[marktwain]

Justice Gorsuch lays out the reasons he disagrees with the appeals court, and tells us there are several other cases pending on this regulation.

He asks us to be patient.

[rjsimmon]

a longstanding federal statute that outlaws the “possession [of] a machinegun.” 26 U. S. C. §5685(b), 18 U. S. C. §924(a)(2)

This should have been ruled unconstitutional a long time ago.

[Carriage Hill]

“...a single criminal act, faced with intense media pressure, resulting in political pressure...”

Pretty much spells it all out.

[RubinBoomer]

The term Chevron doctrine comes from the case Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). It refers to a defense invoked by a government agency allowing the court to show deference to the agency's interpretation of a law the it administers. It basically says that if Congress hasn't addressed the matter, the agency's interpretation of a regulation or statute it administers is permissible it should be deferred to.

THIS is bunk from a liberal court (1984). Some unelected bureaucrat who has a life-time job, since you can't fire the lazy basards, sitting in Washington so he has no idea what it is like in the real frickin' world, can in effect make law because a bunch of lazy ass congress-critters can't write effective English to be clear in what they mean. Truth be told, the damn legislators don't even read what they pass, let alone write it themselves.

Perhaps it boils down to reading comprehension. What part of shall not infringe don't they get?

[Sacajaweau]

He’s leaving it to the states...and that’s where it should stay...at least for now. He did it right.

[RubinBoomer]

My blood is boiling this morning, gentlemen. Think about it, every word of "Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should not exist in government. Bureau, the root of bureaucracy. Alcohol is legal, leave it the F alone. Who cares is some huckleberry burns down his house making shine or someone so stupid to drink unproven applejack goes blind. They have the personal choice to make a mistake. Tobacco is legal, leave it the F alone. No normal person wants to grow it cause you get tar all over you when you pick it. It's just illegal to sell the crap across state lines. Last time I looked at the constitution, the commerce clause meant to make commerce regular between the several states, not tax the crap out of tobacco or regulate it's production, transport, distribution, and sale. Then you have firearms. Again, what part of shall not infringe don't they get. An entire Bureau setup to infringe. Everyone who works at the ATF are worthless anti-American pieces of schiff. Get a real F'n job. Explosives, oh no, can't have those now. You don't have a need to blow up the boulder or tree stump in your back forty, cuz your just a Rube Boomer, and don't know any better. You'll blow yourself up. If someone wants to make or use explosives for illegal uses, like terrorism, perhaps you shouldn't have let them in the country in the first place. Don't worry about my safety to take way my liberty.

You realize that at some point in our history there were zero laws pertaining to Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. All four have existed since our founding, and looky here, us rubes are still kickin'.

[Buckeye McFrog]

so....he’s a fair minded man and does not want to make up his mind before hearing all of the evidence.

Given the state of our judiciary today I suppose that IS shocking.

[zeugma]

Dean,

Thanks for linking to the Supreme Court document itself. I wish more folks would do that when commenting on such things.

[lastchance]

I have long argued that poorly written vague laws are what give non-elected bureaucrats so much power. It is time to dump the “Chevron” doctrine and return the responsibility for enacting our nation’s laws to Congress.

[lepton]

“Despite these concerns, I agree with my colleagues that the interlocutory petition before us does not merit review.The errors apparent in this preliminary ruling might yet be corrected before final judgment. Further, other courts of appeals are actively considering challenges to the same regulation. Before deciding whether to weigh in, we would benefit from hearing their considered judgments—provided, of course, that they are not afflicted with the same problems. But waiting should not be mistaken for lack of concern.“