- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
SCOTUS rules in favor of WV over the EPA... What does this mean for the ATF?
Posted on 6/30/22 at 9:58 am
Posted on 6/30/22 at 9:58 am
What the Poliboard is telling me is that this ruling:
I specifically asked about pistol braces and the new point system, and it appears that there won't be any weight how it can be enforced. Take it with a grain of salt until we see how it plays out I guess.
LINK
quote:
Removed the ability for bureaucratic agencies to create de facto legislation
I specifically asked about pistol braces and the new point system, and it appears that there won't be any weight how it can be enforced. Take it with a grain of salt until we see how it plays out I guess.
LINK
3
Posted on 6/30/22 at 10:18 am to finchmeister08
Not sure what it means for ATF but can we bring back 2 stroke outboards now? Will I still be able to buy a truck with a big ole V-8 in 10 years? It sure opens up a lot of questions and will make Congress possibly have to do something other than show trials.
Posted on 6/30/22 at 10:21 am to NewIberiaHaircut
No thanks on the 2 Strokes. I rather enjoy running my boat at 4500 RPM and being able to hold a conversation.
Posted on 6/30/22 at 10:21 am to finchmeister08
I think the problem here is, Congress actually defined them in the act. So, we don't have an agency making law to the extent they are defined. As far as SBRs are concerned anyway. Did the act address braces or is that purely ATF?
Posted on 6/30/22 at 10:28 am to finchmeister08
They didn't cite Chevron in the opinion so I don't think this totally overrules it
Posted on 6/30/22 at 10:31 am to Carson123987
quote:
They didn't cite Chevron in the opinion so I don't think this totally overrules it
according to Gorsuch:
quote:
When Congress seems slow to solve problems, it may be only natural that those in the Executive Branch might seek to take matters into their own hands. But the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives. In our Republic, “t is the peculiar province of the legislature to prescribe general rules for the government of society.” [i]Fletcher v. Peck, 6 Cranch 87, 136 (1810). Because today’s decision helps safeguard that foundational constitutional promise, I am pleased to concur.
not sure if that's part of the decision or just an opinion.
Posted on 6/30/22 at 10:36 am to finchmeister08
quote:
the Constitution does not authorize agencies to use pen-and-phone regulations as substitutes for laws passed by the people’s representatives.
:freedomboner:
Posted on 6/30/22 at 11:24 am to DownshiftAndFloorIt
Didn’t overturn Chevron but they shut all over it
Posted on 6/30/22 at 12:28 pm to jimjackandjose
It may not have overturned Chevron, but this clearly opens up legal avenues against all fed agency fiat ruling, does it not?
At least specifically in this case, this means that all those gas mileage and electric vehicle quota vs rules are now unconstitutional, no?
At least specifically in this case, this means that all those gas mileage and electric vehicle quota vs rules are now unconstitutional, no?
Posted on 6/30/22 at 12:36 pm to BadatBourre
quote:
No thanks on the 2 Strokes. I rather enjoy running my boat at 4500 RPM and being able to hold a conversation.
Same, not sure why anyone would go with a two stroke nowadays. Back when the 4 strokes were typically a bit heavier and more expensive, yeah. But now, not so much.
Posted on 6/30/22 at 12:46 pm to BadatBourre
quote:
No thanks on the 2 Strokes. I rather enjoy running my boat at 4500 RPM and being able to hold a conversation.
True, but you gotta admit an old 3 hole Yamaha 25 sounds great at full twist
Posted on 6/30/22 at 3:20 pm to NewIberiaHaircut
quote:
but can we bring back 2 stroke outboards now
I have a 2 stroke mercury 115 I wish I could trade for a 4 stroke.
Posted on 6/30/22 at 3:34 pm to bigtiger440
One point from Gorsuch's concurrence stands out to me about the applicability to other things:
That looks like what is going to be used in future cases to determine whether or not "major questions" doctrine is applicable for the claim. It was for the EPA case.
He then goes into:
and list four things to determine that.
quote:
Turning from the doctrine’s function to its application, it seems to me that our cases supply a good deal of guidance about when an agency action involves a major question for which clear congressional authority is required
quote:
First, this Court has indicated that the doctrine applies when an agency claims the power to resolve a matter of great “political significance,”
quote:
Second, this Court has said that an agency must point to clear congressional authorization when it seeks to regulate “a significant portion of the American economy,”
quote:
Third, this Court has said that the major questions doctrine may apply when an agency seeks to “intrud[e] into an area that is the particular domain of state law.”
That looks like what is going to be used in future cases to determine whether or not "major questions" doctrine is applicable for the claim. It was for the EPA case.
He then goes into:
quote:
At this point, the question becomes what qualifies as a clear congressional statement authorizing an agency’s action
and list four things to determine that.
quote:
First, courts must look to the legislative provisions on which the agency seeks to rely “‘with a view to their place in the overall statutory scheme.’”
quote:
Second, courts may examine the age and focus of the statute the agency invokes in relation to the problem the agency seeks to address.
quote:
Third, courts may examine the agency’s past interpretations of the relevant statute
quote:
Fourth, skepticism may be merited when there is a mismatch between an agency’s challenged action and its congressionally assigned mission and expertise.
Posted on 6/30/22 at 5:54 pm to gaetti15
MAC YT channel put out this discussion today about the ruling. It's worth 20 mins of your time.
LINK
I didn't know it, but apparently the guy who runs the channel is in some way involved with the bump stock case.
Jist of discussion is this: the waters are still somehwhat murky on what fed agencies can and can't do outside of the EPA regulating power plant emissions, but this may put a pause on agency rulings for a bit while the beuracrats try to figure out what they can and can't get away with.
Either way, the previous point posted earlier still stands... This will likely open up numerous legal challenges to numerous fiat rulings by federal agencies that never had a Congressional law passed specifically stating if they could or couldn't do it.
LINK
I didn't know it, but apparently the guy who runs the channel is in some way involved with the bump stock case.
Jist of discussion is this: the waters are still somehwhat murky on what fed agencies can and can't do outside of the EPA regulating power plant emissions, but this may put a pause on agency rulings for a bit while the beuracrats try to figure out what they can and can't get away with.
Either way, the previous point posted earlier still stands... This will likely open up numerous legal challenges to numerous fiat rulings by federal agencies that never had a Congressional law passed specifically stating if they could or couldn't do it.
Posted on 6/30/22 at 6:08 pm to BadatBourre
quote:
rather enjoy running my boat at 4500 RPM and being able to hold a conversation.
Don’t pretend you don’t love the smell combo of blue smoke mixed with boat vinyl upholstery
Posted on 6/30/22 at 6:13 pm to gaetti15
The example used in this case was EPA cited the clean air act to regulate C02 emissions
C02 was not a listed pollutant under that act so the agency acted outside the scope of the law passed by Congress. Congress would need to pass legislation giving them authority to regulate C02 emissions.
Agencies are there to enforce regulations passed by congress not make law
C02 was not a listed pollutant under that act so the agency acted outside the scope of the law passed by Congress. Congress would need to pass legislation giving them authority to regulate C02 emissions.
Agencies are there to enforce regulations passed by congress not make law
Posted on 6/30/22 at 6:24 pm to deltaland
Yeah, and in terms of pistol braces, there’s no law defining them so how can the ATF enforce something that doesn’t exist?
Posted on 6/30/22 at 7:44 pm to deltaland
quote:
The example used in this case was EPA cited the clean air act to regulate C02 emissions
C02 was not a listed pollutant under that act so the agency acted outside the scope of the law passed by Congress. Congress would need to pass legislation giving them authority to regulate C02 emissions.
it goes a bit beyond that.
the EPA was trying to use some "fill in the gap" regulation that was hardly ever utilized to try and shift power plants to cleaner sources of energy.
CO2 not listed as a pollutant was just lagniappe.
Posted on 6/30/22 at 7:45 pm to finchmeister08
quote:
Yeah, and in terms of pistol braces, there’s no law defining them so how can the ATF enforce something that doesn’t exist?
it just depends on what regulation they used and if it matched up with it's intended purpose as Congress intended (if they were direct enough)
Posted on 6/30/22 at 7:52 pm to Jack Ruby
quote:
At least specifically in this case, this means that all those gas mileage and electric vehicle quota vs rules are now unconstitutional, no?
Depends on whether they're authorized under a statute.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News