View Single Post
  #160  
Old 03-05-2009, 9:21 PM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,489
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FABIO GETS GOOSED!!! View Post
Again I'm not going to explain it here, it always ends up in the same place. I can say that hoffmang is a little too hung up on "validly adopted."
You haven't read Tidewater then.

An agency can do three and only three things.

1. Adopt a regulation through the full APA route. The 2000 rulemaking and the failed "permanence" rulemaking were examples.

2. Explain the law without conflicting or embellishing on the law or validly adopted regulations.

3. Take a position that is the only legally tenable interpretation. At best you're saying that there is more than one legally tenable interpretation - a point I don't agree with you on but then again you remain unwilling to air your supposed point of view in public or private.

It troubles me that you only want to air your opinion when you (incorrectly) perceive that it can be ruled upon in a way that would hurt gun owners.

If you're sure you are correct, I suggest you go file a writ of mandate in your local superior court as they can vet your supposed interpretation. OAL can not and will not because this is not a process to adopt a new interpretation.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
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
Reply With Quote