Mr. Hoover was promoting a product that a non elected bureaucrat chose to become the legislative branch and declare it as a prohibited weapon i.e. a "machine gun" in violation of Mr. Hoovers constitutional rights..
Not powers which infringe on our RIGHTS.
That is the core of what this is all about.
This is what NYSRAPA V Bruen cleared up. the difference between our RIGHT to bear arms and our "privilege" to bear arms. (among many many other things.
Another recent case is W. VA V EPA about 2 weeks ago.
It has taken away the "delegated power" you just mentioned.
It was called "Chevron Deference"
Yes, powers which infringe on our rights. No right is unlimited. You can't falsely cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater and get 1A protections. Even in Bruen, SCOTUS made clear that shall-issue permit schemes are A-OK.
And it wasn't chevron deference that decided West Virginia, it was major policy doctrine, which is the opposite end of the spectrum from chevron deference.
Chevron deference says, "SCOTUS will defer to the agency that has delegated authority from Congress on just about everything..."
Major policy doctrine says, "...Unless it's a Really Big Thing, in which case you have to get a permission slip from Congress"
I think if asked, Matt Hoover would say that taking away his liberty is "a Really Big Thing".
Congress makes the law
Agencies enforce the law AS WRITTEN.
The Courts define the law. NOT the agencies.
jrbfishn said
Which means what?
Gee, if we only had a thread about this subject!
SCOTUS 2A Victory: NYSRA v Bruen
Interesting amicus brief “Yet the brief from the criminal defense lawyers, which includes the Bronx Defenders and the Brooklyn Defender Services, argues against the state’s gun laws from a progressive position. “In 2020, while Black people made up 18% of New York’s population, they accounted...www.texasguntalk.com