Does SCOTUS's ruling on West Virginia v. EPA affect the ATF from regulating gun rights?
- Thread starter Aim1
- Start date
- Status
Sistema1927
Member
One can only hope.....
JR24
Member
Though the current legislature wouldn’t have a problem ramming a few restrictions through right now, especially after the 14 senators and the red flag stuff.
Monac
Member
Why do we even have a Legal forum if this post is OK for General Gun Discussions?
Sistema1927
Member
Maybe because it doesn't meet the criteria for the legal forum:
"Note: The Legal Forum is for the discussion of the law as it is and how the law actually applies in RKBA matters, not the way we think things should be or the way we wish they were. Comments and opinions should be based on legal principles and supported where appropriate with reference to legal authority, including court decisions, statutes and scholarly articles. Comments based on wishful thinking may be openly refuted or simply deleted by the staff."
Monac
Member
Still seems inappropriate for General Gun Discussions. It is about legal and regulatory matters. This forum description states: "Posts must be related to firearms, not general politics."
This is a discussion about the Supreme Court and BATFE regulations. It's about the rules concerning firearms, not about firearms themselves. Isn't there a better place for it?
This is a discussion about the Supreme Court and BATFE regulations. It's about the rules concerning firearms, not about firearms themselves. Isn't there a better place for it?
Last edited:
CapnMac
Member
That "friction" is likely as it's only a tangential issue for THR.
The key issue out of WVA v EPA is that not all experts are created alike. That being part of a government department does not confer "expert" status on those employees.
Chevron deference relies upon subject matter experts "filling in" where Legislators cannot.
The problem with too many jumping on the "we gots the AFT now, boyz!" crowd is that BATFE does have considerable subject matter expertise, and can demonstrate it in spades (they may be weak on writing policy or even cleaving to their own policies, but that's a separate matter).
There may be a window for very smart lawyers to argue on if this one decision can be used to fetter BATFE. Until that occurs, though, it's not really a "gun" issue.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
Taking this out of context,
"...There may be a window for very smart lawyers to argue on if this one decision can be used to fetter BATFE. Until that occurs, though, it's not really a "gun" issue...."
Alan Gura, where are you?
Terry laughs.
He also sees "narrow reading." as meaning "strict scrutiny."
That in and of itself ought to be considered as binding precedent, IMHO,
(And if it is applied generally (a logical speculation), i.e., to the ATF, that would also affect alcohol, tobcco, and explosives.)
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Instead of complaining about the Justices, every person in the U.S. should mail each of them a dictionary.
Me go now.
Terry giggles as he hobbles away to his hidey-hole.
Go ahead and close this now... you know you want to...
Terry, 230RN
"...There may be a window for very smart lawyers to argue on if this one decision can be used to fetter BATFE. Until that occurs, though, it's not really a "gun" issue...."
Alan Gura, where are you?
Terry laughs.
He also sees "narrow reading." as meaning "strict scrutiny."
That in and of itself ought to be considered as binding precedent, IMHO,
(And if it is applied generally (a logical speculation), i.e., to the ATF, that would also affect alcohol, tobcco, and explosives.)
I've said it before and I'll say it again. Instead of complaining about the Justices, every person in the U.S. should mail each of them a dictionary.
Me go now.
Terry giggles as he hobbles away to his hidey-hole.
Go ahead and close this now... you know you want to...
Terry, 230RN
There's no way to know and any opinion is probably just wild speculation. m
FROGO207
Member
I am inclined to wait and see what the results of the next election are and then we collectively brainstorm some ideas that might pass muster and get things struck down. Too much pushback now might backfire on us.
230RN
2A was "political" when it was first adopted.
^ ^ ^
"I am inclined to wait and see what the results of the next election are and then we collectively brainstorm some ideas that might pass muster and get things struck down. Too much pushback now might backfire on us."
There';s the very real danger of last gasp legislation occuring between the election and empowerment of the new legislators if that hypothetical conservative sweep occurs.
Don't rest now. Expect the best; prepare for the worst.
That business of "we just want to sit on the back porch and shoot tin cans off the fence" is not appropriate when dealing with a fundamental enumerated right.
Which, it is said, "guarantees the rest of them."
Terry, 230RN
"I am inclined to wait and see what the results of the next election are and then we collectively brainstorm some ideas that might pass muster and get things struck down. Too much pushback now might backfire on us."
There';s the very real danger of last gasp legislation occuring between the election and empowerment of the new legislators if that hypothetical conservative sweep occurs.
Don't rest now. Expect the best; prepare for the worst.
That business of "we just want to sit on the back porch and shoot tin cans off the fence" is not appropriate when dealing with a fundamental enumerated right.
Which, it is said, "guarantees the rest of them."
Terry, 230RN
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
