Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Decision Helping To End ATF Tyranny

[LiveLife]

NOTE: (I am not a lawyer, just another "layperson" poster on the internet) Chevron deference is a principle of administrative law requiring courts to defer to interpretations of statutes made by those government agencies charged with enforcing them, unless such interpretations are unreasonable.

Interesting commentary regarding Supreme Court's complete silence on Chevron deference in unanimous ruling in American Hospital Association v. Becerra as expression of limiting what justices could see as runaway growth of the regulatory state that could be the beginning of the end for ATF regarding imposing on gun rights using agency interpretations as applied to bump stocks, pistol braces, forced reset triggers, etc. (Jump to 1:45 minute of video):

Supreme Court Issues Unanimous Decision Helping To End ATF Tyranny -
https://rumble.com/v18qpnu-supreme-court-issues-unanimous-decision-helping-to-end-atf-tyranny.html

 

[Spats McGee]

Unless and until someone links a statute, rule, or decision, this isn't really fit for Legal. Anyone with such a link may feel free to PM me to reopen this one.

 

[Spats McGee]

Ladies and gentlemen, we've decided to reopen this one. I'll put it back in General Discussions, but there are a couple of comments that I'd like to make: (1) The issue of Chevron deference, while important, is also fairly technical in nature. I won't speak for anyone else, but I do not currently have time to do the research necessary to really lay out its parameters for you. (2) Because of #1, you may be tempted to rant about BATFE, the Gov't, or some other entity loosely connected to the discussion. Do not do that. If this turns into a rant-fest, it will be closed.

 

[JohnKSa]

I'll throw this in, just for clarification.

This case and ruling have absolutely nothing to do with the BATF or firearms.

This ruling may set a precedent that could be used to more tightly restrict the ability of government agencies to legislate by creating their own rules to "supplement" the actual law.

 

[LiveLife]

Thank you Spats and JohnKSa for your consideration and input.

When I first learned of this case ruling (Which I agree has nothing to do with ATF/firearms), I WANTED to see/believe some "glimmer of light" that could translate to current gun rights cases under SCOTUS review/consideration specific to justices not wanting government agencies unilaterally expanding definitions/interpretations (Hence the silence on Chevron deference).

Of course, nothing of this case ruling may end up influencing the gun rights cases.

So like my other SCOTUS thread on semi-auto rifle/magazine ban, this thread could also become a "watching/monitoring" thread to see how the justices rule as each current/future gun rights case is ruled - https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...the-turning-point-for-aw-magazine-ban.905531/

We may get some insight/glimmer once SCOTUS rules on the first case which is NYSRPA v. Bruen (NY concealed carry case).

 

[Mark_Mark]

Any Court or Con Lawyers can put these simpler terms?

Chevron Difference?

I asked my Lawyer wife and she don’t know anything about court law.

 

[LiveLife]

Any Court or Con Lawyers can put these simpler terms? Chevron Difference?

From OP (Jump to 1:40 minute of video)::

https://rumble.com/v18qpnu-supreme-court-issues-unanimous-decision-helping-to-end-atf-tyranny.html

 

[Spats McGee]

Chevron Deference

"One of the most important principles in administrative law, The “Chevron Deference” is a term coined after a landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984), referring to the doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative actions." Source linked above.

To put it in layman's terms: Courts are made up of lawyers, and when those lawyers are faced with technical issues beyond their knowledge, it sometimes makes sense to defer to experts in those fields. And when a gov't agency (which presumably has those experts on staff) makes a decision regarding said issues, the courts will defer to that agency.

("I'm a lawyer, Jim, not a xenobiologist!")

 

[CapnMac]

The videos out are excellent for hyperbole, but less toothsome in examination.

A person must needs retain a grain of salt on all unanimous SCOTUS decisions, especially given the disparity of the nine Justices. The merits of the case appear (to my lay eye) hinge on the qualifications of the "experts" establishing the CFR policies. It may well be that the expert used was of a caliber similar to Cliff Claven. So, naturally, they would reject deference to that quality of "expert."

So, where this one, singular, case will go (and whether it becomes "precedent") remains to be seen.

And, to be used as the videos and pundits suggest, will require a case where the expert status of the AFTE is not crucial (for better or worse, they have a 70-80 year history of being "subject matter experts").
It would have to be a case where there are competing Federal Experts, say, FBI vs ATFE, or the like.

There might (only might) be a wedge issue in that ATFE has to be two things, a taxing & licensing authority while also being an enforcement agency. That will be a complicated and expensive case to bring to the bar.

 

[Mark_Mark]

Chevron Deference

"One of the most important principles in administrative law, The “Chevron Deference” is a term coined after a landmark case, Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 468 U.S. 837 (1984), referring to the doctrine of judicial deference given to administrative actions." Source linked above.

To put it in layman's terms: Courts are made up of lawyers, and when those lawyers are faced with technical issues beyond their knowledge, it sometimes makes sense to defer to experts in those fields. And when a gov't agency (which presumably has those experts on staff) makes a decision regarding said issues, the courts will defer to that agency.

("I'm a lawyer, Jim, not a xenobiologist!")

who appoints the experts? I can see this go about 3 different ways; right, wrong, and nowhere

 

[Golfanaticshooter]

I'm guessing whoever is in charge......

 

[Mark_Mark]

how would they define what is wrong and right from what perspective

Well, what I think is right, and the other side is wrong… isn’t that how we all think?

 

[PWC]

Well, what I think is right, and the other side is wrong… isn’t that how we all think?

Well, it's even better when you have emperical evidence to back you up. Then opinipn becomes fact.

Wasn't it Ronnie that asked "Are you better off now than you were..." before 2020 election?

 

[LiveLife]

Please stay focused on OP of Supreme Court, Chevron deference as related to gun rights and pertinent cases.

Thank you.

Ladies and gentlemen ... you may be tempted to rant about BATFE, the Gov't, or some other entity loosely connected to the discussion. Do not do that. If this turns into a rant-fest, it will be closed.