|
I don’t like the basis of that ruling. It seems based on lack of due process about changing the rule, not the fundamental infringement of rights or changing the meaning of laws with letters and rules.
The way I see it, not a legal opinion, is that the government has a law about SBR’s that was enforced once way. Then a pistol brace manufacturer came along and requested a judgement on whether their product was legal or not. Once interpreted as legal, some politician determined this was not to their liking. They surveyed the political landscape and determined a majority were accepting of this acceptance of braces. Said politicians then tried to circumvent due process by writing a rule. Opposition was high, so they rewrote it. Opposition was still high, so they just issued it. The whole problem starts at not trying to just pass a law, since it would fail. If you cannot pass a law, that is because legislators don’t want it presumably because voters don’t want it! How hard is that?
I hope I’m seeing this wrong.
|