If you wish to comment on the new regulation proposed by Biden to ban or at least potentially ban all private firearms transactions and require a license to sell or attempt to sell even a single gun, please comment on Regulations.gov. GunOwners of America has a suggested comment and you can comment through their site or directly. Note: If you want to copy their comment and post directly, it may contain too many characters to submit, even though it says there are characters left.
You can comment up until 11:59 p.m. (Eastern Standard Time) on Thursday December 7th.
Rule is here.
Comment here
or
here
(the latter link can be used to see if your comment will get flagged for too many characters, the actual limit is lower than what you are told, and if you use the first link, you might be told "invalid characters" when you try to submit it - the second link it will notify you in real time as you type).
Comment through the Gun Owners of America site.
Note: This post is in bold, except for the comment.
I am Opposed to this Unconstitutional Rule
It disturbs me that ATF has weaponized the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act as a backdoor to enact Universal Background Checks and Firearm Registration by demanding that gun owners who sell a few personal firearms suddenly now must become federally licensed as gun dealers.
The ATF’s proposed rule ATF 2022R-17 is not only unconstitutional but also misinterprets federal law and must not be finalized.
1. ATF is wrong to suggest a single firearm sale—or no sale at all—might require a license:
ATF’s rule claims that the agency “even a single firearm transaction, or offer to engage in a transaction, when combined with other evidence, may be sufficient to require a license.”
However, the statutes enacted by Congress clearly do not intend to regulate the conduct of an individual who merely sells a single firearm. Instead, 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(11), (21), (22), and (23) clearly contemplate regulating someone who “regular(ly)” and “repetitive(ly)” either (a) manufactures and sells or (b) purchases and resells multiple “firearms.”
2. ATF fails to protect unlicensed conduct exempted by Congress:
Additionally, Congress also expressly exempted “occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby.” According to Congress, ATF cannot presume anyone to be “engaged in the business” of dealing in firearms simply because they sold a few guns on a few occasions. In contrast, ATF’s rule provides no such assurances.
3. Wrongfully licensing constitutionally protected activity will lead to warrantless searches and additional constitutional violations:
Moreover, by selling a single firearm—and thus purportedly coming under the jurisdiction of the ATF as a newly-minted gun dealer—private gun owners can now be subjected to warrantless searches of their homes and their firearm collections. This is a clear violation of both the Second and Fourth Amendments, and it runs totally contrary to the Supreme Court’s Caniglia decision in 2021.
In that case, the Biden administration fully supported the ability of law enforcement to conduct warrantless searches of firearms in the home as part of a so-called “welfare check.” But the Supreme Court ruled against the Rhode Island police—and the Biden administration—with a 9-0 vote. Now, the Biden administration is trying to implement warrantless searches though the back door and without even having a vote in Congress.
4. ATF suggests it might deny a license to applicants who the agency ordered to become licensed:
One footnote in this proposed rule suggests the ATF might prevent a person from obtaining a license to even engage in future firearm transactions because they were presumed to have “willfully engaged in the business of dealing in firearms without a license,” but if such an individual, were to submit an application to obtain a license to deal in firearms, ATF’s footnote suggests the law-abiding individual might be denied the license simply because their previous conduct (even before this new rule) was presumptively (not objectively) unlawful. Thus, law-abiding citizens wishing to avoid any legal grey area created by this ATF rule are damned if they do get a license, and damned if they don’t!
5. ATF’s backdoor Universal Background Check includes Universal Firearms Registration:
So-called “Universal Background Checks” are only enforceable with a gun registry. Regulating private citizens as gun dealers will force them to run background checks on every firearm transaction in a backdoor attempt to require private citizens to create, maintain, and eventually turn over these registration papers (i.e. Forms 4473, Multiple Sales Reports, and Acquisition and Disposition logs). Failure to fill out registration paperwork and create a paper trail for even a single firearm transaction will be considered a federal crime.
The Biden Administration described this as “moving the U.S. as close to universal background checks as possible without additional legislation.” And the rule is only enforceable by cannibalizing the existing commercial federal firearms license and background check system into an unconstitutional, illegal gun registration scheme for all firearm sales.
But as ATF checks in on private transactions, those who privately transfer a firearm without a license and who do not maintain federal gun registration paperwork will be presumed by ATF to be in noncompliance with the law. As such, this rule exceeds statute and infringes on the constitutional right protected by the Second Amendment.
6. The administration has been working overtime to revoke federal firearms licenses, meaning that people wishing to sell personal collections might not be able to get the permission to do so.
[End of comment]
That is all.
Tuesday, November 28, 2023
Monday, May 03, 2021
Comment on Biden's Proposed Educational Priorities
Update:
Stephen Miller's America First Legal submitted a comment. See it here.
Biden is proposing (in effect) preferentially giving grants to programs that teach Critical Race Theory.
Here is the regulation propoal. You can comment through May 19, 2021:
Proposed Priorities: American History and Civics Education
What Some GOP Senators have said against it.
Here is a sample comment (in bold) if you want to object to Biden's attempt to encourage Critical Race Theory in schools through grants:
Regarding Federal Register Regulation 2021-08068, Proposed Priorities: American History and Civics Education, I am very concerned about the implications of Proposed Priority 1, which regards incorporating “diversity.”
These sorts of proposals usually involve trying to use the lens of contemporary racial politics as the primary way to understand every historical issue. The general goal of most “diversity” education is the denigration of western culture, the demonizing of people of European heritage, and the discouragement of a sense of pride and loyalty to the United States as a historical entity. Rather than developing a sense of patriotism and national unity, they serve to encourage resentment and division in some students, and a sense of shame and guilt in others.
First of all, the lauding of the 1619 Project as an example of the kind of scholarship that we should strive to emulate is concerning. In addition to making many factually suspect claims, the 1619 Project which seems intent on overemphasizing one aspect of our country as the central fact of our country, effectively using our history to push a partisan, sectarian agenda under the guise of fairness.
Quoting Ibram X. Kendi is also a red flag, as he has explicitly called for racial discrimination against those whom he sees as “privileged” as the way to combat racism. The idea that racist policies are “the cause of racial inequities” rather than “one cause” is of great concern, because it suggests that no inquiry into other causes will be allowed. Kendi does not seem interested in looking holistically into race relations, but only in looking at ideas that reinforce the view that white bigotry is the only cause of racial inequities and therefore any attempt to correct them must focus on punishing whites.
My concerns regarding the five sub-priorities (a-e) of priority 1:
(a) The term systemic biases tends to imply that only certain biases will be examined and corrected for. I am concerned that the real effect here will be to denigrate the perspectives of whites and to exalt only the perspectives of minorities rather than trying to find the truth in between.
(b) “Incorporating diverse perspectives” is fine if the idea is to get all sides of an issue, or that one’s race, ethnicity, etc. should not be a barrier on analyzing an issue. However, I am concerned that the goal here is going to be to try to find a racial angle on every topic discussed, which can distract from teaching the topic at hand.
(c) Again, I am concerned that this is just about injecting modern identity politics into every issue instead of looking at the issues as they existed at the time.
(d) I am concerned here that the goal of validating and reflecting “the diversity, identities, and experiences of all students” in practice means distorting history to appeal to students.
(e) Again, I am concerned that “identity-safe” learning environments means environments where students in “protected” groups are never challenged and students in non-protected groups are derided.
As for Proposed Priority 2, I agree in principle with teaching students to examine their biases and to be aware of misinformation. However, I am concerned that any program to deal with this must look at the biases of those who created the program, and make certain that it does not only teach students to identify bias on one side, or that the program creates a narrative and only looks for misinformation if it contradicts the narrative.
We need to examine our biases when looking for bias, and any program promoting “informational literacy” needs to tell students to question the program itself.
That is all.
Here is the regulation propoal. You can comment through May 19, 2021:
Proposed Priorities: American History and Civics Education
What Some GOP Senators have said against it.
Here is a sample comment (in bold) if you want to object to Biden's attempt to encourage Critical Race Theory in schools through grants:
Regarding Federal Register Regulation 2021-08068, Proposed Priorities: American History and Civics Education, I am very concerned about the implications of Proposed Priority 1, which regards incorporating “diversity.”
These sorts of proposals usually involve trying to use the lens of contemporary racial politics as the primary way to understand every historical issue. The general goal of most “diversity” education is the denigration of western culture, the demonizing of people of European heritage, and the discouragement of a sense of pride and loyalty to the United States as a historical entity. Rather than developing a sense of patriotism and national unity, they serve to encourage resentment and division in some students, and a sense of shame and guilt in others.
First of all, the lauding of the 1619 Project as an example of the kind of scholarship that we should strive to emulate is concerning. In addition to making many factually suspect claims, the 1619 Project which seems intent on overemphasizing one aspect of our country as the central fact of our country, effectively using our history to push a partisan, sectarian agenda under the guise of fairness.
Quoting Ibram X. Kendi is also a red flag, as he has explicitly called for racial discrimination against those whom he sees as “privileged” as the way to combat racism. The idea that racist policies are “the cause of racial inequities” rather than “one cause” is of great concern, because it suggests that no inquiry into other causes will be allowed. Kendi does not seem interested in looking holistically into race relations, but only in looking at ideas that reinforce the view that white bigotry is the only cause of racial inequities and therefore any attempt to correct them must focus on punishing whites.
My concerns regarding the five sub-priorities (a-e) of priority 1:
(a) The term systemic biases tends to imply that only certain biases will be examined and corrected for. I am concerned that the real effect here will be to denigrate the perspectives of whites and to exalt only the perspectives of minorities rather than trying to find the truth in between.
(b) “Incorporating diverse perspectives” is fine if the idea is to get all sides of an issue, or that one’s race, ethnicity, etc. should not be a barrier on analyzing an issue. However, I am concerned that the goal here is going to be to try to find a racial angle on every topic discussed, which can distract from teaching the topic at hand.
(c) Again, I am concerned that this is just about injecting modern identity politics into every issue instead of looking at the issues as they existed at the time.
(d) I am concerned here that the goal of validating and reflecting “the diversity, identities, and experiences of all students” in practice means distorting history to appeal to students.
(e) Again, I am concerned that “identity-safe” learning environments means environments where students in “protected” groups are never challenged and students in non-protected groups are derided.
As for Proposed Priority 2, I agree in principle with teaching students to examine their biases and to be aware of misinformation. However, I am concerned that any program to deal with this must look at the biases of those who created the program, and make certain that it does not only teach students to identify bias on one side, or that the program creates a narrative and only looks for misinformation if it contradicts the narrative.
We need to examine our biases when looking for bias, and any program promoting “informational literacy” needs to tell students to question the program itself.
That is all.
Wednesday, January 20, 2021
Tuesday, January 21, 2020
Last Day to Comment on Rule Tightening the Bars to Asylum Eligibility
It is the last day to comment on the new rule: Procedures for Asylum and Bars to Asylum Eligibility. Comments close at 11:59AM EST.
Sample comment:
I support the proposed regulation.
People who request asylum are guests in our country and they ought to appreciate what we have given them. People who flagrantly violate our laws and endanger U.S. citizens have no right to claim entry into our country. While I feel sorry for people who face persecution in their homeland, if they wish for us to protect them they need to respect our laws and avoid putting our citizens at risk.
Moreover, people who have previous immigration offenses are unlikely to be making the claim of asylum genuinely and are simply looking to loophole their way into the United States.
Anything else is allowing the safety and well-being of foreigners to be prioritized over that of Americans.
That is all.
Monday, January 13, 2020
Last Day to Comment on Proposed Rule to Remove Employment Incentives for False Asylum Claims
Today is the last day to comment to support President Trump's efforts to alter federal rules to discourage false asylum claims for the purpose of gaining employment: Proposed Rule: Asylum Application, Interview, and Employment Authorization for Applicants
Here is my comment (in bold):
I support this proposed rule.
If the vast majority of asylum claims were genuine, or were processed in a timely manner, this would be unnecessary. But given the large number of fraudulent or frivolous asylum claims, and the inability of our overloaded system to handle them all, reducing the incentives to file fraudulent or frivolous claims is a very wise policy.
The current system is likely to result in a large number of people who are employed who suddenly lose their employment authorization due to their claims being denied. This creates a very strong incentive to overlook their legal status and ignore the fact that they have either filed a claim that does not meet the qualifications for asylum, or even that is downright fraudulent. This is particularly true because our antidiscrimination laws are such that employers will have to hire them despite the conditional and temporary nature of their work authorization.
In effect, the current asylum system is likely to create a large mass of illegal aliens whose employment produces a difficult situation for them and for their employers, and therefore create pressure for a mass amnesty and for the further erosion of our immigration laws.
This proposed rule is essential in order to retain the rule of law in our immigration system.
That is all.
Sunday, September 22, 2019
Comment on Rule to Allow More American Displacement
There is a new rule proposed by the Trump administration that would make it easier for agricultural employers to replace Americans with H-2A foreign workers. Please go to this regulation on the regulations.gov site and make a comment telling Trump to nix the law and govern by the principles on which he ran. Note: comments must be submitted by 11:59 pm on Tuesday September 24 Eastern Standard Time. After this, the commenting period closes.
The proposed rule is posted with the link. An explanation of why this rule would be bad (for those of you who do not have time to read and interpret multi-hundred-page regulations) is found here (yes, it's a liberal site, but I tend to think that unions and labor leaders are probably in the right on this particular issue).
Here is what I posted, feel free to post this, with perhaps a few changes so you don't look like some sort of bot (also, giving contact information will likely make it more clear that you are a person posting this):
I am opposed to the Proposed Rule “Temporary Agricultural Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in the United States” (Federal Register 2019-15307).
This rule would work directly against the immigration principles on which this administration ran. In addition, with labor force participation for the past six years never once reaching the levels it was at between September 1978 and August 2013, any labor shortage clearly implies that businesses are not doing enough to coax Americans to take jobs rather than there not being enough Americans to take them.
It would make it more difficult for domestic farm workers to take a job held by a guestworker, by reducing the period for such from halfway through the job to 30 days into the job. This would tend to belie the claim that we need H-2A visas because of a shortage of American workers, if we are making it harder for American workers to claim the jobs.
Allowing employers to use one H-2A application for multiple seasonal jobs starting at different times of years would make it easier to avoid recruiting domestic workers. In addition, the ability to string together a series of unrelated jobs and the ability to make major changes in job terms also discourages domestic workers from applying.
Allowing employers to avoid paying for long-distance transportation costs by shifting the cost to workers would allow employers to reduce the cost of hiring foreign workers, not only creating hardships for foreign workers, but further reducing the costs to employers of hiring foreign labor over domestic, which will incentive businesses not to hire Americans.
Allowing businesses to self-inspect the quality of the housing given to migrant workers is an invitation to abuse.
The new methods of calculating prevailing wages would likely result in reduced wages. This again would provide incentives for businesses to keep wages low and to claim that no American will take a job when in reality the businesses are just not offering adequate pay. If anything, the wages that businesses should be required to pay under the H-2A program should be raised significantly, so that businesses cannot use foreign labor as a tool to keep wages low.
Expanding the categories of employees who are included in the H-2A program to include reforestation and pine straw employees would increase the competition that American workers face for jobs. In addition, it would take more workers out of the protection of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, making it easier for employers to mistreat or cheat them, and again providing another incentive to hire foreign workers over domestic ones.
If this administration intends to live up to the pledges on which it was elected, it should withdraw this planned regulation and instead offer regulations that would require employers who wish to use H-2A visas to pay higher wages and to be more heavily regulated, and to use whatever means are possible within the law to protect all workers from exploitation.
That is all.
Monday, December 17, 2018
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)