyer, but I just don’t see them crashing all that framework.
I agree that .gov having bureaucrats make the rules has made things so bloated and disfunctional but trashing the entire framework would be ... interesting
All the alphabet soup groups. I am nothing like a lawyer, but I just don’t see them crashing all that framework.
I agree that .gov having bureaucrats make the rules has made things so bloated and disfunctional but trashing the entire framework would be ... interesting
Say the court does crash that framework. If the past is any indication of future behaviour, I'd expect there to be a timetable for the alphabets to get into compliance. The alphabets will of course do nothing, until the final year, or after, when the sanctions start to be levied.
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,262
If the legislatures had to spend more time making laws that would actually work instead of passing the buck to agencies they would have less time to shoot their mouth off, look for graft for themselves, and lie to potential voters. Sounds like a win to me.
Blacksmith101
Grumpy Old Man
- Jun 22, 2012
- 22,262
Here is the SCOTUS Blog write up:
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/one-new-grant-one-dissent-from-the-denial-of-review/
And here are the links to briefs etc.:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kisor-v-wilkie/
http://www.scotusblog.com/2018/12/one-new-grant-one-dissent-from-the-denial-of-review/
And here are the links to briefs etc.:
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/kisor-v-wilkie/
Too big to fail comes to mind.
The atf makes rules that can make one a felon. I thought there was a different way for this country to pass laws? There's a cartoon about it!
My guess is they will say it is now common place and should stand, in Maryland only!
The atf makes rules that can make one a felon. I thought there was a different way for this country to pass laws? There's a cartoon about it!
My guess is they will say it is now common place and should stand, in Maryland only!
DanGuy48
Ultimate Member
Anybody care to hazard a guess on this one....think the court will make a very narrowly focused ruling to avoid creating chaos?
The SCOTUS has been reluctant rule against the government under Roberts but who knows, maybe it's time for a shake up.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,902
Congress is responsible for this can o' crap being kicked down the road for such a long time.
They don't have the stomach or the wit to write the laws that are necessary, so they pass the burden to regulatory agencies to write the rules we're forced to live by.
And there's no elected official to blame, and no way to remove unelected regulators. How is this in any way legal or acceptable?
They don't have the stomach or the wit to write the laws that are necessary, so they pass the burden to regulatory agencies to write the rules we're forced to live by.
And there's no elected official to blame, and no way to remove unelected regulators. How is this in any way legal or acceptable?
RepublicOfFranklin
Ultimate Member
Bring it all crashing down. Then start liquidating the buildings and assets of half the useless alphabet agencies.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
whistlersmother
Peace through strength
"We have to pass it to see what's in it." She didn't know, no one knew. Everyone had to see what the regulators actually wrote and implemented.
- Nov 11, 2009
- 30,902
Two thousand pages of legislation, and you have to pass it to find out how it works?
That's ridiculous.
I agree she didn't know; I'd wager that 99% of that bill was written by staffers - who were careful to isolate themselves from the contents of the bill.
