• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

BREAKING: Supreme Court Grants Cert in Case That Could End Deference to Regulatory Agencies, Challen

Fixxah said:
Why are my pants getting tighter?
Click to expand...

The bureaucrats didn't properly regulate the shrinkage percentage of your bluejeans, maybe? ;)


Tough call. Seriously. I'm all for checking the power of the bureaucrats.

But has anyone considered the OTHER side of this? The unintended consequence is that the courts will be clogged with so much BS that now the COURTS will be the bottleneck in getting any sort of reform passed. This isn't going to make Congress more careful. It's going to make more individual and appeals-court justices law-makers. We haven't FIXED anything, just kicked the can to a different set of people.

Is there a REAL solution? Probably not. But this isn't the panacea that everyone thinks it is. Some judge could conclude that not only is 1934 properly adhered to, but that the ATF doesn't go FAR enough. What happens then???? What about the hodge-podge of appeals courts. Maybe people in California have to have their right arm amputated to have a full-auto gun and someone in TX can buy one at CVS.

Although if it did all work out, I'd be MISTER SBR all frickin day long. THAT makes my pants tight. LOL
 
There is zero chance either side will move to reduce the bureaucracy. Government has grown too large and complex for legislatures exclusively writing laws. It isn't humanly possible.

This issue was a major topic in the 60's when the "growth of administrative law" first raised its significant head. It was the beginning of destroying the rule of law, common law, and the rights of citizens above the government.

It is an issue which harkens back to our founding when "star chamber" proceeding and "admiralty law" was applied to English citizens and it was a significant reason behind the "Bill of Rights" and specific language in the constitution concerning the role and power of government being derived from inherent power of the people.

There are some 350,000 laws and regulations in this nation in total (probably more). Congress and state legislatures could never read that many much less debate and pass them into law. The issue has been settled long ago and this won't be decided in any manner which will please moderates much less conservatives.
 
jpk said:
Smells like limited government.......
Click to expand...

If you are over 60 years old you know exactly what that smells like because you were living in the last days of it.

Buying firearms in hardware stores......for that matter there were still places you could buy dynamite that way.

Governments only have their powers limited by virtue of violence and revolution. No sane person wants to go that way.
 
Last edited:
MuzzleDiscipline said:
There is zero chance either side will move to reduce the bureaucracy. Government has grown too large and complex for legislatures exclusively writing laws. It isn't humanly possible.

This issue was a major topic in the 60's when the "growth of administrative law" first raised its significant head. It was the beginning of destroying the rule of law, common law, and the rights of citizens above the government.

It is an issue which harkens back to our founding when "star chamber" proceeding and "admiralty law" was applied to English citizens and it was a significant reason behind the "Bill of Rights" and specific language in the constitution concerning the role and power of government being derived from inherent power of the people.

There are some 350,000 laws and regulations in this nation in total (probably more). Congress and state legislatures could never read that many much less debate and pass them into law. The issue has been settled long ago and this won't be decided in any manner which will please moderates much less conservatives.
Click to expand...

If that were true this case wouldn’t have been granted cert.
 
I think I will just remain cautiously optimistic that some good will eventually come out of this that helps the 2a cause... It's hard to get my hopes up these days when the accountability and credibility of our government is concerned :(
 
MuzzleDiscipline said:
There is zero chance either side will move to reduce the bureaucracy. Government has grown too large and complex for legislatures exclusively writing laws. It isn't humanly possible.

This issue was a major topic in the 60's when the "growth of administrative law" first raised its significant head. It was the beginning of destroying the rule of law, common law, and the rights of citizens above the government.

It is an issue which harkens back to our founding when "star chamber" proceeding and "admiralty law" was applied to English citizens and it was a significant reason behind the "Bill of Rights" and specific language in the constitution concerning the role and power of government being derived from inherent power of the people.

There are some 350,000 laws and regulations in this nation in total (probably more). Congress and state legislatures could never read that many much less debate and pass them into law. The issue has been settled long ago and this won't be decided in any manner which will please moderates much less conservatives.
Click to expand...
I've not studied what administrative law restrictions might exist wrt CFRs and other state's regulations. However, I am aware that the Mass Constitution addresses CMRs and states that they MUST NOT create new law but operate within the parameters of the law passed by the legislature. Of course, Mass bureaucrats don't abide by that and I'm personally aware of attempts (and likely current administrative law) that intentionally tried to violate that Constitutional restriction.

The best that we can hope for in this case is that the Supremes agree that no regulation should stand if it exceeds the limits of the underlying law.

JohnZ said:
Wonder how this impacts healy's crap.
Click to expand...
It won't! There is no regulations to back up her edict so it probably won't be addressed. In addition, she picks and chooses what laws/case law she wants to abide by!
 
This is probably a big deal.

It's been widely expected that the court would grant cert on this case. Chevron and Auer deference doctrines have been under fire in legal circles for some time and it's believed that several of the justices, especially Gorsuch are hostile to these doctrines. While this petition doesn't directly touch on the Second Amendment or firearms regulation, the implications for same are tremendous. The court granted cert only on question 1. The petion begins as follows:
​
Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation. Separately, in Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 118 (1994), the Court held that “interpretive doubt is to be resolved in the veteran’s favor.”

Petitioner, a Marine veteran, seeks disability benefits for his service-related post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). While the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) agrees that petitioner suffers from service-related PTSD, it has refused to award him retroactive benefits. The VA’s decision turns on the meaning of the term “relevant” as used in 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c)(1).

Below, the Federal Circuit found that petitioner and the VA both offered reasonable constructions of that term. On that basis alone, the court held that the regulation is ambiguous, and—invoking Auer— deferred to the VA’s interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.

The questions presented are:
1. Whether the Court should overrule Auer and Seminole Rock.
Click to expand...
 
You guys suck. I've been dreaming of buying SBR's and just mailing a check for $5 or $200 to the ATF for 2 days now. Bastidz!
 
Last edited:
jpk said:
SCOTUS could declare all bureaucratic rule making agitation to be unconstitutional........I know I'm shooting high on this but there's quite literally no constitutional basis for bureaucracy under the control of the executive branch to be making rules that carry the weight and penalty of law (aka legislative branch)
Click to expand...

If Clarence Thomas had at least 4 clones on the bench with him, maybe. Short of that, unlikely.
 
jpk said:
There's another take on this

SCOTUS could declare all bureaucratic rule making agitation to be unconstitutional........I know I'm shooting high on this but there's quite literally no constitutional basis for bureaucracy under the control of the executive branch to be making rules that carry the weight and penalty of law (aka legislative branch)

One of the executive branches primary responsibilities is to carry out (execute) the laws that are written by congress/signed into law by POTUS.

The "Rules" in question are without a doubt extra constitutional.
Click to expand...

Bingo! What this poster is referring to is known as "the delegation doctrine," which holds that the legislature may not delegate it's power to draw legislative lines to the executive. Starting in the 1930s, more or less, the courts began to turn a blind eye to the delegation doctrine, leading to our world today, where 90+% of the legal rules that govern our conduct are promulgated by folks who have never been elected to the legislature.
 
I keep thinking back to Taft when he absolutely didn't want to be president but thought the other people running we're complete idiots because they were trying to be the voice of the people.

The president shouldn't be the Voice. The Voice is the court and lawmakers.

Somehow we got it backwards and because of feels, it has stayed.
 
fshalor said:
I keep thinking back to Taft when he absolutely didn't want to be president but thought the other people running we're complete idiots because they were trying to be the voice of the people.
Click to expand...

Fshalor. You remember back to when Taft was president? Wasn't that back towards the beginning of the 1900s??? Sounds like you've got some years on you! :D;)
 
Whutmeworry said:
Fshalor. You remember back to when Taft was president? Wasn't that back towards the beginning of the 1900s??? Sounds like you've got some years on you! :D;)
Click to expand...

Not that old. But I do remember when autocow didn't add a frigging ' to the middle of "were" all the frigging time when I don't want or need it.

Been rereading Federalist papers this month and slowly comparing them to the last hundred years by decades casually. Some interesting things show up.

This last year will be interesting for future learner's of America who care about such things. And this court case will be high in the wow list.
 
MuzzleDiscipline said:
There is zero chance either side will move to reduce the bureaucracy. Government has grown too large and complex for legislatures exclusively writing laws. It isn't humanly possible.
Click to expand...

Lol not sure if serious. If Congress cant be bothered to write a law that's complete then they shouldn't do it at all. Regulatory matters should be sized like a narrow hallway, not the atlantic ocean size of scope.

-Mike
 
drgrant said:
Lol not sure if serious. If Congress cant be bothered to write a law that's complete then they shouldn't do it at all. Regulatory matters should be sized like a narrow hallway, not the atlantic ocean size of scope.

-Mike
Click to expand...

Mike that is the big frustration........the gap between what they should do and what they get away and go home doing.

That narrow hallway should be a tiny passthrough. :)
 

Similar threads

Nevada Supreme Court Upholds Ban on So-Called ‘Ghost Guns’
Replies
0
Views
45
Reptile
Reptile
The NRA Is About to Notch Another Legal Victory at the Supreme Court
Replies
13
Views
640
groundscrapers
G
New York's Radical Gun Restrictions Headed To Supreme Court
Replies
1
Views
291
Rob Boudrie
Rob Boudrie
Supreme Court and guns in the news (search 3/4/24)
Replies
0
Views
183
Coyote33
Coyote33
  • Locked
Hawaii State Supreme Court Rules No Right to Bear Arms
Replies
2
Views
376
Admin
Admin
Back
Top Bottom