Page 4 of 4
Re: Nesbitt (Morris) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers!
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:43 pm
by ELB
Did some more poking around the government sites for rule-making stuff. The Federal Register posts list of proposed rules, adopted rules, and notices that are published by the various agencies. For an adopted rule to become effective it must be published in the Federal Register 30 days prior to its adoption. The index for DoD rules (which the USACE falls under) still lists the subject rule as a proposed rule, not a (adopted or final) rule.
https://www.federalregister.gov/index/2 ... posed-rule
Re: Nesbitt (Morris) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers!
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:06 am
by s3779m
ELB wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:43 pm
Did some more poking around the government sites for rule-making stuff. The Federal Register posts list of proposed rules, adopted rules, and notices that are published by the various agencies. For an adopted rule to become effective it must be published in the Federal Register 30 days prior to its adoption. The index for DoD rules (which the USACE falls under) still lists the subject rule as a proposed rule, not a (adopted or final) rule.
https://www.federalregister.gov/index/2 ... posed-rule
Disappointing to say the least. Too bad those in charge do not read the constitution or the bill of rights.
Re: Nesbitt (Morris) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers!
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2020 8:06 am
by s3779m
ELB wrote: ↑Thu Dec 10, 2020 1:43 pm
Did some more poking around the government sites for rule-making stuff. The Federal Register posts list of proposed rules, adopted rules, and notices that are published by the various agencies. For an adopted rule to become effective it must be published in the Federal Register 30 days prior to its adoption. The index for DoD rules (which the USACE falls under) still lists the subject rule as a proposed rule, not a (adopted or final) rule.
https://www.federalregister.gov/index/2 ... posed-rule
Disappointing to say the least. Too bad those in charge do not read the constitution or the bill of rights.
Re: Nesbitt (Morris) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers!
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:01 am
by oljames3
NRA ILA is hosting a webinar today. Started at 0830 Central. They say the ACOE proposed rule ...
Would amend 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 to read:
* An individual may possess or transport a weapon
[including ”any firearm”] on any project provided
that ... The individual is not otherwise prohibited
by Federal, state, or local law from possessing or
transporting such weapon; and ... The possession
or transportation of such weapon is in compliance
with applicable Federal, state, and local law.
* Comment period ended June 12, 2020
* Final action due Feb. 2020 (per Unified Agenda)
https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1 ... 13ed12.pdf
Re: Nesbitt (Morris) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers!
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:51 am
by s3779m
oljames3 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:01 am
NRA ILA is hosting a webinar today. Started at 0830 Central. They say the ACOE proposed rule ...
Would amend 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 to read:
* An individual may possess or transport a weapon
[including ”any firearm”] on any project provided
that ... The individual is not otherwise prohibited
by Federal, state, or local law from possessing or
transporting such weapon; and ... The possession
or transportation of such weapon is in compliance
with applicable Federal, state, and local law.
* Comment period ended June 12, 2020
* Final action due Feb. 2020 (per Unified Agenda)
https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1 ... 13ed12.pdf
Wonder if the bottom line, "final action" has the wrong date and should be Feb. 2021? If so, we might see improvement by this summer.
Re: Nesbitt (Morris) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers!
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:51 am
by s3779m
oljames3 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:01 am
NRA ILA is hosting a webinar today. Started at 0830 Central. They say the ACOE proposed rule ...
Would amend 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 to read:
* An individual may possess or transport a weapon
[including ”any firearm”] on any project provided
that ... The individual is not otherwise prohibited
by Federal, state, or local law from possessing or
transporting such weapon; and ... The possession
or transportation of such weapon is in compliance
with applicable Federal, state, and local law.
* Comment period ended June 12, 2020
* Final action due Feb. 2020 (per Unified Agenda)
https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1 ... 13ed12.pdf
Wonder if the bottom line, "final action" has the wrong date and should be Feb. 2021? If so, we might see improvement by this summer.
Re: Nesbitt (Morris) v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers!
Posted: Fri Dec 11, 2020 7:01 pm
by oljames3
s3779m wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:51 am
oljames3 wrote: ↑Fri Dec 11, 2020 10:01 am
NRA ILA is hosting a webinar today. Started at 0830 Central. They say the ACOE proposed rule ...
Would amend 36 C.F.R. § 327.13 to read:
* An individual may possess or transport a weapon
[including ”any firearm”] on any project provided
that ... The individual is not otherwise prohibited
by Federal, state, or local law from possessing or
transporting such weapon; and ... The possession
or transportation of such weapon is in compliance
with applicable Federal, state, and local law.
* Comment period ended June 12, 2020
* Final action due Feb. 2020 (per Unified Agenda)
https://shared.nrapvf.org/sharedmedia/1 ... 13ed12.pdf
Wonder if the bottom line, "final action" has the wrong date and should be Feb. 2021? If so, we might see improvement by this summer.
Yes, NRA ILA said it is a typo and should have been 2021.