Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
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.
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?
|
I think you've given me another example of what you think due process is, despite me asking that you not do so. It's not as though I think you shouldn't be allowed to post whatever you want, but if I were having this discussion with any one of my friends or cohort members, then I'd have to defend my position not simply provide an example I thought illustrated my point.
If you feel you must provide an example, at least give me your reasoning of why you think it qualifies as violating the due process clause. If it were me making this argument, I'd probably start by establishing what I thought the due process clause meant, what it entailed, and then I'd follow it with specific points of how this example violated what I set up in the argument portion of my statement (or writing). A stronger argument would be one that was laced with case law that supported my position, but since that doesn't exist we'll have to suspend disbelief on that portion of the argument for the sake of discussion in the thread.
without any of those things, and especially a definition of what we are talking about as it is understood by the participants within the discussion, it seems more likely people will just start talking past each other.
I don't understand how I can make myself any more clear than that.
EDIT: but if you're really curious, I don't find the example you provided persuasive as a case that violates due process. which is I suppose the main reason I keep asking you to explain why you think it does. I suspect the courts agree with me, or the actions you described would have been ruled illegal. well, not exactly "would have been" since it appears that you've got from a few facts of a case to conjecture of what the agenct *might* do and then ask me whether those possible actions violate due process. and none of that, what might happen, really gets to the heart of the thread.
You don't believe that due process means that each decision made by a government agency must be run before a vote of congress do you?