Slashdot Mirror
Net Neutrality Rules Die on April 23 (theverge.com)
The Federal Communications Commission's net neutrality rules will be no more in two months, as the agency takes the final step in removing the regulation from its rule book. From a report: The date -- April 23 -- was revealed today after the Federal Communication Commission's order revoking net neutrality was published in the Federal Register. You can read the full order here. The publication means that a new fight around net neutrality is about to begin. States and other parties will be able to sue over the rules -- some have already gotten started -- and a battle in Congress will kick off over a vote to reverse the order entirely. While that fight likely won't get far in Congress since Republicans by and large oppose net neutrality and control both chambers, there will likely be a long and heated legal battle around the corner for the FCC's new policy. The FCC's new rules are really a lack of rules. Its "Restoring Internet Freedom" order entirely revokes the strong net neutrality regulations put in place back in 2015 and replaces them with basically nothing. Internet providers can now block, throttle, and prioritize content if they want to. The only real rule here is that they have to disclose if they're doing any of this.
handing an AR-15 to a mentally deranged teenager with a history of threatening violence seems like a common-sense bad idea.
Good thing that is already against the law. Oh you mean that the FBI and law enforcement are failing to enforce existing law? Yes, it would be common-sense to think that the government should properly enforce the laws on the books. It would also be common-sense to get the government to enforce existing laws before proposing new ones. If the government is failing at enforcing existing common sense law how are they going to properly enforce any other common sense solution you come up with?
The FBI and law enforcement failed to act on reports of the shooters behavior and that behavior and record was not reported on the background check. There is possibility to strengthen that legislation and language but that isn't adding new regulations but addressing the pitfalls of existing regulation.
As it stands now it is illegal for a "mentally deranged teenager" from owning a gun. That doesn't mean the background checks adequately flag it. So, yes it was "legal" in the sense he passed a background check. No in the sense that the background check should have been able to account for those red flags. IOW, addressing current law is a better solution than adding new controversial gun bans to prevent a shooting like this and the one in Texas.
If the push was for strengthening that law. It woudln't be controversial. The NRA woudln't stop it. Because we already all agree on it.