Brady has filed a lawsuit challenging this rule change on a technicality...absence of an environmental impact statement, IIRC.
Administrative rules have been voided on far flimsier rationale. Regardless of the opinions of some on this board as to the solidity of the rule change, any judge looking for a promotion could order suspension of the rule pending the disposition of the legal challenges. Likewise executive orders. This issue is entirely within "stroke of the pen, law of the land" territory. If you don't believe it, you can spend millions (and years) establishing legal standing, and millions more proving that you've been personally damaged by rollback of the administrative rule. Merely pointing out improper procedure ain't gonna mean squat. Ask Thomas Bean; as in "US v Bean".
What with the new administration, and new forum ethic, perhaps capitulation on this issue is what it takes to convince the fence sitters, and the
general public, that the gun community is not a bunch of
knuckle-dragging neanderthals, to quote a popular phrase in gun forums these days? Similar to the way that many forum members castigated the soccer-mom who legally open carried, in another thread. Wasn't it established by consensus in that thread, that the wishes of the non-gun owning
general public trumps the wishes of gun enthusiasts to follow the letter of the law?
I'm observing some conflicting positions here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
(Re: forum procedural question) This topic seems highly political!!! Seems like the de-facto standard is that we must not discuss these issues, unless an actual bill is proposed, and even at that, unless the bill has a lot of congressional co-sponsors, and thus stands a fair chance of making it out of committee. Under that standard, shouldn't this topic be off limits, likewise the brady campaign thread stickied at the top of the page?
Request for a ruling, please?