Trump bump stock rule overturned

[popper]

Actually the 'playbook; has been in effect for 70 yrs. Same reason interstate commerce 'law' applied. Courts have allowed over-reach for long time, NOW is the time to quash it.

 

[Eastexasrick]

Actually the 'playbook; has been in effect for 70 yrs. Same reason interstate commerce 'law' applied. Courts have allowed over-reach for long time, NOW is the time to quash it.

The EPA and OHSA have been using that playbook for about 40 years to enact their self-serving rules.

 

[benenglish]

Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk,

I would give that man $100 to never again say the words "geek out."

 

[glenbo]

If there's something I can read, I will. I will not listen, with my bad hearing, to someone drone for endless minutes. Cliff's notes, anyone? If not, is there a transcript?

I hate videos.

 

[DougC]

If there's something I can read, I will. I will not listen, with my bad hearing, to someone drone for endless minutes. Cliff's notes, anyone? If not, is there a transcript?

I hate videos.

FYI; The Supreme Court is holding an oral hearing on the 'bump stock' case with a ruling probably in June or July. Depending how it goes the court may rule that ATF exceed its authority and say bump stocks rule NOT OK and restrict other rules (pistol braces, ghost guns, reset triggers) by ATF. Or go in opposite direction and allow them to make rules which amount to laws which put people in jail.

 

[oldag]

FYI; The Supreme Court is holding an oral hearing on the 'bump stock' case with a ruling probably in June or July. Depending how it goes the court may rule that ATF exceed its authority and say bump stocks OK and restrict other rules by ATF. Or go in opposite direction.

Well those two outcomes certainly cover the waterfront.

 

[DougC]

Well those two outcomes certainly cover the waterfront.

Oops , Prior right up was very badly written so I revised it. Supreme court hopefully will take the ATF down or allow it to continue its unconstitutional rule making as laws. Important issue here is who makes laws; Congress or the Executive Branch. The Constitution is very clear on this issue but in the 21st century Congress has allowed the Exec branch to get away with a lot with rule making and administrative procedures.

 

[JGA177]

Oops , Prior right up was very badly written so I revised it. Supreme court hopefully will take the ATF down or allow it to continue its unconstitutional rule making as laws. Important issue here is who makes laws; Congress or the Executive Branch. The Constitution is very clear on this issue but in the 21st century Congress has allowed the Exec branch to get away with a lot with rule making and administrative procedures.

well, I know why agencies have rule-making capabilities so have no general problem there but sometimes you need to fast-track an issue. Either that or agencies need to approach it like the Amish do, "Does this make our life better or does it interfere?"

 

[jrbfishn]

The problem is, they only care about making THEIR lives better, not OURS. And that is a big problem.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

 

[GaryS]

The "Administrative State" has been expanding since the Johnson Administration. The Supreme Court in West Virginia v. EPA limited the EPAs ability to issue regulations outside the scope of the Clean Air Act. Similarly the 5th Circuit overturned the EPA rules on dishwashers and washing machines because regulating those is outside the scope of the Clean Water Act (Louisiana v. Doe)

I think we'll see more of this as the scope of of the WV case becomes more well known.

​

 

[DocBeech]

One of the simple questions that will be asked during oral arguments on the 28th of February is: "Can the ATF make rules on behalf of a political appointee when they fail to pass a law through Congress, bypassing proper process". And when you simplify it like this, it makes a lot of sense why it is a problem.

 

[DougC]

From the Tom Grieve channel discussion about THREE count 'em THREE 2A cases (Cargill, Vullo, Rahimi) being decided by SCOTUS by end of June/July court session. They are about prohibited persons, bump stocks, and free speech are the handles used to describe cases. There are bigger issues in play.

 

[DougC]

Besides the above cited by T. Grieve cases cited there other SCOTUS cases that may impact federal agencies especially ATF rule making. Read more at Red State blog.

This week the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which has the potential to dramatically change the way the federal government issues regulations.

At issue is whether courts should defer to interpretation by federal agencies when a law could have multiple meanings, a practice known as Chevron deference.
In practical terms, this means the court is considering whether to weaken the ability of a presidential administration to put forward regulations meant to counter pollution or climate change or to protect consumers without clearer authorization from Congress.
Such a feat would advance a long-sought goal of anti-regulatory interests, whose hopes are bolstered by some conservative justices’ recent skepticisms of Chevron. It is one of multiple, major cases at the high court this term implicating the administrative state.

 

[GaryS]

I commented on a different forum that of the three "big" cases decided in 2022, West Virginia v. EPA may have the most benefit to conservatives overall. Along with the decision in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo and Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce (oral arguments will be heard tomorrow) there could be severe limits on the ability of federal agencies to implement new rules with the force of law, including criminal penalties.

The fact that the Court is willing to review this case means that the so called "Chevron doctrine" may be overturned at long last. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.

Besides the above cited by T. Grieve cases cited there other SCOTUS cases that may impact federal agencies especially ATF rule making. Read more at Red State blog.

This week the United States Supreme Court will hear arguments on Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce, which has the potential to dramatically change the way the federal government issues regulations.

 

[majormadmax]

The Supreme Court will decide whether to let civilians own automatic weapons

And yes, the MSN article title did make me laugh!

 

[KenJ4070]

w0rd

 

[BigRed]

@DougC
I very much appreciate your informed and informative updates.
Thank you for doing them.

 

[DougC]

If you are late to the discussion on bump stocks here is recap from the AmmoLand blog. In a few months we will have a Supreme Court decision on the accessory and more important...

The outcome of Garland v. Cargill could have a broad impact on the administrative state’s ability to legislate that goes well beyond bump stocks. The Biden administration has often adopted creative and expansive interpretations of federal firearm statutes to push a gun control agenda that they have been unable to secure through the legitimate legislative process. These efforts include ATF’s 2022 “Frame or Receiver” rule, and ATF’s proposed “Engaged in the Business” rule – which seeks to restrict private firearm sales in a manner Congress has repeatedly rejected. In seeming acknowledgement of the dubious nature of their actions and likely to avoid the type of scrutiny visited upon the bump stock rule, ATF went out of its way to make clear that their proposed “engaged in the business” scheme “shall not apply to any criminal case.”

 

[GaryS]

As it happened, I took my Texas LTC class at his shop last weekend. Since I'm not all that interested in bump stocks I didn't follow the case closely and didn't realize that he was the plaintiff. Interesting guy, but that's besides the point.

Anyway I very briefly discussed the case and commented that bump stocks aren't the real issue, overreach by the government is the real issue. He agreed.

I'll mention here that WV v. EPA which was decided at the same time as Bruen significantly cut back on the ability of federal agencies to make rules with the force of law without Congressional approval.

We'll see if the Supreme Court meant what they said because that should apply the the ATF's proposals to amend federal law by administrative fiat.

If you are late to the discussion on bump stocks here is recap from the AmmoLand blog. In a few months we will have a Supreme Court decision on the accessory and more important...

The outcome of Garland v. Cargill could have a broad impact on the administrative state’s ability to legislate that goes well beyond bump stocks. The Biden administration has often adopted creative and expansive interpretations of federal firearm statutes to push a gun control agenda that they have been unable to secure through the legitimate legislative process. These efforts include ATF’s 2022 “Frame or Receiver” rule, and ATF’s proposed “Engaged in the Business” rule – which seeks to restrict private firearm sales in a manner Congress has repeatedly rejected. In seeming acknowledgement of the dubious nature of their actions and likely to avoid the type of scrutiny visited upon the bump stock rule, ATF went out of its way to make clear that their proposed “engaged in the business” scheme “shall not apply to any criminal case.”

 

[V-Tach]

Barrett and Roberts will f u c k us.........