In this case, the BATFE reversed their previous rulings 180 degrees. The DOJ stipulated a number of things at the beginning of the case, such as they were not relying on the Chevron ruling. The en banc rehearing will address whether the DOJ is allowed to stipulate those things.
Indeed. Either the law is solid ground or it is null and void. Agency rules are not laws and must be completely in agreement with the law else it too is unenforceable.
Another example is the definition of a firearm, and the DOJ has apparently recognized the shortcomings of prosecuting some AR15 based cases as neither upper nor lower receivers meet the actual definition of a firearm.... So, can a decades long standard that the lower is the firearm actually be valid if the legal definition is not met?
Indeed. Either the law is solid ground or it is null and void. Agency rules are not laws and must be completely in agreement with the law else it too is unenforceable.
Another example is the definition of a firearm, and the DOJ has apparently recognized the shortcomings of prosecuting some AR15 based cases as neither upper nor lower receivers meet the actual definition of a firearm.... So, can a decades long standard that the lower is the firearm actually be valid if the legal definition is not met?
In a second term, Trump needs to reward his RKBA base by actually making positive progress on rights restoration. He often speaks of 2A positively, but nothing has notably _improved_ on his authority. He did speak against bump-stocks, and allowed/encouraged BATFE to ban what was explicitly legal. 4 years ago there was much hope he would at minimum get suppressors fully legalized (and that’s a pretty minor step, being just auditory safety devices).
Obama, albeit grudgingly in a legislative trap, sign national park carry legalization - a meaningful step in the right direction.