by Bob Barr | Jul 26, 2024 | Uncategorized |
By Bob Barr and Jason Altmire Washington Examiner With the Supreme Court recently expressing clear disapproval of many of the Federal Trade Commission‘s operating procedures, Congress must aggressively steer this key regulatory agency back to its original mission of protecting consumers. When we served in Congress, we relied on the FTC’s challenges to artificial monopolies and predatory business activities to conduct our own legislative business. Its work and guidance helped us construct fair regulatory frameworks that worked for businesses and consumers alike, regardless of how wealthy, poor, big, or small they were and irrespective of how politically well-connected they might or might not have been. Today, however, the FTC is placing its political policy agenda above the rule of law and the interests of the consumers it is charged with protecting. It would be unfair and wasteful for people to wait years, or even decades, for challenges to further regulatory abuses by the FTC and other agencies to reach and be decided by the courts. The ball is in Congress’s court. Congress still oversees the FTC, and the federal legislative body has an obligation to step in and reform the regulatory agency it created more than a century ago. Most importantly, Congress must roll back the FTC’s new enforcement policies and operational standards — standards that the commission itself has admitted do not necessarily represent the interests of consumers. The real problem started two years ago, when the FTC rescinded its antitrust enforcement policy that properly had kept its actions “guided by the public policy underlying the antitrust laws, namely, the promotion of the consumer welfare.” Sadly, in 2022, the commission, under the leadership of Chairwoman...
by Bob Barr | Jul 24, 2024 | Uncategorized |
The Regulatory Review In Garland v. Cargill, the U.S. Supreme Court held in a 6-3 decision that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) exceeded its statutory authority in issuing a final rule that classified bump stocks as machine guns. Assessment of this common-sense opinion must start with a review of the National Firearms Act, which defines a “machine gun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.” The definition also includes “any part designed and intended solely and exclusively… for use in converting a weapon into a machine gun.” In contrast to a machine gun, which can fire multiple shots when its trigger is engaged once, a semiautomatic firearm can fire only one shot per trigger engagement. There are shooting techniques, however, to increase the rate at which semiautomatic firearms can be fired. One technique is “bump firing.” When bump firing, the shooter keeps his trigger finger stationary, while allowing the recoil energy from firing the gun to push the gun backward quickly and reset the trigger. Simultaneously, the shooter applies forward pressure on the gun with his non-trigger hand to “bump” the trigger into his still-stationary trigger finger, which fires a subsequent shot. When done effectively, bump firing allows semiautomatic firearms to fire at rates approaching machine guns. A bump stock is a device that makes bump firing easier. Importantly, even with a bump stock, the Court noted that “as with any semiautomatic firearm, the trigger still must be released and reengaged to fire each additional shot.” Moreover, bump firing—with or without a bump stock—requires significant manual input from the shooter....
by Bob Barr | Jul 24, 2024 | Daily Caller Article |
Daily Caller On Monday, Kimberly Cheatle, the now-former Director of the U.S. Secret Service, “testified” (I use the term loosely) publicly before the House Committee on Homeland Security. Unsurprisingly (to me, at least), the lengthy session produced not a shred of evidence not previously known to the public. The only surprise at the end of the day was that some members of the committee actually appear to have expected otherwise. At least some members of the Committee on both sides of the aisle seem to be unfamiliar with one of the foundational principles on which governments (including our own) operate: bureaucracies are designed and operate in such a way as to avoid accountability. This is hardly breaking news. The National Academy of Public Service has published extensively about the “culture of unaccountability that hampers the government’s operations.” Congress has considered “reviving” the Constitution’s Appointments Clause to force presidential appointments to be more accountable. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court in recent years has tightened – not relaxed — standing requirements that must be met in order to hold government officials accountable by court action. I learned this lesson in unaccountability in 1995, during my first term in the House. Nothing I have seen since has changed my opinion about government aversion to accountability. The context in which the immutability of government un-accountability came clear to me was the series of hearings in which I participated in Spring 1995 to investigate the tragedy two years prior at the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas; a tragedy of horrendous proportions during which four federal law enforcement officers and more than 70 civilian...
