Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!!
There's another possible outcome I think, i.e., summary disposition letter, maybe under 270(f)(2)(E).
I'm glad I double checked this. It makes it clear to me that you do not understand the APA.
270(f)(2)(E) is for agencies who have had their rulemakings exempted from the APA. At no point in time has DOJ been exempted from the APA.
For those watching from the sidelines:
270(f)(2)(E) An express statutory exemption from the rulemaking provisions of the APA is applicable to the challenged rule.
DOJ's AW rulemaking authority is here:
12276.5 (c) The Attorney General shall adopt those rules and regulations
that may be necessary or proper to carry out the purposes and intent
of this chapter.
Their one statutory exception to the APA was here and was only applicable to the AW listings before AB-2728 is right above and shows you how 270(f)(2)(E) would otherwise come into play:
12276.5 (b) (2) Chapter 3.5 (commencing with Section 11340) of Division 3 of
Title 2 of the Government Code, pertaining to the adoption of rules
and regulations, shall not apply to any list of assault weapons
promulgated pursuant to this section.
I've had this exact argument with you on Ar15.com where you stormed off in a huff after coming back from surfing.
If you care about moving gun rights forward, then give me your best argument that the bullet button isn't legal. This time, don't delete your post and your account before I get a chance to read it.
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!
"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon