cathouse01
NES Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2018
- Messages
- 2,444
- Likes
- 4,671
This is really just the tip of the iceberg regarding Congress, along with the help of the Supreme Court, abrogating their law making responsibilities to the Executive branch.
It all started in 1944 with Skidmore v. Swift & Co., where the court declared that the rulings, interpretations, and opinions of the administrator of a Fed Agency deserve the court’s deference according to their persuasiveness. Then, in 1945, in Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., the SJC expanded it to read that federal courts must defer to an administrative agency's interpretation of its own regulation unless the interpretation "is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation”. This was followed up finally with the infamous Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. ruling in 1984 that resulted in the current “Chevron Two Step Test” to determine if a Federal Agency has over stepped its bounds.
This is what Agencies like the ATF use to greatly expand the reach of their regulations. It’s what the ATF used to expand the definition of a machine gun to include bump stocks and what they are using to expand the definition of a firearm to include “80%” frames/lowers. The fact is that now a days the Legislative branch is almost never passing laws that are complete and clear in detail. Those serving don’t have the time or inclination to learn the details of the subjects that the laws they are passing effect. They pass some general law and then leave it up to the Executive to “work out the details”. So we end up with an unelected Executive agency being allowed to determine what is or isn’t a gun.
It all started in 1944 with Skidmore v. Swift & Co., where the court declared that the rulings, interpretations, and opinions of the administrator of a Fed Agency deserve the court’s deference according to their persuasiveness. Then, in 1945, in Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., the SJC expanded it to read that federal courts must defer to an administrative agency's interpretation of its own regulation unless the interpretation "is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation”. This was followed up finally with the infamous Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. ruling in 1984 that resulted in the current “Chevron Two Step Test” to determine if a Federal Agency has over stepped its bounds.
The key here is what is meant by “the precise question at issue”. With laws becoming more and more generalized and ambiguous, there is more and more latitude for Fed agency to declare that “the precise question at issue” was not addressed in the law as passed.First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute . . . Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.
— Chevron U.S.A. v. NRDC, 467 U.S. 837, 842-43 (1984).
This is what Agencies like the ATF use to greatly expand the reach of their regulations. It’s what the ATF used to expand the definition of a machine gun to include bump stocks and what they are using to expand the definition of a firearm to include “80%” frames/lowers. The fact is that now a days the Legislative branch is almost never passing laws that are complete and clear in detail. Those serving don’t have the time or inclination to learn the details of the subjects that the laws they are passing effect. They pass some general law and then leave it up to the Executive to “work out the details”. So we end up with an unelected Executive agency being allowed to determine what is or isn’t a gun.