Attorney General Pam Bondi begins dismantling Biden-era gun policies
Attorney General Pam Bondi announced Monday that she would rescind a Biden-era gun policy that yanked licenses from federally licensed firearm dealers if they intentionally falsified records or sold weapons without running a background check.
The policy — known as the 'zero-tolerance' policy — was viewed by conservatives as a punitive rule that stripped law-abiding gun sellers of their licenses for making simple mistakes on forms. But Biden administration officials said the rule was intended to crack down on 'rogue gun dealers.' They said it specifies that officials would only revoke licenses if sellers committed willful violations of the federal Gun Control Act, not for paperwork errors.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Trump asks appeals court to keep tariffs in place or risk 'irreparable economic and national security harms'
The Trump administration on Monday argued to an appeals court that a lower court's invalidation of the president's "Liberation Day" tariffs was "illegal" and that that reimposing a halt to those duties would risk "irreparable economic and national security harms." The administration made these statements in a document filed Monday with the US Federal Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., saying the court should keep Trump's tariffs in place while considering the president's wider legal arguments about his trade policies. The president is seeking a new legal victory after a three-judge panel at the US Court of International Trade (CIT) said in May that he lacked authority to impose his "Liberation Day" duties under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA). That decision was temporarily put on hold by the appeals court, pending further arguments. The appeals court could issue a decision at any time either keeping the tariffs in place or putting them back on hold, pending the outcome of the administration's appeal. The argument made in favor of keeping them in place is that reimposing the CIT's injunction that invalidated the tariffs would risk "irreparable economic and national security harms," according to the court document filed Monday. "The injunction unilaterally diminishes America's bargaining position during sensitive trade negotiations, encouraging other countries to hold our nation hostage," the administration said. The CIT's decision, it said, usurped political choices, putting the judiciary in a central role in managing foreign negotiations, the national economy, and national security. In addition, the administration said, it would likely prevail over the lower court's ruling on appeal because the lower court misapplied the text of the IEEPA. That court's interpretation of the law would "unnaturally cabin" the president's tariff authority, the administration said. The CIT ruled that the president lacked power under IEEPA to impose the duties, saying "any interpretation" of IEEPA "that delegates unlimited tariff authority is unconstitutional." The ruling touched on key issues in the underlying case that will likely determine the ultimate fate of the administration's tariffs. In its decision striking down many of Trump's tariffs it avoided directly applying the 'major questions doctrine,' which limits the authority of federal agencies to take action on issues of "vast economic and political significance" except where Congress has explicitly authorized the action. In 2022, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 ruling dominated by the court's conservative majority, used the major questions doctrine to find that Biden's EPA lacked clear congressional authorization to regulate certain greenhouse gas emissions. A year later, the court held that Biden's secretary of education lacked clear authority under the HEROES Act to forgive $400 billion in student loan debt. Like the EPA case, the court said Biden's debt relief regulation was so major that it would need explicit authorization from Congress. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Sign in to access your portfolio
New York Post
2 hours ago
- New York Post
RFK Jr. ousts every member of CDC vaccine advisory committee
Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has sensationally ousted every member of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), the Biden-appointed group that made recommendations on the necessity and use of vaccines, in the first of a series of sweeping changes. The decision to remove all 17 members of the scientific committee, which advises the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and replace them with his own picks, was described as 'a clean sweep' by President Trump's Health Secretary in a Wall Street Journal opinion piece published Monday. President Trump and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speak at a MAHA event on May 22, 2025. Francis Chung – Pool Via Cnp/CNP via ZUMA / Advertisement 'Without removing the current members, the current Trump administration would not have been able to appoint a majority of new members until 2028,' RFK Jr. wrote. 'A clean sweep is needed to re-establish public confidence in vaccine science.' Kennedy Jr., one of the leading anti-vaccine activists in the US, did not say who he would appoint to the panel, but said the committee would meet in Atlanta in two weeks time. The move has been slammed by a number of major physicians and public health groups.
E&E News
2 hours ago
- E&E News
Trump team mum on report targeting state climate action
A Saturday deadline for the Justice Department to outline its plans for combating state climate action has come and gone without the Trump administration disclosing anything. President Donald Trump sent shock waves through state capitals earlier this year when he signed a sweeping executive order — 'Protecting American Energy From State Overreach' — that directed the Justice Department to target any state climate policies 'burdening' energy development. Trump's order named specific targets, such as so-called climate superfund laws in New York and Vermont, as well as state lawsuits against the fossil fuel sector. In the wake of Trump's order, the Justice Department followed through on challenges to those policies — including an unusual lawsuit seeking to preempt Hawaii and Michigan from suing fossil fuel companies. Advertisement But Trump's April 8 order also gestured at an even more aggressive campaign, and it set a 60-day deadline for Attorney General Pam Bondi to sketch out a plan for it.
