New ATF rule comment period is ending

[Bkeepr]

Not sure if this is considered political but I guess I'll find out.

The Bureau of ATF has a proposed Federal Rule pending that changes the definition of what a gun dealer is. Under the proposed rule, selling even a single gun online or at a gun show triggers the "presumption" that the seller is a commercial dealer and thus must have an FFL and follow all rules that a gun dealer must.

I won't ask if anyone thinks that is a good or bad idea, just pointing out that today is the last day of the comment period for the new rule. If you want to comment on it, either pro or con, (or read the complete proposed rule for yourself) you can do that online here:

https://www.regulations.gov/document/ATF-2023-0002-0001

I believe the rule is a big mistake which will ultimately be found unconstitutional. However, that will take many years, and it is better for all if ATF would just reconsider their rule now, before it is put into place. While this isn't a vote, numbers of comments for and against new rules do matter.

For those who care, here's an extract of a letter that a group of our Senators sent to the ATF supporting the new rule, with their interpretation:

"The proposed rule is clear: when guns are offered for sale in commercial marketplaces—whether at a gun show or online—there is business, and those selling them are engaged in that business and required to become licensed dealers and conduct background checks. The proposed rule also makes clear that, while no minimum number of transactions is determinative, “even a single firearm transaction or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence, may be sufficient.”... "

[PHPaul]

I'm fine with posting that here.

With the ATF...not so much...they need to be reined in, along with a host of other government agencies.

[Jim @ Jawa]

they need to be reined in, along with a host of other government agencies.

A host?..My ass. The whole damn bunch of them, from the press all the way to city goveners. I think that we the people need to put every one of those commies in a cage all togeather so they can buggery one another. I am not against America or the country or the people, just the political commies. Why in god's name would they spend millions of dollars on a campain for a job that only pays $300,000.00 a year???? If you fallow the money at the end you will be looking right at the ass of a rich greedy ass hole.

My two centavos. Two Philippine centavos = $0.00036 USD. that is how much my opinion is worth.

[Bkeepr]

The older I get, the more I understand what Churchill meant when he said:

“democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”

In our case, I don’t think our government is bad, what we are seeing is the result of the fact that many of the people who run for office are self serving and not very bright, but are held in check by the brilliant construction of our government by the founders.

[Sid]

The older I get, the more I understand what Churchill meant when he said:

“democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.”

In our case, I don’t think our government is bad, what we are seeing is the result of the fact that many of the people who run for office are self serving and not very bright, but are held in check by the brilliant construction of our government by the founders.

Those who run for office are for the most part are self serving. Let us give credit where credit is due, they are bright enough to take advantage of the dim witted voters. The "brilliant construction of our government by the founders" has not kept them in check,nor will it keep them in check until the dimwitted wake up.

[Red Dave]

I am very familiar with government rules and the rule making process. Before I retired I was responsible for my company's compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Titles 18, 29, 40 and 49. Just those 4 Titles of Federal Regulations comprised hundreds of thousands of pages of rules and regulations.

The rule making process is arcane and shrouded in bureaucracy. Regulations are promulgated by the various departments of the Federal Government based on the foundational law enacted by the Congress and the whims of the bureaucrats withing the departments. Every law passed by Congress has the phrase "The Secretary shall enacted regulations under this statute", or words to that effect. That gives the departments the authority to make rules. They publish a "Notice of Proposed Rulemaking" in the Federal Register, giving contact information for whoever the public can contact with comments. That is it. The Federal Register is published every day and has every thing the government did for that day. It is dull as dishwater and dry as the Sahara. Very tedious to read, yet vital if you want to know what's going on. If you miss the notice, or don't respond withing the time allotted, too bad.

I did not read the Federal Register. There are commercial services that you can contract to scan the Federal Register and notify you if anything pertains to regulations you are interested in. That's what I did. I didn't have the time to read the Federal Register every day.

The regulations promulgated by the various departments have the force of Federal Law. You can be arrested, fined and serve prison time for violating them, even though no Congressman, or Senator ever voted on it. The bureaucrats who wrote the regulations are not elected, they are hired and can serve for decades, injecting their own biases into regulations that affect US Citizens throughout all 50 states, and most possessions. They are a permanent government within the government, which is often referred to as the "Deep State".

The Department Secretaries are appointed by the President, approved by the Senate and supposedly overseen by various Congressional committees, but that mostly amounts to testifying before the committee on c-span (the committee minutes are also published in the Federal Register), then going back to their departments and doing whatever they feel like doing anyway. Even those secretaries don't do much except pass on the wishes on the Executive Branch to those under them. The real policy making is done by assistant secretaries and nameless and faceless bureau chiefs buried deep within the various departments. Don't ask any Congressman or Senator about any specific rules, even though they are in fact federal law, they won't know what you are talking about, they don't have the time to become familiar with the monsters their legislation has created. Their time is mostly spent raising money and kissing asses in preparation for the next election.

But that, dysfunctional as it may be, is how we are governed. God help us.

[Bkeepr]

...The "brilliant construction of our government by the founders" has not kept them in check,nor will it keep them in check until the dimwitted wake up...

I can agree with this statement, but only when I look at the short term. Over the longer term, meaning several decades to centuries, "we the people" and our government have done a good job of balancing competing interests and priorities. In the short term, priorities go askew and get out of balance, but the people ultimately correct the imbalance, through a combination of their votes and work and investments.

I'm now old enough to have seen this swing happen a few times, as the country moves too far in one direction or another, and have come to see that yes, our Founding Fathers were brilliant by building an imperfect but self-correcting method of governing the "dimwitted."

[Bkeepr]

I am very familiar with government rules and the rule making process....But that, dysfunctional as it may be, is how we are governed. God help us.

Dave,

I too have participated in the rule-making process, and agree with your description. But one important thing I think you've left out is the government side of it.

I participated in the rule-making process for the Army/DOD while I was in government, and as a civilian contractor after I retired. You realize, but many folks don't is that "the government" is not a single big block, but instead is divided into many bits and pieces, each of whom has differing views and priorities than the other. For example, when DOD considers some new rule, each of the Services often has a competing view on it, and they all get discussed (sometimes ad nauseam). When any other Cabinet level agency proposes a new rule, all of the other agencies have views which again are competing. Usually, the competition is honest and not self-serving, and happens because Agencies have different missions and tasks and experiences.

Making Federal rules, like making laws, has often been compared to making sausage-- a lot of stuff gets ground up into every link, and it can be an ugly process to watch. But the fact is that no individual person or government agency knows everything, or can foresee the impact of any proposed rule or law. So the sausage-making is vital to getting all of the viewpoints on the table and discussed and considered. And the process always continues, as we try to correct faults and problems that were either unseen or prioritized lower when the last rule/law was considered.

Nope, it is not efficient and not perfect. But I believe it is "better than all the others..." I certainly can't think of any one individual I'd want to take over and govern us! But let's hope that "God (will) help us," or at least forgives us for our collective faults and sins.

[Bkeepr]

By the way, Paul: thanks for letting this "apolitical" thread go awhile.

If it does happen to go South, I honestly appreciate the attempt!

[Red Dave]

Usually, the competition is honest and not self-serving, and happens because Agencies have different missions and tasks and experiences.

"Honest and not self serving" is NOT a description anyone I know that has experience with government alphabet agencies would use.

I used to work closely with the lobbyist of a major business association. Self serving is likely one of the kindest descriptions of the regulatory process I'd ever heard her use. There are a lot of personal agendas mixed into that sausage.

As far as cabinet level agencies competing, most either don't know, or more likely don't care what the other departments are doing. Government agencies are what modern managerial schools call "silos". Each one goes from bottom to top without interaction from any others. That is why we have contradictory rule making, where one department requires what another forbids. A true Catch 22. I've even seen contradictions between different bureaus of the same department.

We truly need to clean house in Washington DC. Just draining the swamp isn't going to be enough.