What does the Republican Party stand for?

26 U.S. Code CHAPTER 53—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS list various prohibited acts.

Then about penalties it says Any person who violates or fails to comply with any provision of this chapter shall, upon conviction, be fined not more than $10,000, or be imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

I don't know how the penalty in the law could differ so much with the penalty in the regulation. Maybe there is another law.

Which “regulation” is different from which “law”?

26 U.S. Code CHAPTER 53—MACHINE GUNS, DESTRUCTIVE DEVICES, AND CERTAIN OTHER FIREARMS

… aka The National Firearms Act (NFA) is Congressional legislation… aka law, not “regulations”.

The democrats here in California said they would bring us

an “…800-mile High-Speed Train network that will relieve 70 million passenger trips a year that now clog California's highways and airports—WITHOUT RAISING TAXES…

It would be an "Electric-powered High-Speed Trains running up to 220 miles an hour…

It would "Travel from Los Angeles to San Francisco in about 2½ hours for about $50 a person…

"Matching private and federal funding to be identified BEFORE state bond funds are spent...

(And) "90% of the bond funds to be spent on system construction, not more studies, plans, and engineering activities.”

"As it turns out, none of these promises were legally enforceable—which is good, because all of them turned out not to be true."

Another good reason to vote Republican.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2020/02/26/californias-high-speed-rail-project-devolving-from-political-pork-to-an-ego-monument-to-trump-resistance/?sh=36d731ff820b

“In 1996, the California High-Speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) was established to begin formal planning in preparation for a ballot measure in 1998 or 2000.” Pete Wilson, Republican, was governor.

“In 2008, California voters approved the issuance of $9 billion in bonds for high speed rail in Proposition 1A,[29] a measure to construct the initial segment of the network.
On January 28, 2010, the White House announced that California would receive $2.25 billion for California High Speed Rail.[30] Over the course of 2010 and 2011, the federal government awarded the Authority a further $4 billion in high-speed rail funding.” Arnold Schwarzenegger, Republican, was governor.

But honestly, even though the Republicans pushed this project, it was a bipartisan effort.

Blaming the Democrats alone is dishonest.

Would a Republican appoint David Chipman to head the ATF?

Probably not. Yet another reason to vote Republican.

I wonder if Larry Elder could be a good governor for California. I read on the internet that he's a bigot, but that's just internet jibber jabber if I'm being candid.

People in my family have listened to Elder on the radio for decades. How he could be called a bigot is beyond us. I voted for him the day the ballot arrived in the mail.

As governor, one might hope he could do something about the drug addicted zombies, who leave their feces and needles on the public streets.

As governor, he will be less likely to ban weapons, which a citizen could use to protect his home from the zombies and the street gangs who pray upon and hide among the zombies.

He will be more likely to keep the bad guys in jail.

He will pull the plug on high speed rail.

He will need the cooperation of the social democrats, so he may not be able to do any of these things.

The executive branche's use of legislative power may have begun with the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887.

Section 17 says, "Said Commission may, from time to time, make or amend such general rules or orders as may be requisite for the order and regulation of proceedings before it, including forms of notices and the service thereof, which shall conform, as nearly as may be, to those in use in the courts of the United States."

Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 Section 17

The 1914 Federal Trade Commission Act gave the FTC the power to issue rules that add specificity to generic statutory prohibitions.

A new approach will allow the FTC to create entirely new rules which will have the force of law unless Congress explicitly passes a law to block them.

https://www.ocregister.com/2021/08/23/ftc-should-use-its-regulatory-power-with-great-care/

Note that three democrats voted for it. Two Republicans voted against it.

What do you mean by this statement?

The executive branch has had and used its authority to carry out and enforces laws since our constitution was put in place.

Conversely the executive branch has never had the power to actually pass laws, that has always been the job of the legislative branch.

PS
Both the Interstate Commerce Act of 1887 and the Federal Trade Commission Act of 1914 are legislation which were passed by Congress, not the president.

Honestly, you seem very confused about our political system/government and how it works. Have you considered reading our Constitution? Have you considered reading these various pieces of legislation you post about? It doesn't seem like you have.

So, a definition may help.

Administrative State - a term used to describe the phenomenon of executive branch administrative agencies exercising the power to create, adjudicate, and enforce their own rules.

https://ballotpedia.org/Administrative_state

In school we all learned how a bill becomes a law. A member of Congress introduces a bill in the house or the Senate, and a committee considers the bill. If either the House or the Senate passes the bill, the other House considers the bill. If that house passes the bill, they send it to the president. If the president signs the bill it becomes law. If the President vetoes the bill, it does not become law unless both houses pass the bill again with two-third vote.

Another way exists for a bill to become law. Normally we don't call it a law. We call it a regulation, but a regulation can cost you ten years in prison or a million dollar fine, just like a law.

Executive agencies use three rulemaking procedures to make regulations.

1) Informal rulemaking

Publish a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register

Provide a comment period, usually between 30 and 60 days, for the public and interested parties to submit comments and recommendations

Publish a revised final rule in the Federal Register, at least 30 days before the rule is scheduled to take effect

2) Formal rulemaking

The formal rulemaking process requires an agency to conduct a recorded hearing with procedures similar to those used in a court of law. These proceedings are usually overseen by an administrative law judge.

3) Some combination of the two.

Separation of powers

The regulatory agencies have the authority to both issue binding regulations and settle any disputes that arise from affected parties regarding agency rules. While some scholars have supported this procedure, others have questioned the consolidation of both rulemaking and adjudicatory functions within a single agency on the grounds that the structure violates the separation of powers outlined in the U.S. Constitution.

https://ballotpedia.org/Administrative_Procedure_Act

Not in the USA.

What you described in the rest of your post was not a legislative process, not a way for "a bill to become law", and not actually a law at all.

In fact, there are many examples where executive agencies tried to do things, which were not laws, which resulted in cases before the Supreme Court.

Sometime the Supreme Court found that the action in question was consistent with the Constitution and legislation (laws) passed by Congress.... sometime the Supreme Court found that the action in question was not consistent with the Constitution.

However, even if the Supreme Court found that the action in question was consistent with the Constitution and legislation passed by Congress, the action did not create a new law nor a new legislative bill... it was merely a rule/regulation/policy/procedure that happened to be found to be consistent with existing laws.

You seem to be falling prey to someone providing you with BS.... but I don't know... maybe you are inventing this stuff yourself...

I wonder why nobody contributes to this website. I have a notion I know why.

Seems to me that people vote Republican because they don't like the Democrat view of issues like taxation, regulation, law enforcement, and education.

I think maybe they don't agree on the same set of facts.

So this website was a carryover from the MySpace forums. When MySpace started to shut down people are scrambling for an alternate. One of the main lures for me is that you can have a dissenting opinion and it cannot be downloaded into oblivion. Pure democracy is garbage. That said there are regulars who do nothing but offer personal attacks and gaslighting and this gets very old very fast. All of our major institutions have been politicized and for that reason you’re exactly right. We don’t agree on the same set of facts.