Since scotus ruled that the epa over stepped their boundaries by making policy, would that apply to the ATF as well?
I realize it isn’t that easy, but people all over the internet are now claiming the pistol brace fiasco is now solved because the atf is neutered because of this one ruling.
I had the same question on another thread. The wording of the ruling certainly suggests that this may end up being the case. However, it’ll take a little time for all this to unfold before we know for sure. However, it DOES seem to be connected and it follows the same logic.
Would you please tell me what that thread is? I did a search for a post like mine before I made this thread and I’d like to view it also.
I believe this is the case. It would seem the opinion is stating that executive branch agencies can’t make laws via administrative rules.
I think it will take several lawsuits against the ATF, using the EPA case opinion to strike down their new nutty rules like braces (December) and 80% stuff (August)
Unlike the EPA, the ATF has the “spoter clause” which allows them to make policy, write determination letters declare what firearms are suitable for importation or domestic manufacture and such based upon nothing more than if they “feel” it is suitable for sporting applications.
So how do we get a suit to spike Sporter Clause? FPC and SAF are itching for the next big fight…
Wait until they throw out the brace rules and whatever nonsense they are slated to dump in December.
File suit based on the recent decision and include language that the sporter clause is being used as justification for violating the recent decision.
Then again, I’m an engineer. A mechanical one at that, so not even considered smart compared to my electrical and chemical brethren…
Pretty sure it would have to be amended by an act of Congress. Last time any part of the 1968 GCA was undone was in 1986 with FOPA.
Squad goals for November.
Unless parts of it got struck down as unconstitutional.
This was exactly what I was getting at…
Roger that man.
Haven’t read the decision, only quoted excerpts.
I get the impression this is a fairly narrow ruling. I don’t think it has the legs to affect much outside of the EPA trying to expand their grasp. At least not on it’s own. Promising as precident and a potential first step, but hardly the watershed moment some are trying to paint it as (media wise, not M4C specifically) from what I can tell.
[video=youtube_share;OuYXHJ-zkPM]https://youtu.be/OuYXHJ-zkPM[/video]
This won’t stop rogue agencies from doing whatever they want to do. Last year the Court said it was not within the CDC’s authority to grant a rent moratorium. The CDC said FU and extended the moratorium.
Agree with this. I did read the ruling. There was hope that SCOTUS would revisit the doctrine of Chevron deference (which comes from a SCOTUS decision and is what the courts use to say an agency such as the AFT or EPA can make regulations to “fill in the gaps” in the laws passed by congress), but in this case they focused on the “major questions” doctrine instead, saying that regulating carbon dioxide emissions to prevent climate change is a major question outside the scope of the authority granted the EPA by congress.
Unless the court deems a certain gun regulation a similar “major question”, which I doubt, (unless the FDA starts trying to regulate them for “public health” reasons or something nonsensicle like that) I don’t think this ruling will have an impact. Last weeks ruling against New York on the other hand, will have a huge impact imho, but I’m yet another mechanical engineer, so what do I know? :lol:
I saw a gun lawyer, granted he’s a youtube guy, suggest that even the recent SCOTUS ruling would limit the ATF. Text and tradition is the new standard. Regulation of the type that the ATF is taking with regard to pistol braces may be knocked down.
I think a lot of stuff will have to be re-litigated in light of the new rulings. Potentially, the EPA ruling could be the biggest deal for large regulatory changes, but it remains to be seen how far they are going to trim back the power of the administrative state. IMHO
The previous post is exactly right.