Quote:
|
I am not an advocate of marijuana legalization. However, the administrative process for changing its classification seems a similar sort of administrative hyjinks. This kind of law by fiat is distasteful in itself.
|
The process is administrative, but at least that is provided for in the law. 21 U.S.C. 811, a federal law, outlines who can alter the scheduling of controlled substances. It clearly defines the regulatory rules and agency that can do so. The NFA does not give authority for the ATF to make broad regulations that are contrary to the text of the law. I understand your overall point, and I am not for broad bureaucratic regulatory powers, however this is more of an apples/oranges comparison.
Quote:
|
It concerns me legislatively as well. If congress gets into this very directly, do you think it will be narrowly tailored and only pertain to bump stocks? I think it would include a ban on smiling while you shoot and a ban on lead bullets unless everyone at the range is wearing a hazmat suit and ventilator (or something else only tangentially related).
|
No, I don't expect congress to use any manner of common sense. I also foresee similar silly regulations to arise as a result. I am not itching for congress to do anything with any form of gun legislation, unless they decide to repeal laws already on the books. But alas, if it's going to be done let it be done according to the proper procedure prescribed by law and not by stretching legal authority to exceed it's originally intended bounds.
Quote:
|
I don't have a workable solution.
|
Nor do I
