TFred
Regular Member
I read the brief TFred but it's just an argument. Arguments are like rear ends, everyone has one.
The fact is that the courts have recognized the regulatory authority as enforceable as law within certain parameters, all along. That authority gets complicated and is a combination of several agencies including the IRS.
Just the fact that the man has been convicted is proof that the lower courts still hold with that theory.
Don't get me wrong. I hope this is reversed but just think of the fight Thompson Center had to put up to overturn the regulatory interpretation that said just having the parts (Shoulder stock) in the same building, to convert a handgun to an SBR...was illegal.
This is not going to be an easy win I don't think....especially under this Administration.
So I stand by my statement that as of right now, it meets my defination of illegal.
Three elements:
At this minute
Can I be arrested for doing it? Yes!
Can I be convicted of it? Yes!
Can I be sentenced to a long stay in an iron box with a 7 foot homosexual named Big Bubba? Yes!
If and when the Supreme Court overturns his conviction....we can say.... NO to all three elements and it won't be illegal.
All good points, except the argument in this brief specifically searched out and documented the fact that the authority is not found in either statute OR regulations. This is not a "business as usual, and we don't like it" argument, it's a "they have no authority to do this, and you need to stop it" argument.Got to agree with Nap here.
Laws written by Congress are general in their statements as in "...as the Secretary may direct..." or "...as determined by the Attorney General..." because it is recognized that the enforcing agency needs flexibility in implementing the necessary policies and procedures to carry out the intent of Congress. Simply pointing out that the statute doesn't specifically say such and such doesn't necessarily make a case for an invalid law.
As noted, only time will tell if they do their job.
TFred