With the huge obamanation of the healthcare bill, plus the takeovers of various industries, we have forgotten a very important principle with statists - they like incrementalism too.
Two Examples:
1. From the NSSF via Say Uncle:
ATF Reverses Interpretation of GCA; Redefines "Transfers" of Firearmshttp://blog.nssf.org/2010/05/atf-reverses-interpretation-of-gca-redefines-transfers-of-firearms.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+NSSFBlog+%28NSSF+Blog%29Reversing an interpretation of the Gun Control Act that has been on the books for more than four decades, ATF today posted a ruling declaring any shipment of a firearm by a manufacturer (FFL) to any agent or business (e.g., an engineering-design firm, patent lawyer, testing lab, gun writer, etc.) for a bona fide business purpose to be a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act of 1968. As a consequence, legitimate business-related shipments will now require the recipient to complete a Form 4473 and undergo a Brady criminal background check. In many instances, these requirements will force shipments to a third party, thereby lengthening the process and the time that the firearm is in transit.
ATF officials have acknowledged this is a radical change from ATF’s long-standing interpretation that this was not a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act that was set forth in a 1969 ruling ("Shipment or Delivery of Firearms By Licensees to Employees, Agents, Representatives, Writers and Evaluators.") and further clarified in a 1972 ruling. In other words, ATF is now saying its long-standing rulings, issued shortly after the Gun Control Act was enacted, were wrong. ATF should be required to explain why it took 42 years to decide that its original understanding and interpretation of the Gun Control Act is now somehow wrong. ATF appears to be under the mistaken impression that the Brady Act of 1993 changed what constitutes a "transfer" under the Gun Control Act. Even if this were true - and it is not -- then ATF should be required to explain why it took 17 years to figure this out. ATF itself admits that neither the Gun Control Act nor the Brady Act defines "transfer." There is simply nothing in the Brady Act or is there any other legal reason that compels ATF to now reject 40 years of precedent.
For more than four decades manufacturers have shipped firearms to agents for bona fide business purposes. ATF is unable to identify a single instance during the past 40 years where a single firearm shipped in reliance upon ATF's rulings was used in a crime. This unwarranted reinterpretation of the law will cause significant disruption and additional costs for industry members and increase the cost of doing business, while doing nothing to advance public safety.
And then there is this from this morning's news (
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/05/27/signs-point-administration-plan-lock-m-acres-federal-land/?test=latestnews
Signs Point to Administration Plan to Lock Up 13M Acres of Federal LandA leaked partial document produced by the Bureau of Land Management
and obtained by Fox News suggests the Obama administration is considering a plan to lock up 13 million acres of land -- and the Department of Interior is refusing to answer questions.
First, a little background: The federal government owns about one-third of the land in the United States -- most of it in western states. For example, 84 percent of Nevada is owned by Uncle Sam.
But the government leases large parcels of federal land for all sorts of things -- grazing, mining, exploration, recreation.
Those commercial activities create jobs and tax revenue for the states. Tax revenues from commercial activity on federal lands often pays for local schools
. However, with the single stroke of his pen, President Obama can use the Antiquities of Act of 1906 to turn federal land into National Monuments.
That would effectively lock up the land from any kind of private use or development.
MBTV
Forum Index
Help
Calendar
Contact Info
Register as a member
