- 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
Supreme Court Hears Oral Arguments in Case Centered on ATF’s Redefinition of a ‘Firearm’
Posted on 10/8/24 at 8:11 am
Posted on 10/8/24 at 8:11 am
LINK
quote:
The Supreme Court of the United States will hear oral arguments Tuesday in VanDerStock v. Garland, a case focused on the ATF’s unilateral action to redefine what constitutes a “firearm.”
The case revolves around ATF Final Rule 2021-05F, which placed new controls on gun parts kits and firearms which Democrats describe as “ghost guns.”
A central part of this rule was redefining what the word “firearm” meant so as to designate “partially completed pistol frames” and other gun parts as “firearms.”
quote:
VanDerStok v. Garland points to the Administrative Procedures Act in challenging the lawfulness of ATF’s redefinition of a “firearm.”
On Friday, June 14, 2024, SCOTUS struck down the ATF’s bump stock ban, specifically noting that a bump stock does not convert semiautomatic rifles into “machineguns” as the ATF claimed. It is worth noting that the bump stock ban, along with the various other ATF rules issued during the last six to eight years, use the same language and are structured in the same fashion.
7
Posted on 10/8/24 at 8:15 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
It will be interesting to see what significance the overruling of Chevron deference has on this decision.
You know the three liberal DEI failures will still be arguing that Chevron should still be completely valid.
You know the three liberal DEI failures will still be arguing that Chevron should still be completely valid.
Posted on 10/8/24 at 8:17 am to MMauler
quote:
It will be interesting to see what significance the overruling of Chevron deference has on this decision.
This case will likely be an example of just this, but sadly people will spam the "I THOUGHT IT WAS ILLEGAL FOR AGENCIES TO 'MAKE LAWS" response.
Posted on 10/8/24 at 8:22 am to MMauler
quote:
You know the three liberal DEI failures will still be arguing that Chevron should still be completely valid.
Justice Wise Latina will likely cry in the back if they shut down the ATF's authority to expand their own power by changing definitions.
Posted on 10/8/24 at 8:26 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
What year was the bump stock ban placed into effect?
Posted on 10/8/24 at 8:27 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Our rights are hanging on by a thread. If the Dems got their way and packed the courts, both the first and 2nd amendment would be in jeopardy. That is not hyperbolic. This is the most important election of our lifetime.
Posted on 10/8/24 at 8:29 am to roadGator
quote:
What year was the bump stock ban placed into effect?
March 16, 2019. Overturned June 14, 2024.
Posted on 10/8/24 at 8:30 am to Bard
quote:
Justice Wise Latina will likely cry in the back if they shut down the ATF's authority to expand their own power by changing definitions
Redefining what constitutes a firearm seems to be a major change and should be reviewed/approved by Congress. The officials elected by tax payers, not unelected bureaucrats.
Posted on 10/8/24 at 8:31 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
frick ATF-burn it all down and replace it with nothing.
Posted on 10/8/24 at 8:33 am to Bard
Thank you.
Thank goodness that was overturned.
Can’t believe someone thought that was a good idea.
Thank goodness that was overturned.
Can’t believe someone thought that was a good idea.
Posted on 10/8/24 at 8:36 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
at the end of the day they can rule whatever they want to, I'm not giving up so much as a firing pin
Posted on 10/8/24 at 8:54 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
Does it list Pop Tart guns?
Posted on 10/8/24 at 9:00 am to Major Dutch Schaefer
quote:
partially completed pistol frames” and other gun parts as “firearms
Dems: A partially completed pistol frame is a firearm!
Also Dems: A baby isn't a baby till it is born !
Posted on 10/8/24 at 9:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This case will likely be an example of just this, but sadly people will spam the "I THOUGHT IT WAS ILLEGAL FOR AGENCIES TO 'MAKE LAWS" response.
So, do I have this right?
1) pre-strike down of Chevron Deference, Congress can pass regulatory power to an agency (like the ATF), and if the ATF rules one way, unless they’re egregiously unconstitutional, their regulation carries the power of law and is very close to immune to challenge
2) post-Chevron Deference strike down, Congress can still pass regulatory power to an agency, but the agency’s ruling now CAN be challenged in two ways, a) just in a general “this would be better” way by other experts in the field who could suggest the agency isn’t taking the best approach scientifically, morally; etc; and b) a “Congress didn’t grant you that specific authority, so you don’t have it until they rewrite it” way?
Am I anywhere near close?
Posted on 10/8/24 at 9:54 am to Hopeful Doc
quote:
b) a “Congress didn’t grant you that specific authority, so you don’t have it until they rewrite it” way?
This is the part that I understand that SCOTUS removed from the ABC agencies abilities to do.
So yes, B Is spot on.
A) I am not sure of tho, so will keep quiet on that as not to give bad info.
Really good question Doc
Posted on 10/8/24 at 9:56 am to MMauler
quote:
It will be interesting to see what significance the overruling of Chevron deference has on this decision.
Yes, totally agree. I'm thinking Vanderstock is going to have a massive impact on this case.
And I'm hoping for a MAJOR
to the ATF in this one.Posted on 10/8/24 at 11:34 am to Hopeful Doc
Close
Chevron gave the agencies the power of interpreting Congress in executing/applying Congressional laws. Courts had to defer to the agency interpretation. It neutered courts
Now, courts are given basically the primary avenue of interpretation.
Chevron gave the agencies the power of interpreting Congress in executing/applying Congressional laws. Courts had to defer to the agency interpretation. It neutered courts
Now, courts are given basically the primary avenue of interpretation.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News