Excessive Rules and Regulations Anyone? Excessive Police Powers? - Page 4

Excessive Rules and Regulations Anyone? Excessive Police Powers?

This is a discussion on Excessive Rules and Regulations Anyone? Excessive Police Powers? within the Law Enforcement, Military & Homeland Security Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; So, moderators have shut off threads like this? Just shows how arrogant LEOS are If threads like this are shut down, then its because they ...

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 60 of 60
Like Tree33Likes

Thread: Excessive Rules and Regulations Anyone? Excessive Police Powers?

  1. #46
    Senior Moderator
    Array HotGuns's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    14,935
    So, moderators have shut off threads like this? Just shows how arrogant LEOS are
    If threads like this are shut down, then its because they have turned into cop bashing threads that will not be tolerated here.
    If you want to bash cops, then go to another forum because we aint gonna play.

    Some of you are walking on thin ice here. You'd better get it back on topic or this one will be closed too.
    I would rather stand against the cannons of the wicked than against the prayers of the righteous.


    AR. CHL Instr. 07/02 FFL
    Like custom guns and stuff? Check this out...
    http://bobbailey1959.wordpress.com/


  2. #47
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by HotGuns View Post
    You'd better get it back on topic or this one will be closed too.
    Well, from one of the posts and articles on this thread line (one that was closed quickly) I read a comment that I think we could discuss. I am especially interested in the LEO opinion.

    The article, amongst the terrorism BS, made a comment about the militarization being in response to increasingly armed citizens. My question is: do they mean the CC community or something else? Most into CC consider themselves the good guys, so this surprised me.


    Sent from my BlackBerry using Tapatalk

  3. #48
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 14,650'
    Posts
    12,591
    Some of you are walking on thin ice here. You'd better get it back on topic or this one will be closed too.
    For those of you that insist on ignoring this friendly advice, please curb your enthusiasm. This can be a good topic with a lot of merit IFF it stays open.

    I, however, will be the first to suggest it be closed if the thin ice starts creaking.
    Hopyard likes this.

  4. #49
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 14,650'
    Posts
    12,591
    What interested me in this topic originally were the raw increases in number, but some of the Agency counts cracked me up:

    The Government Printing Office has 7? And why?

    The Peace Corps has 4? Anyone see any irony there?

    I really don't understand some of this. Yes, I understand the FDIC, or DHHS, but NASA?

    Regardless, the increase is bothersome to my feeble brain.

  5. #50
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Congress created this problem when they started allowing the different agencies they created to pass their own regulations. Regulation which, by the way, have the force of Law behind them without ever having to have gone through the lawmaking procedures set up under the Constitution. Thus both insulating the individual Lawmakers from unpopular rules. At the same time hiding the passage of these new regulations/laws from the majority of the voters.

    Then to make matter worse they have allowed these agencies to set up their own police forces to enforce the laws they created. Bypassing the law enforcement portion of the government set up in the Constitution.
    The old saying goes the the police do not create the laws they only enforce them has become somewhat blurred. In many cases now days they do both.

    Michael
    NYCrulesU and Doghandler like this.

  6. #51
    Moderator
    Array Rock and Glock's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Colorado at 14,650'
    Posts
    12,591
    Congress (their staff, to be honest) write the laws (statutes). The Agencies are the appropriate deliberative body to write the regulations because they understand the statutes and the technical issues that need be addressed at the level of detail required of regulations. The Regulations should be subject to public comment before becoming effective to serve as a filter. That is how the IRS and the Congressional Tax Committees work. I do not know how it works in other arenas (except the law writing stuff).

    Regulation which, by the way, have the force of Law behind them without ever having to have gone through the lawmaking procedures set up under the Constitution.
    Regulations do not have the force of law as far as I know, unless Congress has SPECIFICALLY so provided IN THE STATUTES. For instance, the IRS issues interpretative regulations after public comments blah blah blah, and these Regs never have the force of law. However, the Congress specifically delegated to the IRS the power to write regulations that specifically have the authority of law in the consolidated corporate income tax return rules. These are referred as to "Legislative" regulations. See below.

    Having said that, for the other 25' of Rules and Regs, I don't know. It is more than likely case by case.

    Then to make matter worse they have allowed these agencies to set up their own police forces to enforce the laws they created. Bypassing the law enforcement portion of the government set up in the Constitution.
    The old saying goes the the police do not create the laws they only enforce them has become somewhat blurred. In many cases now days they do both.
    A conflict of interest it appears.

    Not to be a tax nerd:


    As previously mentioned, Congress granted the Commissioner (IRS) the authority to promulgate regulations for filing a consolidated tax return. Specifically, Code 1502 states:
    The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as he may deem necessary in order that the tax liability of any affiliated group of corporations making a consolidated return and of each corporation in the group, both during and after the period of affiliation, may be returned, determined, computed, assessed, collected, and adjusted, in such manner as clearly to reflect the income tax liability and the various factors necessary for the determination of such liability, and in order to prevent avoidance of such tax liability.
    It takes little imagination to see that Congress has granted the IRS broad authority to write regulations governing the filing of a consolidated tax return. These Regulations, referred to as legislative regulations, grant a nearly absolute power to the Secretary of the Treasury to prescribe the rules for consolidated tax returns. Although not statutory in form, these regulations have the force and effect of law and remain effective unless overturned by the courts or restricted by Congress.
    That is the only example of Legislative Regulations I know of, but they could be pervasive in other areas.

  7. #52
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    Congress created this problem when they started allowing the different agencies they created to pass their own regulations. Regulation which, by the way, have the force of Law behind them without ever having to have gone through the lawmaking procedures set up under the Constitution. Thus both insulating the individual Lawmakers from unpopular rules. At the same time hiding the passage of these new regulations/laws from the majority of the voters.

    Then to make matter worse they have allowed these agencies to set up their own police forces to enforce the laws they created. Bypassing the law enforcement portion of the government set up in the Constitution.
    The old saying goes the the police do not create the laws they only enforce them has become somewhat blurred. In many cases now days they do both.

    Michael
    Trying to keep with R&Gs topic and respond to Michael: Congress can not possibly deal with the innumerable issues and minutia needed to implement the laws they pass; it isn't unreasonable to allow the Agencies to create implementing regulations because any implementing regulation MUST be constitutional, must be consistent with the underlying law being implemented,
    and there are very very complex detailed processes that Agencies go through before anything is promulgated. Proposed rules are gone over by Agency lawyers, by staff at OMB, and more; then they are published in The Federal Register (with few exceptions) for public comment. Anyone can submit a public comment during the comment period, and typically the folks who are affected by a regulation do so. An Agency then must respond to the comments (not certain if before or simultaneously) with publication of the final rules, all of which are then subject to review by every judicial level from Administrative law Judge to The Supremes.

    Now, I find myself in an awkward position defending the rule making because I belong to an organization which has objected to certain SAMHSA and DOT rules, provided extensive comment by members, and as an organization, jaw boned with officials and even attended (the organization, I wasn't present) what was described as a bizarre meeting with OMB at a "White House" office on the issue. We felt the entire time that we were banging our heads against brick. We felt that reason was not going to prevail--which it did not.

    So, the rule making processes certainly did not get me the modifications to the proposed rule I sought, and it won't get R&Gs Accounting Organization (whatever that group's name) every rule change they want.

    But how else can we handle things? Congress can not do it! And if they did it. it would be worse. There would be no public comment period, and no administrative appeals of the regulations.

    Bottom line is we only need a few rules-- and we all know what they are; don't steal, don't cheat, don't lie, don't commit wanton violence. Unfortunately, human beings are very clever about doing all of these things in disguises--- so we need rules and we need punishment.

    I don't really like much of this stuff. I think it is insane for folks to get punished for accidentally doing something when it is done in good faith, i.e., without mens rea.

    I think it is crazy that often times some very ordinary things that are common sense can be criminalized. I think it is disgusting that by some estimates the average citizen commits 3 felonies a day-- not sure I believe the claim, but it is one that has garnered some attention.

    I just don't know what to do about it. Fortunately, the truly weird cases as the one R&G mentioned in post 1 do get news coverage, and prosecutors do have guidelines and discretion and I suppose it gets used wisely most of the time--though not always--or stuff like the sewer story wouldn't be news. The news would be about overcrowded Federal dockets and prisons.

    Finally, I think most folks make a point of learning the rules about the things they do. Just as people here make a point of learning CHL rules, and interstate transport of firearms rules, and most folks either learn the IRS rules appropriate to their situation or hire professional help, and docs learn the rules they need to know about processing Medicare claims or writing certain script, most people do by and large learn
    what they need to know to stay out of trouble.
    It isn't easy, but it is something doable, especially with today's on-line access to the Code of Federal Regulations.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  8. #53
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667
    Quote Originally Posted by Rock and Glock View Post

    That is the only example of Legislative Regulations I know of, but they could be pervasive in other areas.
    I think they are pervasive across the board. Often if not criminal, there are still harsh civil penalties or administrative fines.

    But, just as you make a point of knowing the regulations that apply to your job, most folks know the regulations that apply to what they are doing. Of course sometimes it is utterly impossible to comply with one regulation without non-compliance with another.

    320 million people in one big box. It ain't your Grange Meeting.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  9. #54
    Member Array Erik's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    415
    Why? Folks want their own people to follow their money, because from experience, they've learned that for the most part no one else will.
    God, country, family.

  10. #55
    Ex Member Array gunther71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    greenville
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by rammerjammer View Post
    Big surprise, a similar thread like this was just shut down by an LEO/moderator.

    See what I'm talking about?
    Yeah i wonder who?

    If the cops are copying military (uniforms, armored vehicles, spy drones) Then it is coming, but only if Obama or some one likes him appoints the next gun hating supreme justice.
    I still do not understand why we get threads closed down because of how we feel?
    NYCrulesU likes this.

  11. #56
    Distinguished Member Array noway2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,890
    Quote Originally Posted by gunther71 View Post
    If the cops are copying military (uniforms, armored vehicles, spy drones) Then it is coming, but only if Obama or some one likes him appoints the next gun hating supreme justice.
    I still do not understand why we get threads closed down because of how we feel?
    (Trying to address your question here) Feeling one way is one thing, HOW you express your feelings may be another. My guess as to where the fine line that the moderators try to walk, there is a distinction between discussing an issue and being factual and making a decisively partisan statement. Do realize that not everyone on this forum is Republican, Conservative, Christian, or hates President Obama and one doesn't have to in order to be supportive of gun rights or concealed carry issues. For example, it is one thing to discuss how Congress enacts laws that impact concealed carry. It is another to say "stupid Liberal Democrats want to take away our guns." Unfortunately, too many here get some perverse pleasure in espousing their personal (partisan) views in this manner. I really don't understand why because at best they are preaching to the choir and at worse they are turning away would be supporters and getting their own message silenced in the process. Keep it factual with an intellectual focus and I suspect you will be fine. Turn it into a bash session and it will go away.

  12. #57
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    Trying to keep with R&Gs topic and respond to Michael: Congress can not possibly deal with the innumerable issues and minutia needed to implement the laws they pass; it isn't unreasonable to allow the Agencies to create implementing regulations because any implementing regulation MUST be constitutional, must be consistent with the underlying law being implemented,
    and there are very very complex detailed processes that Agencies go through before anything is promulgated. Proposed rules are gone over by Agency lawyers, by staff at OMB, and more; then they are published in The Federal Register (with few exceptions) for public comment. Anyone can submit a public comment during the comment period, and typically the folks who are affected by a regulation do so. An Agency then must respond to the comments (not certain if before or simultaneously) with publication of the final rules, all of which are then subject to review by every judicial level from Administrative law Judge to The Supremes.
    :SNIP:
    I fully understand this position and the thinking behind it. Originally I believe that individual agencies were supposed to have the knowledge to implement a law by fine tuning it with all the needed details to make it work as intended.
    After all most congressmen could not be expected to have intimate knowledge of the patent process. It only makes sense to hire someone who does to make it work. The trouble comes when instead of just adding the needed language and rules to make a law function as intended the agencies ignore original intent of a law and instead use their positions to completely change it.

    Does anyone actually believe that when Congress passed a law on machine guns they intended it to cover shoe strings on triggers or rifles going full auto because of a slam fire or other malfunction? Do you really believe that when the Congress passed a law to protect the Bald Eagle and the Grizzly bear they meant for it to protect rats?

    If you believe that it was intended that way, I hope you are the last one in the U.S. to have a living colony of termites, rats and cockroaches. Because if you are you will not be able to get rid of them. They will have become protected because you have the last ones.

    Michael

  13. #58
    VIP Member
    Array Hopyard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Disappeared
    Posts
    11,667
    Quote Originally Posted by mlr1m View Post
    I fully understand this position and the thinking behind it. Originally I believe that individual agencies were supposed to have the knowledge to implement a law by fine tuning it with all the needed details to make it work as intended.
    After all most congressmen could not be expected to have intimate knowledge of the patent process. It only makes sense to hire someone who does to make it work. The trouble comes when instead of just adding the needed language and rules to make a law function as intended the agencies ignore original intent of a law and instead use their positions to completely change it.

    Does anyone actually believe that when Congress passed a law on machine guns they intended it to cover shoe strings on triggers or rifles going full auto because of a slam fire or other malfunction? Do you really believe that when the Congress passed a law to protect the Bald Eagle and the Grizzly bear they meant for it to protect rats?

    If you believe that it was intended that way, I hope you are the last one in the U.S. to have a living colony of termites, rats and cockroaches. Because if you are you will not be able to get rid of them. They will have become protected because you have the last ones.

    Michael
    You are not wrong, there is a problem. I just have no idea what the solution might be. And there are plenty of more present problems than concern about last colony of termites. Ever read the labels on the bags and bottles containing ordinary house and garden insecticides?

    I just don't have any clue how we might do things differently. It wouldn't end any better if Congress controlled Agency rule making instead of The Executive. And to some extent they do. The Agencies have Congressional liaisons whose sole function is to answer inquiries from Congress, often on behalf of constituents. These folk are very smooth at repeating the same line of argument about why they are still studying something after ten years of doing nothing. It doesn't matter if you write your Dem or Repub. Critter, if you write when they are in the majority or the minority. The critter turns to the liaison for an answer from the Agency and you ALWAYS get about the same response. Dear Constituent: Thank you for bringing this to my attention. My office received a response from XXX Agency. It is enclosed. Then you find the same form letter from the liaison --or the same talking points-- that were used years earlier. In short, everyone acts like they are looking into the matter and seriously studying it, but it is mostly pro-forma answers.
    If the Union is once severed, the line of separation will grow wider and wider, and the controversies which are now debated and settled in the halls of legislation will then be tried in fields of battle and determined by the sword.
    Andrew Jackson

  14. #59
    Administrator
    Array SIXTO's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    19,933
    Quote Originally Posted by noway2 View Post
    (Trying to address your question here) Feeling one way is one thing, HOW you express your feelings may be another. My guess as to where the fine line that the moderators try to walk, there is a distinction between discussing an issue and being factual and making a decisively partisan statement. Do realize that not everyone on this forum is Republican, Conservative, Christian, or hates President Obama and one doesn't have to in order to be supportive of gun rights or concealed carry issues. For example, it is one thing to discuss how Congress enacts laws that impact concealed carry. It is another to say "stupid Liberal Democrats want to take away our guns." Unfortunately, too many here get some perverse pleasure in espousing their personal (partisan) views in this manner. I really don't understand why because at best they are preaching to the choir and at worse they are turning away would be supporters and getting their own message silenced in the process. Keep it factual with an intellectual focus and I suspect you will be fine. Turn it into a bash session and it will go away.
    This is accurate. I'll only add that if you turn it into a bash session, not only will the thread go away, so will you. We do not need more meat heads clouding up the forum. A intelligent and rational debate is just fine.
    Rock and Glock likes this.
    "Just blame Sixto"

  15. #60
    VIP Member Array mlr1m's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    okla
    Posts
    4,298
    Quote Originally Posted by Hopyard View Post
    :SNIP:
    I just don't have any clue how we might do things differently. It wouldn't end any better if Congress controlled Agency rule making instead of The Executive.
    I believe that separating the rule makers from the enforcers would help. That is afterall how the government was originally set up. When you allow someone with police powers the ability to create their own rules it is only natural that they would create rules that will make their jobs easier. There needs to be a barrier between the rule makers and the rule enforcers.
    Just think how bad it would be if we allowed emergency room doctors to write safety laws. We would have no skateboards, firearms, power tools or anything else they feel makes their job more difficult.
    This is in effect what we have allowed to happen with government.

    Michael

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Search tags for this page

bd laws pic
,
best way to combat excessive police powers
,

excessive laws

,
excessive laws us
,

excessive police power

,

excessive rule of law

,

excessive rules

,
excessive use of rules to manage governmental affairs
,

for years, the public face of federal law enforcement has been the federal bureau of investigation. today, for many peop

,
homeland secutity police powers
,
on excessive legislation
,
powered by mybb office of personnel management federal
Click on a term to search for related topics.