National SCOTUS rules chevron doctrine is gone! ATF pees their pants

[ilikegunspdx]

So many big wins this year like brace rule, bump stocks, etc but imo this one will having the longest and most significant effect in reigning in ATF powers. This is huge.

View: https://youtu.be/H77hNCeGfHY?si=IeAnt_YN-03S03Gc

Read More

 

[BrentN]

Not discounting another supposed W, but-
Is this yet another ruling that will be ignored by the lower courts until I -open my wallet- and support the latest .org to fight for my rights? There is literally no teeth in any of this. James-Fox-Willis gonna James-Fox-Willis. Growing tired of this game.

 

[bradsteen]

IMO it's a big deal. It essentially strips away the justification agencies like ATF have used to promulgate "rules" and "findings" like the brace rule, the frame/receiver rule, bump stocks, FRTs, solvent traps, etc. Some lower courts will disagree and rule contrary to this, because some judges just love legislating from the bench, but most courts will follow the rules, and those who don't will probably get slapped. Also it gives both we the people and our elected representatives ammunition to help us reign in executive overreach.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I think if this ruling was done prior to FRT triggers fight with the ATF they would have won. I remember the FRT guy said, "the judge said there is what I should do, and there is what I must do". I took that to mean judge meant he should rule it's not a machine gun by the letter of the law, but must defer to ATF's judgement due to chevron defference (which was still in place at that time).

I think in the future it's going to be much, much, more difficult for ATF to win in these types of cases because their trump card is now gone.

 

[ScottInPDX]

I'm definitely in the minority in this forum because I lean progressive in my politics (though not necessarily Democrat), and take issue with several recent decisions handed by the conservative-leaning USSC.

But this seems like a win across the board to me. Agency "rules" have a bad habit of swinging back and forth between administrations, which is bad for business and individuals. A lot of agency rulings carry the full force of law because Congress has abdicated their duty to be specific, thorough, and unambiguous in their law making, and they farmed that work out to the executive branch.

This ruling puts the onus back on the legislative branch, where it should be, to craft good legislation. Kagan's dissenting opinion correctly points out that courts don't have the same expertise that federal agencies have when it comes to interpreting ambiguous legislation. But that doesn't mean the executive branch should be free to interpret things however they want - it means that same expertise should be available to, and utilized by, legislators when crafting laws in the first place.

 

[CountryGent]

IMO it's a big deal.

Agreed. The results of this are going to be very far reaching.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Nice tidbit found by Mark Smith. Basically he is saying that scotus wrote "a good guide to what an agency thinks of a law is how it first acts on the law after its passing" (paraphrasing). Fe 1934 for nfa and 1968 ngca.

So things like bump stocks, braces, recievers atf said they were all legal. Then later changed their mind (sometimes several times like with braces).

May not be worth the time to watch cuz it's kind of a single nugget from the chevron ruling but here it is if interested:

View: https://youtu.be/nqRxJ8XhPQM?si=m8iNujERgQgJdcfh

 

[toast]

1. It's gonna work out great.

2. The only possible fly in the ointment would be if the legislature was hopelessly mired in incompetence, malfeasance, and partisan warfare that prevented them from doing the job of legislating.

3. See 1.

 

[CamoDeafie]

IMO it's a big deal. It essentially strips away the justification agencies like ATF have used to promulgate "rules" and "findings" like the brace rule, the frame/receiver rule, bump stocks, FRTs, solvent traps, etc. Some lower courts will disagree and rule contrary to this, because some judges just love legislating from the bench, but most courts will follow the rules, and those who don't will probably get slapped. Also it gives both we the people and our elected representatives ammunition to help us reign in executive overreach.

I think if this ruling was done prior to FRT triggers fight with the ATF they would have won. I remember the FRT guy said, "the judge said there is what I should do, and there is what I must do". I took that to mean judge meant he should rule it's not a machine gun by the letter of the law, but must defer to ATF's judgement due to chevron defference (which was still in place at that time).

I think in the future it's going to be much, much, more difficult for ATF to win in these types of cases because their trump card is now gone.

I'm definitely in the minority in this forum because I lean progressive in my politics (though not necessarily Democrat), and take issue with several recent decisions handed by the conservative-leaning USSC.

But this seems like a win across the board to me. Agency "rules" have a bad habit of swinging back and forth between administrations, which is bad for business and individuals. A lot of agency rulings carry the full force of law because Congress has abdicated their duty to be specific, thorough, and unambiguous in their law making, and they farmed that work out to the executive branch.

This ruling puts the onus back on the legislative branch, where it should be, to craft good legislation. Kagan's dissenting opinion correctly points out that courts don't have the same expertise that federal agencies have when it comes to interpreting ambiguous legislation. But that doesn't mean the executive branch should be free to interpret things however they want - it means that same expertise should be available to, and utilized by, legislators when crafting laws in the first place.

1. It's gonna work out great.

2. The only possible fly in the ointment would be if the legislature was hopelessly mired in incompetence, malfeasance, and partisan warfare that prevented them from doing the job of legislating.

3. See 1.

All the Congress people are gonna do, are to have the Agencies write the bills out, then give to the Congress people to "write and sponsor" and see if they'll make out of committees then to the floor for votes, thereby making run-around the overturning of Chevron deference by having the agencies directly write legislative bills for the Legislators to introduce, debate and vote on

 

[toast]

Don't forget about where the real impact will be -- on the judiciary -- which is so efficient as it is.

Anyone currently irritated by how long it takes things to work their way through the various court systems?

Let's turn every action by any federal agency that isn't specifically itemized by Congress (plus a bunch of the ones that are) into a new lawsuit.

Hope everyone's patient!

Because nobody's going to be doing any additional hiring on court staffs, and those people aren't going to work any harder or faster than they do now.

 

[User 1234]

This ruling is even more significant when considered in conjunction with the SEC v. Jarkesy case the USSC issued on June 27th. Read Gorsuch's concurrence opinion in both. They are heartwarming because they focus on the effect these older rulings had on common people.

Page 33: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859_1924.pdf

And particularly page 71 of this PDF (part of Gorsuch's concurrence):

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

 

[bradsteen]

This ruling is even more significant when considered in conjunction with the SEC v. Jarkesy case the USSC issued on June 27th. Read Gorsuch's concurrence opinion in both. They are heartwarming because they focus on the effect these older rulings had on common people.

Page 33: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-859_1924.pdf

And particularly page 71 of this PDF (part of Gorsuch's concurrence):

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf

That's some good reading. Thanks for sharing!

 

[wired]

1. It's gonna work out great.

2. The only possible fly in the ointment would be if the legislature was hopelessly mired in incompetence, malfeasance, and partisan warfare that prevented them from doing the job of legislating.

3. See 1.

Nah, theres a lot more flies in that ointment. Before, if you were an individual gun owner or form 1 filer or manufacturer and you needed a determination of law you could contact ATF tech branch who could give you a ruling. The vast majority being innocuous. All this ruling did was shift questions of matters of law to the courts where it should have been all along . That means that individuals and manufacturers who have a new product they'd like to clear or who have a question about the legality of something will have to hire attorneys ( $$$) and sue in federal court or risk being tried in federal court both of which take years. As a manufacturer , I dont see this as a good thing at all.

 

[Yarome]

Nah, theres a lot more flies in that ointment. Before, if you were an individual gun owner or form 1 filer or manufacturer and you needed a determination of law you could contact ATF tech branch who could give you a ruling. The vast majority being innocuous. All this ruling did was shift questions of matters of law to the courts where it should have been all along . That means that individuals and manufacturers who have a new product they'd like to clear or who have a question about the legality of something will have to hire attorneys ( $$$) and sue in federal court or risk being tried in federal court both of which take years. As a manufacturer , I dont see this as a good thing at all.

Nah... it don't. The agency still has authority to enforce and make determinations based on existing law. Nothing will change much on how approvals/denials for mfg's products are currently handled... so long as they stay within the framework of existing law.

The ruling did not strip away their authority to enforce laws or require a judge to rule on every point of existing law for them. Only on ambiguities or deviations from established law they might make.

IE., The bump stock. It would still be within their mandate to make a determination on them, so long as they followed the text of the law. Which is exactly what they originally did when they determined they did not meet the definition of a machine gun.

The only impact this ruling has is mainly when they get creative with the law and one of their determinations is challenged. They can no longer get away with saying, 'bump stocks allow a fire rate that is "like" a machine gun so they "are" machine guns'. If they do and it comes under challenge then they can also no longer... essentially... override a judge's interpretation of the law by simply saying, "it is because we say it is".

Reinforcing that their job is only to enforce existing law... not make it up as they go along to fit a desired outcome.


To put it in a different context. There is a legal definition of what constitutes murder. A DA can't come along and say, "well he wanted to and really really tried. Just because his intended victim lived... it's still "like" murder so he can be charged as if he did commit murder". If his determination is challenged, he can't simply use chevron deference to override a judges interpretation of murder under the law simply by saying, "it is because I say it is".

The argument that seems to being made though is that the ruling tossing out the chevron doctrine would someone make it such that a DA could no longer even charge a person with murder... if they actually had murdered someone... without a judge making that determination for him(??)

That sounds a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?

 

[wired]

Nah... it don't. The agency still has authority to enforce and make determinations based on existing law. Nothing will change much on how approvals/denials for mfg's products are currently handled... so long as they stay within the framework of existing law.

The ruling did not strip away their authority to enforce laws or require a judge to rule on every point of existing law for them. Only on ambiguities or deviations from established law they might make.

IE., The bump stock. It would still be within their mandate to make a determination on them, so long as they followed the text of the law. Which is exactly what they originally did when they determined they did not meet the definition of a machine gun.

The only impact this ruling has is mainly when they get creative with the law and one of their determinations is challenged. They can no longer get away with saying, 'bump stocks allow a fire rate that is "like" a machine gun so they "are" machine guns'. If they do and it comes under challenge then they can also no longer... essentially... override a judge's interpretation of the law by simply saying, "it is because we say it is".

Reinforcing that their job is only to enforce existing law... not make it up as they go along to fit a desired outcome.


To put it in a different context. There is a legal definition of what constitutes murder. A DA can't come along and say, "well he wanted to and really really tried. Just because his intended victim lived... it's still "like" murder so he can be charged as if he did commit murder". If his determination is challenged, he can't simply use chevron deference to override a judges interpretation of murder under the law simply by saying, "it is because I say it is".

The argument that seems to being made though is that the ruling tossing out the chevron doctrine would someone make it such that a DA could no longer even charge a person with murder... if they actually had murdered someone... without a judge making that ruling for him(??)

That sounds a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?

Thats on opinion but it is incorrect . The ATF doesn't make law and never has. They have always, or at least since the chevron deference ruling, made determinations, or rulings , or opinion letters, whatever you want to call them based on existing law. Those opinions have had the force of law. If we take away the ability of the agencies to make those rulings that had the force of law and there is a question legality that comes up the agencies are no longer able to make a determination that has the rule of law so it gets shifted into the courts for the question to get answered. The courts do not answer questions, they rule on cases. Their opinions are precedent and can be applied to everyone. Those are their answers.

This is one of those be careful what you wish for moments. Has the ATF made some incorrect rulings on law before? That is debatable. Sometimes they have , most of the time they haven't. Their rulings tend to be well reasoned and they reference the law in question quite well. In any case the ATF will no longer have the ability to make determinations or to make rulings if a device meets the letter of the law. It will end up like many, including Washington, state systems where if you have a question about what the law is ...so you can follow it, and try to contact your state AG for a reply so you can stay legal , the AG will tell you to pound sand.

The bumpstock ruling was wrong but it wasn't based on law . It was based on being ordered to make that ruling. They knew it wasn't legal when they did it. Their initial brace ruling was wrong and they fumbled around for years trying to correct it after they let the genie out of the bottle but it will have its final day in court some day too. Its the other 10,000 questions they answer a year in the form of opinion letters that we use in the industry, that had the force of law , those are getting the kibosh. They too will play the game.

 

[Yarome]

The ATF doesn't make law and never has. They have always, or at least since the chevron deference ruling, made determinations, or rulings , or opinion letters, whatever you want to call them based on existing law.

Has the ATF made some incorrect rulings on law before? That is debatable. Sometimes they have , most of the time they haven't. Their rulings tend to be well reasoned and they reference the law in question quite well.

The bumpstock ruling was wrong but it wasn't based on law . It was based on being ordered to make that ruling. Their initial brace ruling was wrong...

You can split hairs between "making law" vs. "redefining and expanding existing laws", but the affect is exactly the same. They are new provisions enacted with the force of law that did not previously exist.

Most of the time they get it right?? I won't say they are always wrong, but their recent track record is anything BUT "mostly getting it right" or "well reasoned based on existing laws".

Do bump stocks meet the definition of a machine gun? Nope! Do FRT's? Nope! Do unfinished frames/receivers meet the definition of a frame/receiver? Nope. Are metal cards with lines on them machine guns? Nope! Is a zero tolerance policy toward FFL's 'reasonable' and any error fair to be immediately deemed "willful violation of the law'? Nope! Is a private individual buying and selling firearms as a hobby engaged in the firearm business? Nope!

You're entitled to your 'feelings', but that doesn't make any valid or reasonable argument that what the alphabet and the WH have been doing lately is "well reasoned" or in any way consistent with existing laws. If it was... the executive branch wouldn't have to keep redefining and expanding them, now would they.

It has to make sense to make sense.

 

[wired]

You can split hairs between "making law" vs. "redefining and expanding existing laws", but the affect is exactly the same. They are new provisions enacted with the force of law that did not previously exist.

Most of the time they get it right?? I won't say they are always wrong, but their recent track record is anything BUT "mostly getting it right" or "well reasoned based on existing laws".

Do bump stocks meet the definition of a machine gun? Nope! Do FRT's? Nope! Do unfinished frames/receivers meet the definition of a frame/receiver? Nope. Are metal cards with lines on them machine guns? Nope! Is a zero tolerance policy toward FFL's 'reasonable' and any error fair to be immediately deemed "willful violation of the law'? Nope! Is a private individual buying and selling firearms as a hobby engaged in the firearm business? Nope!

You're entitled to your 'feelings', but that doesn't make any valid or reasonable argument that what the alphabet and the WH have been doing lately is "well reasoned" or in any way consistent with existing laws. If it was... the executive branch wouldn't have to keep redefining and expanding them, now would they.

It has to make sense to make sense.

You have no idea how many opinion letters they write do you? Thousands a year. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This ruling will be a major roadblock to the industry.

 

[PiratePast40]

You have no idea how many opinion letters they write do you? Thousands a year. This is throwing the baby out with the bathwater. This ruling will be a major roadblock to the industry.

IMO, It's not that EVERY decision must go through the courts. It just means that WHEN an opinion or decision is challenged, and goes through the courts, the agency is no longer considered the only SME or given deference.

 

[wired]

IMO, It's not that EVERY decision must go through the courts. It just means that WHEN an opinion or decision is challenged, and goes through the courts, the agency is no longer considered the only SME or given deference.

In theory yes but in practice IMO what they'll do is stop issuing opinions .

 

[CamoDeafie]

Eh. Thats a bad thing, how?

I don't think they'll stop issuing opinions.

It just means they'll legally have to craft their opinions based entirely on what the law says and not what the law could say.

"Does this part or assembly make a gun fire automatically with a single function of the trigger"? If yes, MG. If no, not a MG, regardless of ROF or operation method.

"Is this barrel under 16 or 18 inches, or under 26" OAL, and does the firearm have a shoulder stock, designed to be fired from the shoulder?"

If yes, SBR/SBS. If no, not a SBR/SBS, regardless of how the device could be shouldered.

Let the Courts determine if the ATF or other Fed Agencies' interpretation of the laws, square with the Courts' own interpretation.