Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
What you're describing sounds like a bizarre caricature of what actually occurs in situations that would even remotely resemble how the BATFE regulates weapons. Regardless, if that agency actually did what you described, any persons adversely affected by their decisions would realize their due process in a criminal court of law--assuming what you wrote occurred: that the agency actually made possession of the particular weapon a felony and that the new regulation actually applied to current owners.
If you find that, after exhausting one's court remedies in that scenario, that the regulation was legal, and you were forced to relinquish the weapon or face felony charges, then your problem isn't (or shouldn't, rather) be with whether regulatory agencies violate due process but that *certain* agencies bother you in what they do. this thread, as many others of yours along these lines, appears to have an undercurrent that broader implications for gun ownership exist.
|
When I post about guns and gun ownership, it is mainly because that is one of my primary interests and because of such, is one that i'm more knowledgeable of. Other rights and freedoms are as important, just that I have not researched them as much as I have gun issues.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by smooth
so that's fine, but due process doesn't mean you will get your wishes to do what you want; oftentimes due process means like it's always meant, that as long as the government follows a set of written procedures the people representing the government can act in ways they've been authorized to do so.
but I'd rather see your argument for why something is or is not violating due process, not just posting an example of what you think such a case might look like. I'd like to see your premises laid out and your conclusions so I can weigh them for myself.
|
I hope that what I lay out now is something that you will consider a violation of due process.
With the passage of NFA, GCA, and FOPA, machine guns that were not registered with the BATFE before May 19, 1986 are prohibited from being owned by civilians. The BATFE, through its regulatory authority, gets to define what constitutes a machine gun. This goes as far as being able to define a 'conversion kit' as a machine gun. Now, a company called the 'Akins group' created a device that allows 'bump firing', a form of rapid fire for a semi automatic rifles. When this device was first introduced to the BATFE for approval, it was NOT considered a machine gun or a conversion kit. After a short time though, the BATFE reconsidered, arbitrarily, and reclassified this device as a machine gun or conversion kit....after several thousand had already been sold. There is no final disposition on those units already sold, but this decision forces the Akins group to cease production, sale, and transfer of all remaining units until such time. Since the BATFE has 'authority' to define what a machine gun is, they COULD also define any semi-automatic that has a faster rate of fire than average as a machine gun. This means that, if they so chose to, they could make millions of semi-automatic weapons illegal at the stroke of a pen with zero input from congress, thereby bypassing any due process or representation by the legislature.
This, I believe, is a very good example of regulatory agencies being able to bypass due process and implement prohibiting legislation, all on their own decisions. What do you think?