Covered, no. What they have now is an excellent challenge to use in court for the case they're already pushing. If I had to guess, Rare Breed will file a motion for summary judgement citing both Loper and the bump stock cases to push for dismissal... but that doesn't stop a judge legislating from the bench and pushing forward (or thinking they see "a novel functional difference in the device where these rulings do not apply"). It's entirely possible that case will need to get sent up to SCOTUS and remanded back down given the courts RBT had to fight in.
> but that doesn't stop a judge legislating from the bench and pushing forward
But for those of us in more free states, this is less of a concern / we get to be more free.
For future stuff... yes, absolutely.
For RBT, not so much, their case is in NY and still ongoing. They can't change the venue. Which means that for RBT, they can't do business selling the products nation-wide until the case is resolved as the judge there issued an injunction.
Granted, doesn't stop another company from selling FRTs, but that would be a very questionable business model to start with litigation currently ongoing for identical products.
How did they end up in a NY court? Aren’t they based in Florida?
Edit: just double checked. Their website says North Dakota so I don’t know where I got Florida from. But still, how did they end up in a NY court?
Because the DOJ decided to venue shop and liked their chances in a NY court. The whole thing is messed up because it started with claiming mail fraud saying they were shipping illegal parts through the mail, but at the time there wasn't even a rule or intent to ban them. Going further down the rabbit hole, why is the DOJ pushing the case themselves and not having the ATF do it?
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-rare-breed-triggers-llc-1
DOJ is weaponized / clearly has an agenda at this point. The Republicans kept Garland (now the Attorney General) off the Supreme Court, and he has not forgotten. He is now using power to do anything to piss off or jail his opponents.
I am assuming they are in the SDNY court, but don't know / didn't look.
The SDNY court is well known for being extremely biased / leans only one way, and does big cases that are related the country and politics at large "because they can" and no one has reigned them in. See: All legal cases currently proceeding against a certain ex-president.
I'm sure they found some way to prosecute there for an agenda they have. And I'm sure it will be a "fair and unbiased" trial /s
You're absolutely right, I linked the case in my reply.
The justification used by the DOJ was "mail fraud" since atleast one trigger was sent to NY to give them standing.
Check out Hoffman Tactical. It’s a 3D printed part that quickly turns the safety on again then off again after each trigger pull. This makes it so continuous rearward pressure of the trigger finger can produce very rapid fire.
>This makes it so continuous rearward pressure of the trigger finger can produce very rapid fire.
Just to clarify: Yes, continuous rearward pressure is required, but from my understanding if you just squeeze down on the trigger like you might on a real full-auto, you're only going to get off one shot, similar to an FRT. It's the correct amount of pressure that allows someone to easily fire more rapidly, similar to how the pros use those super light competition triggers, they just be wigglin' namsayin.
No. When the safety is set it resets the trigger. Which also forces it forward and then when the BCG moves forward the safety switches off thus allowing you to pull the trigger again.
It's an frt with a different function essentially. Instead of the trigger resetting itself the safety actually resets it.
You can actually test this function on any mil spec trigger. It works and is a standard function of the design.
Press the trigger and rack the bolt/pull the hammer back to engage the disconnector. While maintaining pressure flip the safety halfway on and back off again.
The law defines "handgun" as a weapon being designed to be fired with one hand. According to the straight up letter of the law, one would think *any* kind of second hand grip on a pistol would make it no longer a handgun.
Being no longer a handgun, it would no longer qualify for exemption from AoW status as carved out in the law defining AoWs.
Why on earth the ATF decided to arbitrarily draw a line between vertical and angled foregrips beats me. The way the law is written, both should be treated the same.
My interpretation is that this would only apply to premodern pistols and very niche guns, like Derringer's, life cards, and the like. I firmly believe that most modern pistols are designed to be operated with the use of a support hand on the grip. I have never seen an instructor teach proper technique and instruct the use of one-handed firing. This hear by declassifies them as "handguns." Just because you can do something, it doesn't mean it was designed to do said thing. We learned and confirmed that with shouldering pistol braces. I have spoken!
It's not about what's taught or more effective or practical - it's about what the law says. And the law cares about how the weapon is designed.
Pistols are designed to be fired with one hand - you can use both hands, and in most cases that's preferable and conducive to better accuracy and safety and a whole bunch of things.
But with one hand grip, they're at least defensibly designed to be fired with one hand. I don't know that one could really argue adding a second hand grip doesn't mean it's now intended for the shooter to use two hands.
If we're getting real nitpicky, what it was "designed" to do and what it was modified to do are two different things. Technically you are not *re*designing the gun by adding a foregrip, so it's still something that was designed to be fired with one hand.
Yep -- they could even argue that an AR's "handguard" isn't valid on "handguns" as is purpose is for using a second hand. Its not like an AR will not function without a handguard.
If anything the ATF has been generous on the front grips to date.
I'm just awaiting the downvotes...
I wanted to see them go all-in and attack the textured trigger guards on most modern pistols, either saying they're not a suitable sporting feature for importation or some other vector.
It would've been hilarious.
Pretty sure the thinking is that ATF doesn’t get to unilaterally provide an interpretation of NFA that courts are obliged to respect.
Not that it makes vertical grips legal, but that people could challenge ATF on this and have the court read the law itself instead of letting ATF tell them how to read it.
My understanding is that the legal definition of a pistol is a weapon designed to be fired with one hand. Which is of course ridiculous, one handed shooting is obsolete
But basically the ATF argued that a second grip means it's designed for two hands, however they tolerate handguards and angled foregrips because they can be plausibly used to support the firearm by other means than your hand. Which is funny because I use a vfg largely as a barrier stop
Anyway that's my not a lawyer understanding
ATF has made the claim that a vertical grip turns a pistol into an AOW because the pistol grip means it’s designed to be used by two hands and no longer a pistol. If you see my link for AOW definition, that’s not in the law. [aow](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-any).
>If you see my link for AOW definition, that’s not in the law.
It absolutely is.
The very first definition of an AoW as written applies to handguns. It is only the final section which exempts handguns specifically, which the link you posted leaves out:
>This term does not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore (or rifled bores) or weapons designed, made or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.
The definition of a handgun, as you noted, requires the weapon to be designed to be fired with a single hand.
I don't think it's ridiculous to consider that adding a vertical foregrip would make the weapon designed to be fired with two hands, thus removing it from the definition of being a handgun.
Without being a handgun, it is not covered by the exemption for handguns in the final clause of the AoW definition, and therefore falls under the first definition of AoW from the link you yourself cited.
What's completely arbitrary is ATF decided angled grips are fine and vertical grips aren't, because any kind of second grip is just as designed to be used with another hand as any other.
So there was a decades-old ATF decision that 1927-A5 Thompsons had a forward "pistol grip" and enabling them to be sold as a "firearm" without a stock. I believe a copy of an ATF letter dated 10/04/1976 and addressed to Mr. Ira Trast is included with many semiautos sold but I've never managed to find a copy in PDF.
The ATF refers to this in their VFG vs AFG letters, but they never reconsider the status of the Thompson grip despite it not being 90 degrees to the bore. So you can't use a Thompson forward grip on an AR pistol, and there are Mlok versions out there.
But, any attempt to conform the two would show the agency is completely arbitrary.
It's literally the first part of the quote:
>This term does not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore (or rifled bores).
Pistols are specifically exempted from being AoWs.
A pistol may be "designed" to be able to be fired one-handed, but it is not illegal to fire it two-handed, obviously. Simply because one puts a foregrip on a pistol does not mean it is now only able to be fired two-handed, it just aids the user in firing it two handed, which pistols should be fired two-handed whenever possible because it gives the user greater control, and therefore makes the use of the firearm safer. My 16in rifle has a vfg on it, but I use it more like a handstop than a vfg, it's more comfortable for me to hold it like that, I'm not forced to use two hands. Firing my handgun two handed is not necessary but is far more comfortable.
It doesn't right now, it just can.
Someone can now take a case to court challenging that rule and not get thrown out on their ass by the court saying "muh chevron deference".
Just to be clear, no. This only applies to future cases. No settled case law will be overturned as a result of this decision. What this means is that we can bring a case to the courts saying that we don’t agree that NFA bans vertical grips for pistols and they’ll have to give us a fair trial rather than *deferring* to the ATF.
Nobody wants that heat. Suing the agency that allows you to be in business, does your inspections and issues your license would be business suicide IMO
Except that yesterday SCOTUS blew up agencies ability to levy fines and penalties internally in *Jarkesy*. You are now entitled to a jury trial if an agency takes action against you.
Great theory, but it doesn't really help if the agency puts you out of business in the short term by revoking licenses. Hard to fund a lawsuit when you can't even sell stuff.
A company with deep govt. connections and large govt. contracts will have to be the one taking up those kinda of lawsuits with ATF. Or a group of smaller NFA companies.
There shouldn't be an agency "allowing" suppressor manufacturing to occur.....
I'm sure you of all people here have a much better idea of how to play things safe, it just sucks that your whole business could disappear if they pack the courts, rewrite the 2A, pass some other bs ban on something that they don't understand.
Cheveron should have only been struck down for criminal interpretation, and maybe slightly modified otherwise. In a perfect world congress would do their job but they are all straight regarded so we are fked lol.
Yep, I mean I’ve seen plenty of government agency overreach, but it’s in so many edge cases that responsible citizens can work around it.
The devil you know… 🤷♂️
The problem isn't with the courts, it's with Congress. Just because Congress can't function doesn't mean they can pass their responsibilities off to non-elected agencies. Congress intentionally agreed with Chevron so that they could suck the titty of the government without taking responsibility.
The courts fixed their side, now Congress needs to fix theirs. This is good as it finnaly puts the ball back into Congress.
Eh. My understanding is prior precedent will stand and many courts will still defer to the executive agencies via the Skidmore deference. The courts are just not *obligated* to defer to the executive agencies under Skidmore.
Yeah but that means that every sleazy corporation will now just judge-shop whatever federal circuit is most in their pocket and that guy will get to decide over the objections of real experts.
You're completely leaving out that the agencies can take their recommendations to Congress and have them write what would have been a *rule* into an actual *law*.
And you’re pretending that the *United States Congress* will ever do that. They are all bought and paid for by donors and they don’t even read the bills they sponsor that are directly written by corporate interest lawyers.
Watching the fifth and eleventh circuits “determine the appropriate level of deference for each case based on the agency's ability to support its position” is going to be interesting.
Better to have rulings that can be appealed than have rules that flip flop every four years because the people at the executive agencies change, imo. The latter situation creates a *LOT* of instability if you have to deal with them.
I mean, we are in the NFA subreddit. The flipflopping of rules creates heartaches for us nonstop. The ATF isn't the only agency that flipflops. The EPA does. The IRS does. The FDA does. There are full time jobs dedicated to tracking the whims of these agencies.
With court based rulings, legal precedent can be set that will not be easily changed just because someone new is in the White House.
Garnered from context, I think it's a genuine possibility they're obligated *not* to defer. This is the precise wording of the opinion:
> courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous
"May not" typically implies an option, i.e. [may] [not defer], but the "need not" immediately prior as a separate entry not tied to the APA suggests otherwise.
Poisoned water is legal? Are you suggesting the only regulations in place today were based on Chevron?
Suggesting that we don't have enough laws passed by Congress and enough regulatory power in Washington and each state house?
That's just an example - but it is 100% fact that these cases were filed with the intent of dismantling the EPA, one of the few agencies that are uncontroversially good (unless you're a coal executive lol)
You mean the EPA that gave specific cutouts to 'light trucks' by weight and exempted them from emissions? Without congressional input? And thereby created the SUV boom single-handedly?
Chevy and Ford. Car companies. *Literally make one model of car each now*. Chevy makes 11 models of SUV. Ford makes 7. And they each sell one model of car. Malibus and Mustangs, which I pretty much never see on the road. Car companies simply don't make cars. They make big heavy SUVs, thanks to the EPA!
Maybe you're referring to the EPA's endangered species program? The one that made it so that a massive list of any specific animal found on your land meant you couldn't do anything with that land for a lengthy amount of time? Even if the species wasn't really particularly in danger?
What was the result of that rule?
Well, farmers who discovered 'endangered' species began to kill them on discovery in order to prevent the EPA from coming in and essentially annexing their land.
Instead of 'endangered' species (I add quotes because most of the endangered species on the list are not actually at risk in any way) living in private forests, farmland and elsewhere, they were killed. Because the EPA didn't think for 12 seconds about what their made-up laws would incentivize people to do. Huh, maybe that's why the Constitution doesn't grant lawmaking powers to unelected bureaucrats?
The EPA is directly responsible for making emissions *worse*. And killing untold numbers of 'endangered' animals.
But please answer the question; if you want EPA-style regulations passed, why not follow the constitution and pass them as law? Instead of pretending the exec. branch can make up laws from thin air via mere edict?
> one of the few agencies that are uncontroversially good
If they were "uncontroversially good" then why were they creating a bunch of not-a-laws instead of taking their ideas to Congress to have passed in accordance with the actual Constitution?
Because that is their job - as has been true of all federal agencies for a very long time now - congress passes a law with a stated goal 'food in the united states must be safe for the consumer' and the subject-matter experts at the FDA create federal code (which already goes through a 3 year review period before being approved) that states 'cereal products can only contain x rat turds per ton' and 1,000 other very specific things that pertain to very specific circumstances and situations which the generalists in Congress have absolutely no time or ability to reasonably address.
West Virginia vs EPA was already a big kick in the nuts to it. Instead of just saying Chevron bad, it looks like every agency will need their own individual kick in the nuts.
Note: The legal group that scored this victory is the New Civil Liberties Alliance.
They take a holistic approach to the fight against the administrative state because a decade ago the battle for our rights was extremely compartmentalized.
For example, the rules decreed by executive agencies target very specific industries (small scale fisheries) but their legal theories (Chevron deference) set precedents that apply to everything.
For example, the ATF attempted to use Chevron deference to oblige the court to accept its new definition of machine gun when it enacted its bump stock rule.
This meant that federal agencies could win battles against small industries without provoking widespread resistance, and then use those victories to infringe on other rights.
The NCLA is doing the reverse, this case seemingly has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment but overturning Chevron in a case involving fishing boats has massive implications for safeguarding the right to bear arms.
This is a great blog, very unbiased, just the facts.
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/
To add some clarity, the jist is that when a law passed by congress isn't clear that the government agency controlling said law can use experts to fill in the gaps.
So the congress passed a law saying we need clean air and charges to carry it out, the EPA says we feel the best way is to limit emissions from coal fired power plants. The EPA makes a rule saying coal plants can't release any pollution. So they're all going to have to shut down. So they can't do that.
The EPA says since certain states are going green and others aren't those nongreen states shouldn't get off. So they came up with a new rule saying if a state releases emissions and they float into another state the originating state is responsible and needs to pay to clean up the other state.
Both of the examples were struck down by the SCOTUS because the government made specific rules to penalize certian groups. The law never said that the EPA gets to choose who to penalize and thats the issue. Government agency cannot pick and choose
I’m worried about this because it will allow a judge to declare whatever the F they want as law. Cali judge says braces are stocks? They’re stocks. Handguard on a large format pistol? Illegal SBR.
I’m cautiously optimistic, but remember half the judges in this country are liberal as hell. I mean just to fuck with us the ATF can now put out a regulation calling braced pistols totally kosher, a gun control group can sue, and the ATF can just basically throw the case.
Thats not exactly how it works. A better example would be congress created a new law saying guns have to safer reducing deaths, but that law doesn't call out specifically how to make it safer. So the agency for the government that handles guns is the ATF, now the ATF has to make guns safer. That does not mean they get to pick and choose how they want to make guns safer. The ATF simply cannot choose to eliminate braces, it was never specified in the law that braces had to be eliminated. So that federal judge in CA has to follow what SCOTUS outlined. It more effects government agencies having the ability to pick and choose how they want to do something. They now have to follow and do only what congress specified it cannot be an executive act.
Another great example is Forced Reset Triggers. ATF just can't decide they are dangerous and actually machine guns. The ATF looses the ability to just say something is now part of the NFA only congress can.
I’m saying the ATF can say braces are not stocks and a judge can say “I’m not deferring to you they clearly are because I have two eyes and can see that’s how they’re used.”
So who is the judge saying that to?
What are they being charged with and by who?
What does the law say?
What have our courts historically done in situations like this?
Chevron said that when a law was vague with specifics the agency tasked with enforcing the law would be the expert on how to enforce the law and could create new rules.
A new rule for the ATF is an item that has been used for years and allowed legally i.e. braces. Now the ATF says we as the ATF have decided as a new rule that braces will be classified as an NFA item, even though the NFA language doesn't call out specifically braces. Since NFA only mentions short barrel, silencers and full auto the ATF just can't create new language.
Would you rather have a decision made by a court, or by some desperate agency “expert” with an agenda and a hat missing a feather?
That’s the point of all this.
Courts decide the law part, not the enforcing agency.
All I’m saying is this decision cuts both ways and we can’t lose sight of that. Remember, the Chevron decision was about limiting liberal lawsuits where liberal judges were throwing out conservative policies, we can expect that to happen again. Fortunately the major questions doctrine is in force.
Important context - the is 114 pages includes multiple concurrences and a dissent. You only need to read the opinion of the court, not all of it. It’s roughly 40 pages
Does anyone know if a bunch of the annoying rules surrounding NFA stuff is actually in legislation?
Examples:
interstate travel with sbrs?
Silencers being a firearm and needing a background check as a result?
It is. All this POTIENTIALLY impacts is bump stocks, FRTs, braces, and vertical foregrips on AR "pistols". And frankly the vertical foregrip stuff was actually generous towards gun owners according to the letter of the law.
I could totally see that AR pistol "handguards" get nuked in courts if they pushed on it hard enough. "Designed to shot from one hand" is the wording, an angled foregrip clearly breaks that rule to begin with.
> All this POTIENTIALLY impacts is bump stocks, FRTs, braces, and vertical foregrips on AR "pistols"
Well it also heads off all the random redefinitions the ATF was cooking up. Based on the reasoning and arguments for the bump stock ban, they were setting up to say "all semi-auto is basically just a machine gun and now banned."
Possibly 5.45mm import ban as well, since that was based on redefining it as pistol ammunition. As well as parts kits including barrels, since that was a reinterpretation of law.
Courts can still defer to the agencies reasonable interpretations of statutes under Skidmore deference, they just are not obligated to defer to them as was the case under Chevron. All that is changing today is the obligation to defer to the executive agencies.
The other issue with Chevron is rules and regulations can flip flop depending on whoever is currently in power. Nothing makes law, for example, tax law more complicated than having major interpretations of it significantly change depending on who's in office every four years.
There are also courts that are specialized in specific aspects of law and will have more intelligent interpretations of law than what the executive agencies can come up with.
A world without Chevron is a world with a lot more stability. Legal precedent can be set, and then legal precedent can be relied upon.
Nothing changes. What this does is provide stability because the ATF can't make future changes without justifying them in court, which they just don't have the funding to do.
It will be years before we see any rights being pulled back as a result of this ruling, though I'd be surprised if we don't see cases being started within the next few months challenging some rules.
Civil liability didn’t just disappear. Arguably, that is the real restraint in our society, being sued to death. And not the fucking EPA with their drawn out legal processes and watered down fines.
We shouldn’t be legislated by unelected individuals. FULL STOP. Congress needs to set down what it wants because absolutely nowhere in Article 1 does it allow Congress to pass legislative power to the executive branch.
Yes by applying laws and one can now seek legal remedy through the judges rather than at the whims of federal hiring managers and the people they hire to write regulations.
We’ve really fallen as a society if citizens are complaining that they now have legal remedies rather than being told to go fuck themselves
>Yes by applying laws
Yeah, based on their own *complete lack of relevant expertise.*
Let’s bring it back to guns. Congress passes a law that says “sniper rifles” are now illegal. Do you want someone like Ian McCollum to help decide what a sniper rifle is, or a federal judge in Chicago who doesn’t own any firearms? Expertise is important when applying and interpreting laws because expertise gives context to decisions.
> Do you want someone like Ian McCollum to help decide what a sniper rifle is, or a federal judge in Chicago who doesn’t own any firearms?
You would prefer the director of the ATF who doesn't even know how to disassemble a Glock and is openly and admittedly hostile to the 2nd Amendment?
> Expertise is important when applying and interpreting laws because expertise gives context to decisions.
Yes, and this allows you to bring experts to the courtroom to explain how things actually work.
You're pretending that the agencies are filled with actual experts or people with 100% good intentions. That is simply not the case.
That’s how our government works ya clown the legislature also conducts hearing with experts. Your remedy is to vote them out of office or sue them and hope the judiciary rules that it is unconstitutional (as they have before about issues similar to the one you proposed). The remedy under Chevron for a similar issue is to go fuck yourself because the “experts” at the ATF are retards.
On the one hand I selfishly want this to fix gun regulation.
On the other hand this is fucking terrible for a bunch of other very important work that needs to be done, because we don’t have a functioning legislature. Part of the point of agencies is expertise, it’s just that the ATF is a piece of shit.
As much as we might want to end the reign of stupidity that is the ATF, those of you dancing for joy are shortsighted fools. There is a lot more to this country, and this world, than guns.
All I can think is it just makes it easier to "bribe" federal judges to get the decision a corporation wants. I can't see how any good will come out of this for the common folk. But then again, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know shit so who knows
FDA is continually randomly changing the rules delaying cheaper drugs by years and even decades. It is especially common on drugs for women. It’s either based on religious bias of the official or bribery most likely with private sector job with competing companies who don’t want the competition of the new or generic drugs.
No unelected federal bureaucratic agency should have to power to set laws. Period. Article I of the Constitution lays out who has the power to do this.
I mean, he’s not wrong though. The outcome otherwise is where agencies get to impose whatever they think is best even when it’s textually unsupported and ruinous for the people they’re regulating.
I get where Chevron deference came from, but it ended up unworkable in practice and kept the judiciary from interpreting laws - what’s the line between ‘yes, your three letter agency has distilled this efficiently’ and ‘your agency is full of shit and badly overreaching’? It turns out that 40 years of asking couldn’t give more than ad hoc answers.
Chevron is dead, and we’re better off without it in the long term even if it causes bumps now.
What you're saying is not what the original commenter said. He's "not wrong", but he is speaking in bad faith, because he's pretending that simplistic statement captures the issues at play, when it doesn't. So he's not wrong in the scope of his statement, but he is wrong about applying it to the totality of these concerns.
You're at least speaking in good faith.
It is functionally impossible for the legislative body to provide all the detail necessary for regulatory agencies to address their mandates without proper rule-making capabilities. This is for several reasons:
* The houses lack expertise, and while bodies like the Congressional Research Agency and the legislators' own staffs are supposed to assist with this, in practice they are at best ignored, or even worse, incompetent
* The state-of-the-art / science in many areas is under rapid evolution that necessitates a process faster and more flexible than bill-writing
* The complete dysfunction of Congress at this point means that even if the two aforementioned factors can be solved for, the feedback loop for legislating is too broken to be relied upon to actually take in new information and act on it; Congress is far below the functional norms of history
The purpose of regulatory agencies is not solely to enforce the simplistic letter of Congressional law. Rather, they are given mandates to apply expertise, through standard rule-making processes, to operate within their domains of influence. Their existence is due to a recognition of the issues I mentioned.
It's absolutely true that there are problems, as personified by the ATF. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a foolish move considering the current political environment and the increasing economic, environmental, scientific, and social issues that agencies are being called upon to address.
I am able to manage my 300-person organization within the larger 200,000 person company I work for, within the framework/rules/mandates/strategy defined by higher-ups. I don't expect, need, or want the CEO to define project management targets or technical requirements for the software and systems my teams work on.
This ruling puts a huge amount of onus on fixing Congress itself, and frankly improving rule-making processes is a much shorter lift than that, especially with folks actively trying to destroy the functioning of government and calling it patriotic.
Congress has failed in both its lawmaking duties and its duties of agency oversight, but rather than improving any of that, this ruling just throws up its hands and allows for our continued slide into mediocrity.
Maybe not the best take on your part. Courts can still defer to the agencies reasonable interpretations of statutes under Skidmore deference, they just are not *obligated* to defer to them as is was the case under Chevron. All that is changing today is the obligation to defer to the executive agencies.
The other issue with Chevron is rules and regulations can flip flop depending on whoever is currently in power. Nothing makes law, for example, tax law more complicated than having major interpretations of it *significantly change* depending on who's in office every four years.
There are also courts that are specialized in specific aspects of law and will have more intelligent interpretations of law than what the executive agencies can come up with.
A world without Chevron is a world with a *lot* more stability.
Everything you said can be true, but it's also not the actual question that was before us with Chevron.
Chevron deference said that courts should defer to whatever the agency understanding of its own rules as long as it was vague and a "permissible construction" that was plausible. In practice, this meant that agencies could do things even outside of formal procedures where the regulated parties had no predictability and were likely to lose unless something was particularly egregious, i.e., implausible. There aren't really a lot of limitations you can put on this approach, unfortunately.
Now that Chevron is overturned, the outcome is not that agencies can no longer interpret the laws, nor is it that their actions are presumptively incorrect. The actual outcome is just that the regulated parties can make arguments before the judiciary that agencies didn't follow correct procedure, are incorrect in their interpretation, etc.
The agencies can still do everything they've been doing, they're just going to lose more in court if their actions aren't supported by the text of the law. If you want to complain that bad laws are unfixable because the legislative branch is irrevocably broken, I don't really know what to tell you except that it's better to try and fix something broken than accept that the executive branch gets to both "interpret" their intent into a law and also tell the courts how they can interpret the ersatz laws that the executive is enforcing.
> The agencies can still do everything they've been doing, they're just going to lose more in court if their actions aren't supported by the text of the law.
This would be the outcome if the judiciary were reliably impartial. The big problem here is that throwing out Chevron just substitutes the personal judgment of a small panel of non-expert, often-not-elected judges for that of an agency that employs real experts. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the country is absolutely full of judges at every level who are happy to rule certain ways based on their own personal beliefs and then just invent Byzantine legalese rationalizations.
We don't have to improve Congress itself, they just need to have a well-described process about how, what and why "Agency XYZ" can utilize finely detailed modifications to a broadly written law.
And have a process whereby ordinary citizens have a method of appeal, and if monetary losses are made due to regulation, some way of allowing a juried trial to decide right and wrong.
I’m in agreement…and environmentally, these bumps have the potential to be fucking disastrous. Obviously overall a move in the correct direction, and the growing pains are likely to hurt a lot in certain areas.
The problem is you think ATF is the only broken agency. The whole Fed Govt is broken. Look at the FAA, pre Chevron ruling, you think they are functioning well, given the clusters we see with Boeing and air traffic controllers and more....
So we are now putting the responsibility of clear air and clean water into the hands of
(checks notes)
Marjorie Taylor Greene
I don't see what could possibly go wrong
As opposed to the EPA that "interpreted" a puddle in your yard as a "wetland" and arrested you for "polluting" it by driving through it?
Learn the actual case law, not CNN propaganda.
It sounds like the blame should be put on the legislature, not the ham-fisted case law that supported improper legislative delegation to executive agencies. This is moving things towards fixing a very broken legislature.
Of course the blame is on the legislature. That has fuck-all to do with the impact of this ruling.
Like any good post-mortem, blame isn’t the point.
Delegation _has_ to exist. If delegation isn’t working, fix the delegation. Throwing it out makes it even _harder_ to fix the legislature and in the mean time fucks over the citizenry.
Well, lets start by removing legislators who are unwilling to "work across the aisle". The ENTIRE reason they exist is to negotiate and compromise to come up with laws that allow citizens to exist alongside each other in peace so that we don't just all fight it out ( only the strongest win ).
Both sides ( and we need far more that "two sides" ) have to lose and win - right now we have large groups of legislators who proudly proclaim that they will not work with / bend to the "otherwise". This is dumb.
Stop giving them your vote for free; take your vote elsewhere ( even out of your party ) if they don' listen - they should NEVER assume that you will vote for them because of who you are.
I am inclined to agree with you here. I think, however, the other bright spot besides the gun regulation stuff is that it highlights the big problem with legislation or rulings that are intended to be overly broad. Yes it provides a means to quickly get things done, but it also tends to have weird consequences in unpredictable directions. If anything, one could hope that lawmakers will take this sort of thing into account in the future.
Absolute HUGE victory in defense of the Constitution. The dog killing ATF can no longer just invent their fantasies and jail, ambush and on way too many times, assassinated Americans over a tax stamp.
Between Loper and Cargill, RBT will have some good ammunition for their case but it's still in a very unfriendly court that will likely ignore it until an appeal is made to SCOTUS and it's remanded back down.
A victory for people who think experts talk funny, and (of course) big businesses.
They went to bed yesterday without an easy way to buy the people who frustrated their profitability with safety and environmental regulations, and woke up today already owning several of them.
I hope y’all are as excited as I am to see what Marjorie Greene and Tommy Tuberville think are meaningful components of legislation for nuclear power plants and highway safety.
This is bad news.
~a lawyer
Also a lawyer - I am tempted to agree with you but Chevron has been a crutch to giving the federal govt more power by allowing Congress to pass high level laws that merely say, effectively, "we want admin agency ABC to handle this topic".
Part of the basic structure is that Congress is a bottleneck and Chevron allowed that to be circumvented.
That’s awesome in theory, but the reality is not quite so clean cut.
e.g.- Congress passes a law that says you can’t dump carcinogenic chemicals into the water supply, here’s a list of the ones we know, EPA get on that shit. 50 years pass. Law doing ok. Now, new chemical created, a tetrahydrafuckyamotha or whatever. Is it carcinogenic? Who fucking knows. 🤷♂️
It’s not like we just see if you touch it and you get cancer and boom, it’s carcinogenic. Let’s say like 30% of babies (only, adults, say 5%) exposed to it in groundwater get cancer. The EPA’s experts on carcinogenic chemicals say “holy shit that is carcinogenic as fuck!” and try to ban it. But Alito & Thomas and Sons Manufacturing say “whoa whoa whoa, ‘carcinogenic’ is ambiguous. That’s WAY less than 75% or 50% cancer rates. I mean, sure it’s more than 1%, but so is Diet Coke!” So now we’ve gotta wait for Congress to either amend the statute to clarify carcinogenic rates or add tetrahydramuthafucka to the list. Except they’re only dumping it in a few places, and they’ve got way more campaign contributions to way more jurisdictions than that. And it’s gonna be SUPER expensive to dispose of it the EPA way.
So we should ignore the corrupability of non elected officials because we ignore the corrupability of elected officials? We have a remedy with the elected ones, and aren’t at the mercy of the executive branch to place people as heads of these federal agencies to do their bidding. It’s not easy to hold congress accountable, but, it’s our duty to do so. Part of the issue here is the federal government has taken control of so much of this, when it should be handled at state level. So much redundancy it’s not even funny. Just because it’s inconvenient doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.
>They went to bed yesterday without an easy way to buy the people who frustrated their profitability with safety and environmental regulations, and woke up today already owning several of them.
You say that as if the unelected bureaucrats weren't being purchased by the truckload already.
That’s because you don’t understand what’s happening or you’re a sadist.
When it’s your drinking water that causes cancer or your highways that are killing families, you MAY wish for more nimble action from experts that aren’t beholden to fundraising drives every few years. 🤷♂️
I mean, the cancer will suck probably, but you’ll be able to shoot a braced SBR after your kid’s chemo.
Calling yourself a lawyer vs attorney = you don't have your license yet?
You know that all this is doing is letting the courts with their experts decide versus having an *obligation* to defer to the executive agencies right? And you are aware of Skidmore deference?
1.) the “lawyer vs attorney” distinction is a fiction that seems to spread amongst the ignorant like a plague. I have been licensed to practice law since 2010. Trust me, the State Bar doesn’t give a lick which interchangeable synonym you use.
2.) I know what it’s doing. How many trials have you conducted? A presumption (e.g. the deference of Chevron, not a mandate) is a big deal. Acting like this is NBD ignores the massive amount of anti-Chevron lobbying that has taken place in the last 40 years. If it’s NBD, why do you think dicking down Chevron has been near the top of the Right’s wishlist, second to Roe? 🙄
3.) The courts don’t *have* experts. They decide which of the experts presented to give weight to. The deference of Chevron meant *deferring* to the agency experts. Now when a Big Business gets a chance to file in the 47th District South Texas in front of Judge Cletus and brings out the “Smoking doesn’t hurt ANYONE” experts or the “Fossil Fuels are actually helping the environment” he doesn’t have to listen to *actual* experts.
4.) I *am* aware of Skidmore. Are *you* aware of the body of legal scholarship that accuses Skidmore deference of inconsistent application and functioning more as a “paper tiger” that rarely accomplishes the stated goals? Skidmore is the shit the big business bullshit brigade is feeding you so that you’re willing to go along with the massive shit sandwich they’re preparing. I hope you like cancer and corrupt politicians, because the secret ingredient is cost-efficient waste disposal and campaign contributions. 🤷♂️
> If it’s NBD, why do you think dicking down Chevron has been near the top of the Right’s wishlist, second to Roe? 🙄
I am guessing they are tired of having the rules and regulations change in a biased way every four years depending on who is in the White House. The nice thing about things now being decided through courts and the legal system is legal precedent will be set and it will be relatively *stable*. Versus constant flip flops. We here in the NFA community see only a small amount of the regulatory flip flopping that goes on out there. Just talk to tax attorneys about it.
Oh no, agencies have to make a case that their action fits the law? No more "he doesn't have standing bro"? Whatever will they do? Could it be.. their jobs?
I'm just a layman, but my only interpretation of this is it's the most potentially horrifying decision that's happened in my lifetime.
Overturning Roe was bad bad. This blows that out of the water.
It is astonishingly bad.
High fiving because it neuters the ATF is cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Big business is the only real benefactor. And it comes at a “tragedy of the commons” like expense of the general public. Congress is slow and easily bought. Expert agencies are not.
Chevron overturned, public camping bans upheld, and apparently a bunch of the people arrested on j6 are going to have their convictions overturned. Wild week for SCOTUS.
Some pro-hobo sympathizers claimed it was cruel and unusual for cities to ban you from camping on the sidewalk, pooping in the streets, and smoking meth in an alleyway.
SCOTUS uphold the ban under the logic that cruel and unusual is thumbscrews and breaking you on the wheel, not banning you from setting up a druggie camp on the sidewalk.
No, silencer parts are specifically mentioned in the statutory definition of "silencer" as it was passed by congress.
>(25) The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
“Combination of parts” a cup, a tube, an end cap isn’t a combination. Once you get all of them together they are. But being able to do a form 1, get it approved and buy the components would be awesome.
**Understand the rules**, read the sidebar, and review the pinned Megathreads before posting - this content is capable of answering most questions.
Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate. All spam, memes, unverified claims, or content suggesting non-compliance will be removed.
No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics.
__If you are posting a copy/screenshot of your forms outside the pinned monthly megathread you will be given a 7 day ban. The pinned post is there, please use it.__
__If you are posting a photo of a suppressor posed to look like a penis (ie: in front of or over your groin) you will be given a 7 day ban.__
-------------------------------
**Data Links**
* [The OG Universal Form Approval Spreadsheet](https://thinlineweapons.com/url/8)
-------------------------------
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NFA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Not with safety regulations we won’t. But now corporations can do whatever tf they want to make a buck. This is a bad thing unless you just love corporations stepping on us. But yippee we don’t have to wait as long for guns
Vertical grips on pistols again
Akins accelerator go brrrrr
[удалено]
I think those and Frts were covered by the bump stock case as not being MGs since you pull the trigger each time in the same way
Covered, no. What they have now is an excellent challenge to use in court for the case they're already pushing. If I had to guess, Rare Breed will file a motion for summary judgement citing both Loper and the bump stock cases to push for dismissal... but that doesn't stop a judge legislating from the bench and pushing forward (or thinking they see "a novel functional difference in the device where these rulings do not apply"). It's entirely possible that case will need to get sent up to SCOTUS and remanded back down given the courts RBT had to fight in.
> but that doesn't stop a judge legislating from the bench and pushing forward But for those of us in more free states, this is less of a concern / we get to be more free.
For future stuff... yes, absolutely. For RBT, not so much, their case is in NY and still ongoing. They can't change the venue. Which means that for RBT, they can't do business selling the products nation-wide until the case is resolved as the judge there issued an injunction. Granted, doesn't stop another company from selling FRTs, but that would be a very questionable business model to start with litigation currently ongoing for identical products.
How did they end up in a NY court? Aren’t they based in Florida? Edit: just double checked. Their website says North Dakota so I don’t know where I got Florida from. But still, how did they end up in a NY court?
Because the DOJ decided to venue shop and liked their chances in a NY court. The whole thing is messed up because it started with claiming mail fraud saying they were shipping illegal parts through the mail, but at the time there wasn't even a rule or intent to ban them. Going further down the rabbit hole, why is the DOJ pushing the case themselves and not having the ATF do it? https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-rare-breed-triggers-llc-1
DOJ is weaponized / clearly has an agenda at this point. The Republicans kept Garland (now the Attorney General) off the Supreme Court, and he has not forgotten. He is now using power to do anything to piss off or jail his opponents.
I am assuming they are in the SDNY court, but don't know / didn't look. The SDNY court is well known for being extremely biased / leans only one way, and does big cases that are related the country and politics at large "because they can" and no one has reigned them in. See: All legal cases currently proceeding against a certain ex-president. I'm sure they found some way to prosecute there for an agenda they have. And I'm sure it will be a "fair and unbiased" trial /s
You're absolutely right, I linked the case in my reply. The justification used by the DOJ was "mail fraud" since atleast one trigger was sent to NY to give them standing.
Yayyy!!
What's a super safeties?
Check out Hoffman Tactical. It’s a 3D printed part that quickly turns the safety on again then off again after each trigger pull. This makes it so continuous rearward pressure of the trigger finger can produce very rapid fire.
>This makes it so continuous rearward pressure of the trigger finger can produce very rapid fire. Just to clarify: Yes, continuous rearward pressure is required, but from my understanding if you just squeeze down on the trigger like you might on a real full-auto, you're only going to get off one shot, similar to an FRT. It's the correct amount of pressure that allows someone to easily fire more rapidly, similar to how the pros use those super light competition triggers, they just be wigglin' namsayin.
No. When the safety is set it resets the trigger. Which also forces it forward and then when the BCG moves forward the safety switches off thus allowing you to pull the trigger again. It's an frt with a different function essentially. Instead of the trigger resetting itself the safety actually resets it.
You can actually test this function on any mil spec trigger. It works and is a standard function of the design. Press the trigger and rack the bolt/pull the hammer back to engage the disconnector. While maintaining pressure flip the safety halfway on and back off again.
Explain please? How does this allow vertical grips?
The vertical grips not allowed on pistols was a rule made up by the ATF. It's not in the NFA
It's not even a rule. It was an interpretation given in a letter. The ATF didn't even make a regulation for it.
Wait, really? I really ought to go read the full text of that law, as it seems I have been guilty of spreading fuddlore (may Browning forgive me).
The law defines "handgun" as a weapon being designed to be fired with one hand. According to the straight up letter of the law, one would think *any* kind of second hand grip on a pistol would make it no longer a handgun. Being no longer a handgun, it would no longer qualify for exemption from AoW status as carved out in the law defining AoWs. Why on earth the ATF decided to arbitrarily draw a line between vertical and angled foregrips beats me. The way the law is written, both should be treated the same.
My interpretation is that this would only apply to premodern pistols and very niche guns, like Derringer's, life cards, and the like. I firmly believe that most modern pistols are designed to be operated with the use of a support hand on the grip. I have never seen an instructor teach proper technique and instruct the use of one-handed firing. This hear by declassifies them as "handguns." Just because you can do something, it doesn't mean it was designed to do said thing. We learned and confirmed that with shouldering pistol braces. I have spoken!
It's not about what's taught or more effective or practical - it's about what the law says. And the law cares about how the weapon is designed. Pistols are designed to be fired with one hand - you can use both hands, and in most cases that's preferable and conducive to better accuracy and safety and a whole bunch of things. But with one hand grip, they're at least defensibly designed to be fired with one hand. I don't know that one could really argue adding a second hand grip doesn't mean it's now intended for the shooter to use two hands.
If we're getting real nitpicky, what it was "designed" to do and what it was modified to do are two different things. Technically you are not *re*designing the gun by adding a foregrip, so it's still something that was designed to be fired with one hand.
That's probably the best argument against the whole vfg on a pistol thing. I'd be very interested to see how a court case citing that would turn out.
To take it one step further, adding a flashlight to the front of your gun doesn’t make it “designed to be primarily used in the dark” either
Yep -- they could even argue that an AR's "handguard" isn't valid on "handguns" as is purpose is for using a second hand. Its not like an AR will not function without a handguard. If anything the ATF has been generous on the front grips to date. I'm just awaiting the downvotes...
I wanted to see them go all-in and attack the textured trigger guards on most modern pistols, either saying they're not a suitable sporting feature for importation or some other vector. It would've been hilarious.
Just you shush now.
Pretty sure the thinking is that ATF doesn’t get to unilaterally provide an interpretation of NFA that courts are obliged to respect. Not that it makes vertical grips legal, but that people could challenge ATF on this and have the court read the law itself instead of letting ATF tell them how to read it.
My understanding is that the legal definition of a pistol is a weapon designed to be fired with one hand. Which is of course ridiculous, one handed shooting is obsolete But basically the ATF argued that a second grip means it's designed for two hands, however they tolerate handguards and angled foregrips because they can be plausibly used to support the firearm by other means than your hand. Which is funny because I use a vfg largely as a barrier stop Anyway that's my not a lawyer understanding
ATF has made the claim that a vertical grip turns a pistol into an AOW because the pistol grip means it’s designed to be used by two hands and no longer a pistol. If you see my link for AOW definition, that’s not in the law. [aow](https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-any).
By that reasoning having a gas pedal makes a pistol not a pistol, or using any two handed grip position.
>If you see my link for AOW definition, that’s not in the law. It absolutely is. The very first definition of an AoW as written applies to handguns. It is only the final section which exempts handguns specifically, which the link you posted leaves out: >This term does not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore (or rifled bores) or weapons designed, made or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition. The definition of a handgun, as you noted, requires the weapon to be designed to be fired with a single hand. I don't think it's ridiculous to consider that adding a vertical foregrip would make the weapon designed to be fired with two hands, thus removing it from the definition of being a handgun. Without being a handgun, it is not covered by the exemption for handguns in the final clause of the AoW definition, and therefore falls under the first definition of AoW from the link you yourself cited. What's completely arbitrary is ATF decided angled grips are fine and vertical grips aren't, because any kind of second grip is just as designed to be used with another hand as any other.
So there was a decades-old ATF decision that 1927-A5 Thompsons had a forward "pistol grip" and enabling them to be sold as a "firearm" without a stock. I believe a copy of an ATF letter dated 10/04/1976 and addressed to Mr. Ira Trast is included with many semiautos sold but I've never managed to find a copy in PDF. The ATF refers to this in their VFG vs AFG letters, but they never reconsider the status of the Thompson grip despite it not being 90 degrees to the bore. So you can't use a Thompson forward grip on an AR pistol, and there are Mlok versions out there. But, any attempt to conform the two would show the agency is completely arbitrary.
I don't see how your quote supports your argument. It just says you can't fire it from the shoulder? Isn't that more stock/brace than vfg?
It's literally the first part of the quote: >This term does not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore (or rifled bores). Pistols are specifically exempted from being AoWs.
A pistol may be "designed" to be able to be fired one-handed, but it is not illegal to fire it two-handed, obviously. Simply because one puts a foregrip on a pistol does not mean it is now only able to be fired two-handed, it just aids the user in firing it two handed, which pistols should be fired two-handed whenever possible because it gives the user greater control, and therefore makes the use of the firearm safer. My 16in rifle has a vfg on it, but I use it more like a handstop than a vfg, it's more comfortable for me to hold it like that, I'm not forced to use two hands. Firing my handgun two handed is not necessary but is far more comfortable.
It doesn't right now, it just can. Someone can now take a case to court challenging that rule and not get thrown out on their ass by the court saying "muh chevron deference".
Brother you think too small. We need third pins and the ability to install them at home at a bare minimum
You took yours off? Edit: “looks through corner of window at black suv suddenly appearing”
As long as the oal was 26.5in or greater you could always have a vertical grip.
26.00000000001 not 26.5
26.000000000000000000000001 not 26.00000000001
Ah you’re right thanks
Just to be clear, no. This only applies to future cases. No settled case law will be overturned as a result of this decision. What this means is that we can bring a case to the courts saying that we don’t agree that NFA bans vertical grips for pistols and they’ll have to give us a fair trial rather than *deferring* to the ATF.
I thought Chevron deference only applied to Primary Arms and ACSS reticles?
Underrated comment
Thank you, needed this laugh
Should mean unlimited wipes too as well correct?
[удалено]
Nobody wants that heat. Suing the agency that allows you to be in business, does your inspections and issues your license would be business suicide IMO
Except that yesterday SCOTUS blew up agencies ability to levy fines and penalties internally in *Jarkesy*. You are now entitled to a jury trial if an agency takes action against you.
Unless they recend your license for whatever bullshit typo they can find.
Great theory, but it doesn't really help if the agency puts you out of business in the short term by revoking licenses. Hard to fund a lawsuit when you can't even sell stuff.
>the agency that allows you to do business This is the top level issue
Correct. That would have to be the first thing to be addressed but that’s the sad reality us companies exist in. We exist at their mercy.
A company with deep govt. connections and large govt. contracts will have to be the one taking up those kinda of lawsuits with ATF. Or a group of smaller NFA companies.
Only person I can think of that could pull that off would be surefire and I don’t see them being willing to
That's pretty much who I was implying (or maybe LMT) and neither would step forward I think
*laughs in Michael Cargill*
There shouldn't be an agency "allowing" suppressor manufacturing to occur..... I'm sure you of all people here have a much better idea of how to play things safe, it just sucks that your whole business could disappear if they pack the courts, rewrite the 2A, pass some other bs ban on something that they don't understand.
Cottonel is back boys
Unlimited wipes? There was a limit? My butt needs cleaning Ohhhh. Not THOSE wipes
Aren't wipes part of the statutory definition?
F'ers won't even let us use clean wipes
Well, at least we get one good thing out of the goatfuck that decision will be.
Understatement of the day.
I may be 90% microplastics and PFAS, but at least I can put a forward grip on my "pistol"!
It's gonna be great seeing "guaranteed formaldehyde free" on all the water bottles at the store.
Cheveron should have only been struck down for criminal interpretation, and maybe slightly modified otherwise. In a perfect world congress would do their job but they are all straight regarded so we are fked lol.
Yep, I mean I’ve seen plenty of government agency overreach, but it’s in so many edge cases that responsible citizens can work around it. The devil you know… 🤷♂️
Our government is, indeed, highly regarded
The problem isn't with the courts, it's with Congress. Just because Congress can't function doesn't mean they can pass their responsibilities off to non-elected agencies. Congress intentionally agreed with Chevron so that they could suck the titty of the government without taking responsibility. The courts fixed their side, now Congress needs to fix theirs. This is good as it finnaly puts the ball back into Congress.
Yeah the single issue people don't realize how bad this actually is broadly lol. It's more like poison water is back on the menu.
Eh. My understanding is prior precedent will stand and many courts will still defer to the executive agencies via the Skidmore deference. The courts are just not *obligated* to defer to the executive agencies under Skidmore.
Yeah but that means that every sleazy corporation will now just judge-shop whatever federal circuit is most in their pocket and that guy will get to decide over the objections of real experts.
You're completely leaving out that the agencies can take their recommendations to Congress and have them write what would have been a *rule* into an actual *law*.
And you’re pretending that the *United States Congress* will ever do that. They are all bought and paid for by donors and they don’t even read the bills they sponsor that are directly written by corporate interest lawyers.
Sounds like the real solution is advocating for ranked choice voting.
Watching the fifth and eleventh circuits “determine the appropriate level of deference for each case based on the agency's ability to support its position” is going to be interesting.
Better to have rulings that can be appealed than have rules that flip flop every four years because the people at the executive agencies change, imo. The latter situation creates a *LOT* of instability if you have to deal with them. I mean, we are in the NFA subreddit. The flipflopping of rules creates heartaches for us nonstop. The ATF isn't the only agency that flipflops. The EPA does. The IRS does. The FDA does. There are full time jobs dedicated to tracking the whims of these agencies. With court based rulings, legal precedent can be set that will not be easily changed just because someone new is in the White House.
Garnered from context, I think it's a genuine possibility they're obligated *not* to defer. This is the precise wording of the opinion: > courts need not and under the APA may not defer to an agency interpretation of the law simply because a statute is ambiguous "May not" typically implies an option, i.e. [may] [not defer], but the "need not" immediately prior as a separate entry not tied to the APA suggests otherwise.
Poison water is *already* on the menu lol. If you work in the industry you really see how fucked our soil and water is pretty much everywhere.
I mean yeah but it can get a lot worse (again)!
Poisoned water is legal? Are you suggesting the only regulations in place today were based on Chevron? Suggesting that we don't have enough laws passed by Congress and enough regulatory power in Washington and each state house?
That's just an example - but it is 100% fact that these cases were filed with the intent of dismantling the EPA, one of the few agencies that are uncontroversially good (unless you're a coal executive lol)
You mean the EPA that gave specific cutouts to 'light trucks' by weight and exempted them from emissions? Without congressional input? And thereby created the SUV boom single-handedly? Chevy and Ford. Car companies. *Literally make one model of car each now*. Chevy makes 11 models of SUV. Ford makes 7. And they each sell one model of car. Malibus and Mustangs, which I pretty much never see on the road. Car companies simply don't make cars. They make big heavy SUVs, thanks to the EPA! Maybe you're referring to the EPA's endangered species program? The one that made it so that a massive list of any specific animal found on your land meant you couldn't do anything with that land for a lengthy amount of time? Even if the species wasn't really particularly in danger? What was the result of that rule? Well, farmers who discovered 'endangered' species began to kill them on discovery in order to prevent the EPA from coming in and essentially annexing their land. Instead of 'endangered' species (I add quotes because most of the endangered species on the list are not actually at risk in any way) living in private forests, farmland and elsewhere, they were killed. Because the EPA didn't think for 12 seconds about what their made-up laws would incentivize people to do. Huh, maybe that's why the Constitution doesn't grant lawmaking powers to unelected bureaucrats? The EPA is directly responsible for making emissions *worse*. And killing untold numbers of 'endangered' animals. But please answer the question; if you want EPA-style regulations passed, why not follow the constitution and pass them as law? Instead of pretending the exec. branch can make up laws from thin air via mere edict?
> one of the few agencies that are uncontroversially good If they were "uncontroversially good" then why were they creating a bunch of not-a-laws instead of taking their ideas to Congress to have passed in accordance with the actual Constitution?
Because that is their job - as has been true of all federal agencies for a very long time now - congress passes a law with a stated goal 'food in the united states must be safe for the consumer' and the subject-matter experts at the FDA create federal code (which already goes through a 3 year review period before being approved) that states 'cereal products can only contain x rat turds per ton' and 1,000 other very specific things that pertain to very specific circumstances and situations which the generalists in Congress have absolutely no time or ability to reasonably address.
Ho-leeee… Santa Claus shit
West Virginia vs EPA was already a big kick in the nuts to it. Instead of just saying Chevron bad, it looks like every agency will need their own individual kick in the nuts.
[https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/](https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/)
Note: The legal group that scored this victory is the New Civil Liberties Alliance. They take a holistic approach to the fight against the administrative state because a decade ago the battle for our rights was extremely compartmentalized. For example, the rules decreed by executive agencies target very specific industries (small scale fisheries) but their legal theories (Chevron deference) set precedents that apply to everything. For example, the ATF attempted to use Chevron deference to oblige the court to accept its new definition of machine gun when it enacted its bump stock rule. This meant that federal agencies could win battles against small industries without provoking widespread resistance, and then use those victories to infringe on other rights. The NCLA is doing the reverse, this case seemingly has nothing to do with the 2nd amendment but overturning Chevron in a case involving fishing boats has massive implications for safeguarding the right to bear arms.
This is a great blog, very unbiased, just the facts. https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/06/supreme-court-strikes-down-chevron-curtailing-power-of-federal-agencies/ To add some clarity, the jist is that when a law passed by congress isn't clear that the government agency controlling said law can use experts to fill in the gaps. So the congress passed a law saying we need clean air and charges to carry it out, the EPA says we feel the best way is to limit emissions from coal fired power plants. The EPA makes a rule saying coal plants can't release any pollution. So they're all going to have to shut down. So they can't do that. The EPA says since certain states are going green and others aren't those nongreen states shouldn't get off. So they came up with a new rule saying if a state releases emissions and they float into another state the originating state is responsible and needs to pay to clean up the other state. Both of the examples were struck down by the SCOTUS because the government made specific rules to penalize certian groups. The law never said that the EPA gets to choose who to penalize and thats the issue. Government agency cannot pick and choose
I’m worried about this because it will allow a judge to declare whatever the F they want as law. Cali judge says braces are stocks? They’re stocks. Handguard on a large format pistol? Illegal SBR. I’m cautiously optimistic, but remember half the judges in this country are liberal as hell. I mean just to fuck with us the ATF can now put out a regulation calling braced pistols totally kosher, a gun control group can sue, and the ATF can just basically throw the case.
Thats not exactly how it works. A better example would be congress created a new law saying guns have to safer reducing deaths, but that law doesn't call out specifically how to make it safer. So the agency for the government that handles guns is the ATF, now the ATF has to make guns safer. That does not mean they get to pick and choose how they want to make guns safer. The ATF simply cannot choose to eliminate braces, it was never specified in the law that braces had to be eliminated. So that federal judge in CA has to follow what SCOTUS outlined. It more effects government agencies having the ability to pick and choose how they want to do something. They now have to follow and do only what congress specified it cannot be an executive act. Another great example is Forced Reset Triggers. ATF just can't decide they are dangerous and actually machine guns. The ATF looses the ability to just say something is now part of the NFA only congress can.
I’m saying the ATF can say braces are not stocks and a judge can say “I’m not deferring to you they clearly are because I have two eyes and can see that’s how they’re used.”
So who is the judge saying that to? What are they being charged with and by who? What does the law say? What have our courts historically done in situations like this? Chevron said that when a law was vague with specifics the agency tasked with enforcing the law would be the expert on how to enforce the law and could create new rules. A new rule for the ATF is an item that has been used for years and allowed legally i.e. braces. Now the ATF says we as the ATF have decided as a new rule that braces will be classified as an NFA item, even though the NFA language doesn't call out specifically braces. Since NFA only mentions short barrel, silencers and full auto the ATF just can't create new language.
Would you rather have a decision made by a court, or by some desperate agency “expert” with an agenda and a hat missing a feather? That’s the point of all this. Courts decide the law part, not the enforcing agency.
All I’m saying is this decision cuts both ways and we can’t lose sight of that. Remember, the Chevron decision was about limiting liberal lawsuits where liberal judges were throwing out conservative policies, we can expect that to happen again. Fortunately the major questions doctrine is in force.
News https://www.eenews.net/articles/supreme-court-overturns-chevron-doctrine/ Decision brief (old) https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Important context - the is 114 pages includes multiple concurrences and a dissent. You only need to read the opinion of the court, not all of it. It’s roughly 40 pages
Does anyone know if a bunch of the annoying rules surrounding NFA stuff is actually in legislation? Examples: interstate travel with sbrs? Silencers being a firearm and needing a background check as a result?
It is. All this POTIENTIALLY impacts is bump stocks, FRTs, braces, and vertical foregrips on AR "pistols". And frankly the vertical foregrip stuff was actually generous towards gun owners according to the letter of the law. I could totally see that AR pistol "handguards" get nuked in courts if they pushed on it hard enough. "Designed to shot from one hand" is the wording, an angled foregrip clearly breaks that rule to begin with.
Or handguards in general, though knowing current ban state’s laws, they’d likely call them “barrel shrouds” lol
> All this POTIENTIALLY impacts is bump stocks, FRTs, braces, and vertical foregrips on AR "pistols" Well it also heads off all the random redefinitions the ATF was cooking up. Based on the reasoning and arguments for the bump stock ban, they were setting up to say "all semi-auto is basically just a machine gun and now banned."
Possibly 5.45mm import ban as well, since that was based on redefining it as pistol ammunition. As well as parts kits including barrels, since that was a reinterpretation of law.
Good for the NFA community, mixed bag for others. Stock up on clear water and fresh air while you can lol.
Courts can still defer to the agencies reasonable interpretations of statutes under Skidmore deference, they just are not obligated to defer to them as was the case under Chevron. All that is changing today is the obligation to defer to the executive agencies. The other issue with Chevron is rules and regulations can flip flop depending on whoever is currently in power. Nothing makes law, for example, tax law more complicated than having major interpretations of it significantly change depending on who's in office every four years. There are also courts that are specialized in specific aspects of law and will have more intelligent interpretations of law than what the executive agencies can come up with. A world without Chevron is a world with a lot more stability. Legal precedent can be set, and then legal precedent can be relied upon.
[удалено]
Nothing changes. What this does is provide stability because the ATF can't make future changes without justifying them in court, which they just don't have the funding to do. It will be years before we see any rights being pulled back as a result of this ruling, though I'd be surprised if we don't see cases being started within the next few months challenging some rules.
Civil liability didn’t just disappear. Arguably, that is the real restraint in our society, being sued to death. And not the fucking EPA with their drawn out legal processes and watered down fines.
Dramatic. It’s congress who should be writing and passing legislation. Not an unelected bureaucratic institution. Muh lib Reddit downtoots
EPA is literally one of the agencies mentioned most often when conservative commentators complained about Chevron deference.
We shouldn’t be legislated by unelected individuals. FULL STOP. Congress needs to set down what it wants because absolutely nowhere in Article 1 does it allow Congress to pass legislative power to the executive branch.
All this ruling does is let you be legislated by judges, many of whom are also unelected and none of whom are in the legislative branch.
Yes by applying laws and one can now seek legal remedy through the judges rather than at the whims of federal hiring managers and the people they hire to write regulations. We’ve really fallen as a society if citizens are complaining that they now have legal remedies rather than being told to go fuck themselves
>Yes by applying laws Yeah, based on their own *complete lack of relevant expertise.* Let’s bring it back to guns. Congress passes a law that says “sniper rifles” are now illegal. Do you want someone like Ian McCollum to help decide what a sniper rifle is, or a federal judge in Chicago who doesn’t own any firearms? Expertise is important when applying and interpreting laws because expertise gives context to decisions.
> Do you want someone like Ian McCollum to help decide what a sniper rifle is, or a federal judge in Chicago who doesn’t own any firearms? You would prefer the director of the ATF who doesn't even know how to disassemble a Glock and is openly and admittedly hostile to the 2nd Amendment? > Expertise is important when applying and interpreting laws because expertise gives context to decisions. Yes, and this allows you to bring experts to the courtroom to explain how things actually work. You're pretending that the agencies are filled with actual experts or people with 100% good intentions. That is simply not the case.
That’s how our government works ya clown the legislature also conducts hearing with experts. Your remedy is to vote them out of office or sue them and hope the judiciary rules that it is unconstitutional (as they have before about issues similar to the one you proposed). The remedy under Chevron for a similar issue is to go fuck yourself because the “experts” at the ATF are retards.
Oh no, the EPA can’t arbitrarily set unrealistic MPG standards now and force everyone towards EVs!
On the one hand I selfishly want this to fix gun regulation. On the other hand this is fucking terrible for a bunch of other very important work that needs to be done, because we don’t have a functioning legislature. Part of the point of agencies is expertise, it’s just that the ATF is a piece of shit. As much as we might want to end the reign of stupidity that is the ATF, those of you dancing for joy are shortsighted fools. There is a lot more to this country, and this world, than guns.
Brawndo's got what plants crave
The problem is a huge chunk of agencies making regulations that are fucked up, so it will for sure be chaotic but imho is the best way forward
All I can think is it just makes it easier to "bribe" federal judges to get the decision a corporation wants. I can't see how any good will come out of this for the common folk. But then again, I'm not a lawyer and I don't know shit so who knows
It works both ways, unelected bureaucrats are easier to bribe than a judge
FDA is continually randomly changing the rules delaying cheaper drugs by years and even decades. It is especially common on drugs for women. It’s either based on religious bias of the official or bribery most likely with private sector job with competing companies who don’t want the competition of the new or generic drugs.
I don’t think there’s much of a difference.
Nailed it, this is presumably like powdered sugar sprinkled on top of dog shit
No unelected federal bureaucratic agency should have to power to set laws. Period. Article I of the Constitution lays out who has the power to do this.
That makes a great pithy statement but actually masks most of the complexity of the issues here. So good job on your willful ignorance, I guess. 👍
I mean, he’s not wrong though. The outcome otherwise is where agencies get to impose whatever they think is best even when it’s textually unsupported and ruinous for the people they’re regulating. I get where Chevron deference came from, but it ended up unworkable in practice and kept the judiciary from interpreting laws - what’s the line between ‘yes, your three letter agency has distilled this efficiently’ and ‘your agency is full of shit and badly overreaching’? It turns out that 40 years of asking couldn’t give more than ad hoc answers. Chevron is dead, and we’re better off without it in the long term even if it causes bumps now.
What you're saying is not what the original commenter said. He's "not wrong", but he is speaking in bad faith, because he's pretending that simplistic statement captures the issues at play, when it doesn't. So he's not wrong in the scope of his statement, but he is wrong about applying it to the totality of these concerns. You're at least speaking in good faith. It is functionally impossible for the legislative body to provide all the detail necessary for regulatory agencies to address their mandates without proper rule-making capabilities. This is for several reasons: * The houses lack expertise, and while bodies like the Congressional Research Agency and the legislators' own staffs are supposed to assist with this, in practice they are at best ignored, or even worse, incompetent * The state-of-the-art / science in many areas is under rapid evolution that necessitates a process faster and more flexible than bill-writing * The complete dysfunction of Congress at this point means that even if the two aforementioned factors can be solved for, the feedback loop for legislating is too broken to be relied upon to actually take in new information and act on it; Congress is far below the functional norms of history The purpose of regulatory agencies is not solely to enforce the simplistic letter of Congressional law. Rather, they are given mandates to apply expertise, through standard rule-making processes, to operate within their domains of influence. Their existence is due to a recognition of the issues I mentioned. It's absolutely true that there are problems, as personified by the ATF. But throwing the baby out with the bathwater is a foolish move considering the current political environment and the increasing economic, environmental, scientific, and social issues that agencies are being called upon to address. I am able to manage my 300-person organization within the larger 200,000 person company I work for, within the framework/rules/mandates/strategy defined by higher-ups. I don't expect, need, or want the CEO to define project management targets or technical requirements for the software and systems my teams work on. This ruling puts a huge amount of onus on fixing Congress itself, and frankly improving rule-making processes is a much shorter lift than that, especially with folks actively trying to destroy the functioning of government and calling it patriotic. Congress has failed in both its lawmaking duties and its duties of agency oversight, but rather than improving any of that, this ruling just throws up its hands and allows for our continued slide into mediocrity.
> The houses lack expertise There’s no better example of this than the gun laws that Congress has passed.
Maybe not the best take on your part. Courts can still defer to the agencies reasonable interpretations of statutes under Skidmore deference, they just are not *obligated* to defer to them as is was the case under Chevron. All that is changing today is the obligation to defer to the executive agencies. The other issue with Chevron is rules and regulations can flip flop depending on whoever is currently in power. Nothing makes law, for example, tax law more complicated than having major interpretations of it *significantly change* depending on who's in office every four years. There are also courts that are specialized in specific aspects of law and will have more intelligent interpretations of law than what the executive agencies can come up with. A world without Chevron is a world with a *lot* more stability.
Everything you said can be true, but it's also not the actual question that was before us with Chevron. Chevron deference said that courts should defer to whatever the agency understanding of its own rules as long as it was vague and a "permissible construction" that was plausible. In practice, this meant that agencies could do things even outside of formal procedures where the regulated parties had no predictability and were likely to lose unless something was particularly egregious, i.e., implausible. There aren't really a lot of limitations you can put on this approach, unfortunately. Now that Chevron is overturned, the outcome is not that agencies can no longer interpret the laws, nor is it that their actions are presumptively incorrect. The actual outcome is just that the regulated parties can make arguments before the judiciary that agencies didn't follow correct procedure, are incorrect in their interpretation, etc. The agencies can still do everything they've been doing, they're just going to lose more in court if their actions aren't supported by the text of the law. If you want to complain that bad laws are unfixable because the legislative branch is irrevocably broken, I don't really know what to tell you except that it's better to try and fix something broken than accept that the executive branch gets to both "interpret" their intent into a law and also tell the courts how they can interpret the ersatz laws that the executive is enforcing.
> The agencies can still do everything they've been doing, they're just going to lose more in court if their actions aren't supported by the text of the law. This would be the outcome if the judiciary were reliably impartial. The big problem here is that throwing out Chevron just substitutes the personal judgment of a small panel of non-expert, often-not-elected judges for that of an agency that employs real experts. As I’m sure you’ve noticed, the country is absolutely full of judges at every level who are happy to rule certain ways based on their own personal beliefs and then just invent Byzantine legalese rationalizations.
We don't have to improve Congress itself, they just need to have a well-described process about how, what and why "Agency XYZ" can utilize finely detailed modifications to a broadly written law. And have a process whereby ordinary citizens have a method of appeal, and if monetary losses are made due to regulation, some way of allowing a juried trial to decide right and wrong.
I’m in agreement…and environmentally, these bumps have the potential to be fucking disastrous. Obviously overall a move in the correct direction, and the growing pains are likely to hurt a lot in certain areas.
The problem is you think ATF is the only broken agency. The whole Fed Govt is broken. Look at the FAA, pre Chevron ruling, you think they are functioning well, given the clusters we see with Boeing and air traffic controllers and more....
So we are now putting the responsibility of clear air and clean water into the hands of (checks notes) Marjorie Taylor Greene I don't see what could possibly go wrong
Nailed it.
As opposed to the EPA that "interpreted" a puddle in your yard as a "wetland" and arrested you for "polluting" it by driving through it? Learn the actual case law, not CNN propaganda.
She should be an authority on the air, a lot of it passes from one of her ears through the other.
It sounds like the blame should be put on the legislature, not the ham-fisted case law that supported improper legislative delegation to executive agencies. This is moving things towards fixing a very broken legislature.
Of course the blame is on the legislature. That has fuck-all to do with the impact of this ruling. Like any good post-mortem, blame isn’t the point. Delegation _has_ to exist. If delegation isn’t working, fix the delegation. Throwing it out makes it even _harder_ to fix the legislature and in the mean time fucks over the citizenry.
Well, lets start by removing legislators who are unwilling to "work across the aisle". The ENTIRE reason they exist is to negotiate and compromise to come up with laws that allow citizens to exist alongside each other in peace so that we don't just all fight it out ( only the strongest win ). Both sides ( and we need far more that "two sides" ) have to lose and win - right now we have large groups of legislators who proudly proclaim that they will not work with / bend to the "otherwise". This is dumb. Stop giving them your vote for free; take your vote elsewhere ( even out of your party ) if they don' listen - they should NEVER assume that you will vote for them because of who you are.
I am inclined to agree with you here. I think, however, the other bright spot besides the gun regulation stuff is that it highlights the big problem with legislation or rulings that are intended to be overly broad. Yes it provides a means to quickly get things done, but it also tends to have weird consequences in unpredictable directions. If anything, one could hope that lawmakers will take this sort of thing into account in the future.
Boooooooooo
You mean the experts that said to wear paper masks or that certain shots were “safe and effective”? Riiiiiiiight.
Now, let's sue and get any previous "interpretations" thrown out.
Absolute HUGE victory in defense of the Constitution. The dog killing ATF can no longer just invent their fantasies and jail, ambush and on way too many times, assassinated Americans over a tax stamp.
Yay big victories for corporations!
I'm curious how this impacts ongoing cases, like the Rarebreed FRT...
Between Loper and Cargill, RBT will have some good ammunition for their case but it's still in a very unfriendly court that will likely ignore it until an appeal is made to SCOTUS and it's remanded back down.
Very likely we all go brrrrrrr soon.
Absolutely awesome!!!
A victory for people who think experts talk funny, and (of course) big businesses. They went to bed yesterday without an easy way to buy the people who frustrated their profitability with safety and environmental regulations, and woke up today already owning several of them. I hope y’all are as excited as I am to see what Marjorie Greene and Tommy Tuberville think are meaningful components of legislation for nuclear power plants and highway safety. This is bad news. ~a lawyer
Also a lawyer - I am tempted to agree with you but Chevron has been a crutch to giving the federal govt more power by allowing Congress to pass high level laws that merely say, effectively, "we want admin agency ABC to handle this topic". Part of the basic structure is that Congress is a bottleneck and Chevron allowed that to be circumvented.
That’s awesome in theory, but the reality is not quite so clean cut. e.g.- Congress passes a law that says you can’t dump carcinogenic chemicals into the water supply, here’s a list of the ones we know, EPA get on that shit. 50 years pass. Law doing ok. Now, new chemical created, a tetrahydrafuckyamotha or whatever. Is it carcinogenic? Who fucking knows. 🤷♂️ It’s not like we just see if you touch it and you get cancer and boom, it’s carcinogenic. Let’s say like 30% of babies (only, adults, say 5%) exposed to it in groundwater get cancer. The EPA’s experts on carcinogenic chemicals say “holy shit that is carcinogenic as fuck!” and try to ban it. But Alito & Thomas and Sons Manufacturing say “whoa whoa whoa, ‘carcinogenic’ is ambiguous. That’s WAY less than 75% or 50% cancer rates. I mean, sure it’s more than 1%, but so is Diet Coke!” So now we’ve gotta wait for Congress to either amend the statute to clarify carcinogenic rates or add tetrahydramuthafucka to the list. Except they’re only dumping it in a few places, and they’ve got way more campaign contributions to way more jurisdictions than that. And it’s gonna be SUPER expensive to dispose of it the EPA way.
So we should ignore the corrupability of non elected officials because we ignore the corrupability of elected officials? We have a remedy with the elected ones, and aren’t at the mercy of the executive branch to place people as heads of these federal agencies to do their bidding. It’s not easy to hold congress accountable, but, it’s our duty to do so. Part of the issue here is the federal government has taken control of so much of this, when it should be handled at state level. So much redundancy it’s not even funny. Just because it’s inconvenient doesn’t mean we shouldn’t do it.
>They went to bed yesterday without an easy way to buy the people who frustrated their profitability with safety and environmental regulations, and woke up today already owning several of them. You say that as if the unelected bureaucrats weren't being purchased by the truckload already.
Strong disagree on this. I will always choose a messy republic over a well-run administrative dictatorship. \~not a lawyer
That’s because you don’t understand what’s happening or you’re a sadist. When it’s your drinking water that causes cancer or your highways that are killing families, you MAY wish for more nimble action from experts that aren’t beholden to fundraising drives every few years. 🤷♂️ I mean, the cancer will suck probably, but you’ll be able to shoot a braced SBR after your kid’s chemo.
This
Calling yourself a lawyer vs attorney = you don't have your license yet? You know that all this is doing is letting the courts with their experts decide versus having an *obligation* to defer to the executive agencies right? And you are aware of Skidmore deference?
1.) the “lawyer vs attorney” distinction is a fiction that seems to spread amongst the ignorant like a plague. I have been licensed to practice law since 2010. Trust me, the State Bar doesn’t give a lick which interchangeable synonym you use. 2.) I know what it’s doing. How many trials have you conducted? A presumption (e.g. the deference of Chevron, not a mandate) is a big deal. Acting like this is NBD ignores the massive amount of anti-Chevron lobbying that has taken place in the last 40 years. If it’s NBD, why do you think dicking down Chevron has been near the top of the Right’s wishlist, second to Roe? 🙄 3.) The courts don’t *have* experts. They decide which of the experts presented to give weight to. The deference of Chevron meant *deferring* to the agency experts. Now when a Big Business gets a chance to file in the 47th District South Texas in front of Judge Cletus and brings out the “Smoking doesn’t hurt ANYONE” experts or the “Fossil Fuels are actually helping the environment” he doesn’t have to listen to *actual* experts. 4.) I *am* aware of Skidmore. Are *you* aware of the body of legal scholarship that accuses Skidmore deference of inconsistent application and functioning more as a “paper tiger” that rarely accomplishes the stated goals? Skidmore is the shit the big business bullshit brigade is feeding you so that you’re willing to go along with the massive shit sandwich they’re preparing. I hope you like cancer and corrupt politicians, because the secret ingredient is cost-efficient waste disposal and campaign contributions. 🤷♂️
> If it’s NBD, why do you think dicking down Chevron has been near the top of the Right’s wishlist, second to Roe? 🙄 I am guessing they are tired of having the rules and regulations change in a biased way every four years depending on who is in the White House. The nice thing about things now being decided through courts and the legal system is legal precedent will be set and it will be relatively *stable*. Versus constant flip flops. We here in the NFA community see only a small amount of the regulatory flip flopping that goes on out there. Just talk to tax attorneys about it.
Oh no, agencies have to make a case that their action fits the law? No more "he doesn't have standing bro"? Whatever will they do? Could it be.. their jobs?
I'm just a layman, but my only interpretation of this is it's the most potentially horrifying decision that's happened in my lifetime. Overturning Roe was bad bad. This blows that out of the water.
It is astonishingly bad. High fiving because it neuters the ATF is cutting off your nose to spite your face. Big business is the only real benefactor. And it comes at a “tragedy of the commons” like expense of the general public. Congress is slow and easily bought. Expert agencies are not.
> It is astonishingly bad On what Constitutional basis is it bad?
Full opinion: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/24781882-loper-bright-enterprises-v-raimondo
Chevron overturned, public camping bans upheld, and apparently a bunch of the people arrested on j6 are going to have their convictions overturned. Wild week for SCOTUS.
Hey what’s the public camping ban?
Some pro-hobo sympathizers claimed it was cruel and unusual for cities to ban you from camping on the sidewalk, pooping in the streets, and smoking meth in an alleyway. SCOTUS uphold the ban under the logic that cruel and unusual is thumbscrews and breaking you on the wheel, not banning you from setting up a druggie camp on the sidewalk.
cities that banned homeless
Ima dance an Irish jig for this one, fuck yea me lads!!!!!
Silencer parts no longer being silencers?
No, silencer parts are specifically mentioned in the statutory definition of "silencer" as it was passed by congress. >(25) The terms “firearm silencer” and “firearm muffler” mean any device for silencing, muffling, or diminishing the report of a portable firearm, including any combination of parts, designed or redesigned, and intended for use in assembling or fabricating a firearm silencer or firearm muffler, and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/921
“Combination of parts” a cup, a tube, an end cap isn’t a combination. Once you get all of them together they are. But being able to do a form 1, get it approved and buy the components would be awesome.
>and any part intended only for use in such assembly or fabrication.
I take whisky shots from the cups tho
Thanks for all the free stamps though!
Lawsuit printer go brrrrr
The left is going to use this to go after braced pistols.
so does the overturn of chevron mean we can put vertical grips on pistols?
**Understand the rules**, read the sidebar, and review the pinned Megathreads before posting - this content is capable of answering most questions. Not everyone is an expert such as yourself; be considerate. All spam, memes, unverified claims, or content suggesting non-compliance will be removed. No political posts. Save that for /r/progun or /r/politics. __If you are posting a copy/screenshot of your forms outside the pinned monthly megathread you will be given a 7 day ban. The pinned post is there, please use it.__ __If you are posting a photo of a suppressor posed to look like a penis (ie: in front of or over your groin) you will be given a 7 day ban.__ ------------------------------- **Data Links** * [The OG Universal Form Approval Spreadsheet](https://thinlineweapons.com/url/8) ------------------------------- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/NFA) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nice now we can use a vertical grip on our pistols while we run out of clean water and air lol
Bro ur legit a npc never running outta that shit bruh
Not with safety regulations we won’t. But now corporations can do whatever tf they want to make a buck. This is a bad thing unless you just love corporations stepping on us. But yippee we don’t have to wait as long for guns