Reader John D. writes . . .
You cover a fair number of hunting issues, so I thought this legislation might interest you and your readers. Particularly readers in the western states which have born the brunt of regulatory amplification. And this could become a general firearms issue at a moment’s notice. I wrote this up for Michigan Gun Owners . . .
Long overdue: Representative Collins and Senator Grassley have introduced bills in the House and Senate which impede special interest groups from conniving with Federal regulators to use the Federal Courts to create regulations which go far beyond statutory authority.
This regulatory amplification has become a common practice at BLM, EPA, F&WS, NPS, and other Federal regulators who have dominion over hunters, shooters and farmers. Special interest groups who have engaged in this connivance include HSUS, the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund, Center for Biological Diversity, and a host of other well funded astroturf groups.
While mostly targeted at hunting and fishing locales, equipment, and practices thus far, this deceitful practice is primed to be used against firearms and gun owners in general during the remainder of the second Obama term. From The Hill:
The bill prohibits the same-day filing of complaints, pre-negotiated consent decrees and settlement agreements in cases seeking to compel agency action. It also requires consent decrees and settlement agreements to be filed only after interested parties have had the opportunity to intervene in the litigation and join settlement negotiations, and only after proposed consent decree or settlements have been published for at least 60 days to give the public time to comment.
It also requires courts considering approval of consent decrees and settlement agreements to account for public comments and comply with regulatory process statutes and executive orders.
![By Larry Keane President Joe Biden traveled to New York City for a media event to try and show America he’s doing something about rampant crime. Instead, he blamed the Second Amendment and lawful gun owners, said nothing about holding criminals to account and repeated the same tired lies about the firearm industry he keeps at the ready – lies “fact-checked” as being false each time he’s previously recited them. It makes no difference to the president. He’s not even trying anymore. To President Biden and national gun control groups the problem is always the gun and the law-abiding members of the industry. It’s never the criminal. Blaming the ‘Resistance’ President Biden was joined by U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland, Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul and Democratic New York City Mayor Eric Adams for a “Gun Violence Strategies Partnership” meeting to talk about how to solve the crime surge, particularly those involving firearms. Instead of real solutions, the focus devolved into blaming law-abiding gun owners and again pushing a gun control agenda. “Enough is enough,” President Biden said. “Because we know we can do things about this, but for the resistance, we’re getting from some sectors of the government and the Congress and the state legislatures, and the organizational structures out there.” That “resistance” the president spoke of is the American people. Over the past two years they’ve become fed up with police defunding policies and soft-on-crime prosecutors, like Manhattan’s Democratic District Attorney Alvin Bragg. They’ve invested in their own safety. The “resistance” is the 21 million lawful gun buyers in 2020, including more than 8.4 million first-time buyers, and the 18.5 million gun buyers in 2021, with more than 5.4 million first-timers. The ”resistance” has backstopped Congress from passing federal gun control that don’t address crime. It also stopped President Biden’s nominations of paid gun control lobbyist David Chipman to lead the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and banking activist Saule Omarova as Comptroller of the Currency because not even all U.S. Senate Democrats could support them. They would have turned those agencies into bludgeons to hammer the firearm industry to achieve a special interest, gun control agenda. Favorite Falsehoods The president turned his aim from lawful gun owners towards the firearm industry and repeated a lie he’s rehearsed several times before. “Imagine had we had a liabil… [sic] they’re the only industry in America that is exempted from being able to be sued by the public. Only one,” the president protested. “Why the gun manufacturers?… It’s got to end. They’ve got to be held responsible for the things they do that are irresponsible.” He repeated the claim for emphasis. “And I find that outrageous.” This is flatly false. The president knows by now, or his speechwriters do and they don’t bother with the facts. CNN, Politicfact and Washington Post have all checked President Biden on his remark, including after he said it in the White House Rose Garden. CNN cleanly rebuked it. “This is false. Gun manufacturers are not entirely exempt from being sued, nor are they only industry with some liability protections.” Politifact rated it “false.” Washington Post wasn’t kinder, saying, “Biden is wrong to claim the gun industry is totally immune.” The firearm industry has liability protections under the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), bipartisan legislation enacted under former President George W. Bush. The firearm industry cannot be held liable when unaffiliated third-parties, in this case criminals, misuse a legal, lawfully sold product. It’s fundamental tort law and is similar to an individual attempting to hold Ford and Budweiser responsible for drunk driving deaths. The law was passed in direct response to lawsuits filed against the industry by control groups and municipalities like the city of New York and the state of New York. These type of lawsuit continue to be filed, now even by foreign governments represented by the same gun control group, the Brady Center. Colonial-Era Error President Biden continued to ignore facts on the Second Amendment and its history. He even erred when speaking about the Revolution-era days and why the right to keep and bear arms was so sacrosanct. “When the amendment was passed, it didn’t say anybody could own a gun and any kind of gun and any kind of weapon,” President Biden remarked. “You couldn’t buy a cannon, and when – the – when this, uh, this amendment was passed.” It did, and does, say the right of the People “shall not be infringed.” Even The Washington Post was brutal in their assignment of “Four Pinocchio’s” to this statement. “Biden has already been fact-checked on this claim — and it’s been deemed false. We have no idea where he conjured up this notion about a ban on cannon ownership in the early days of the Republic, but he needs to stop making this claim.” In fact, the Constitution of early America – before the Bill of Rights, and Second Amendment, was even ratified – granted and encouraged “special waivers” to American merchants and sailors, “allowing private individuals to act as pirates on behalf of the United States against countries engaged in war with it.” Americans given waivers and who owned warships obviously also obtained cannons for use in battle. In fact, it is still perfectly legal to buy a cannon today. It is the presidents’ fundamental misunderstanding and blatant lying about the Second Amendment that informs his gun control agenda and misguided approach to solving the crime problem. Millions of law-abiding Americans took ownership of their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves, understanding the president won’t. Instead of mangling the meaning of the right and pushing for more gun control on law-abiding Americans, the president should keep it simple. Take on the criminals and punish them for breaking the law.](https://cdn0.thetruthaboutguns.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/02/download-26-218x150.jpeg "Harris is a Human Disinformation Campaign When It Comes to Guns")
I’ll have to look into this. The “sue-and-settle” model started in the Clinton administration, and is bedeviling us in the west. The left wing environmentalists are using this tactic to a) enrich their groups of poseurs and b) choke private businesses out of any multiple-use of “public” lands and even their own private lands in the west.
This.
“Land of many uses” is merely a motto now. It’s been essentially meaningless for decades.
Could we use that ‘sue-and-settle’ model for OUR interests?
Not without replacing the bureaucrats.
The point of sue-and-settle is to let the agency/department/whatever do something it wants to do, but has not been authorized by Congress. So they find some activists who manufacture standing, file a ‘friendly’ lawsuit, and then the find a judge who isn’t paying attention (or doesn’t care) to approve the settlement deal.
The entire thing should be banned. IMO, the government shouldn’t be offering settlements, period. A case should proceed until a judge makes a ruling.
We just need to have laws that fight back by giving pro rights groups equal standing to sue.
It about time. In fact, it way past time. The Bundy Ranch confrontation was, in large measure, caused by a sue-and-settle consent agreement between an environmental activist group and BLM which wanted to use the Bundy Ranch as habitat for turtles which were being displaced by a solar-energy project promoted by—wait for it—Harry Reid’s son. They thought it would be easy to intimidate an elderly rancher and his family. They rather quickly found something they hadn’t been expecting.
Good stuff, keep it coming.
Good to see the Lansing delegates are using more than just their brain stems.
Now if they’ll get busy on the wolf overpopulation issues we’ll be getting somewhere…
I expect this to be DOA in the Senate, especially since this hits Harry Reid (and his son) where it hurts: their pocketbooks. More stonewalling and obstructionism from the Party of No, as is usual.
Senile Harry is no longer majority leader and is about to get smacked.
It’s about time. I hope this measure gains enough traction to pass and isn’t simply used as a bargaining chip against the pen and phone butcher of the White House,,,despite his certain veto .
Comments are closed.