Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

What The Supreme Court’s Upcoming Battle Over Chevron Deference Could Mean for Gun Rights
TruthAboutGuns ^ | 5/8/23 | Cody Wisniewski

Posted on 05/09/2023 1:35:51 PM PDT by CFW

Last week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case about commercial fishing that raises an issue the current members of the Court have been very interested in as of late—Chevron Deference. With the Court agreeing to hear the case, there has been a lot of speculation about what the end of Chevron may mean across the legal landscape. But what might it mean for gun rights?

First, it’s important to understand what Chevron Deference is. Chevron, as it’s not-so-affectionately called among legal circles, is a doctrine that was established by the Supreme Court in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council almost 40 years ago. That doctrine states that if a court is trying to interpret an ambiguous statute being enforced by a federal executive branch agency, the court must defer to the agency’s interpretation of the statute so long as it’s “reasonable.”

While that may sound innocuous, Chevron Deference has wreaked havoc on our legal system and the principle of separation of powers ever since it was decided. In practice, courts across the country regularly defer to federal agencies almost as a matter of course. Courts have determined that a “reasonable” interpretation doesn’t have to be the best interpretation, just one that could be viewed as rational in light of the ambiguously written statute

(Excerpt) Read more at thetruthaboutguns.com ...


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Extended News; Government
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; agencies; banglist; chevron; chevrondefense; gunrights; nra; scotus; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last
Let's hope SCOTUS narrows Chevron deference and reins in our out of control federal bureaucracies.
1 posted on 05/09/2023 1:35:52 PM PDT by CFW
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: CFW

Pray! Pray real hard. TEOTWAWKI


2 posted on 05/09/2023 1:38:23 PM PDT by griswold3 (Truth, Beauty and Goodness )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

If the court doesn’t thrown out Chevron, then it’s not committed to the rule of law.


3 posted on 05/09/2023 1:40:10 PM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

In other words, the Chevron Defense is that the feds get their way as long as someone says it is “reasonable”.

Wonderful.


4 posted on 05/09/2023 1:40:43 PM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Procrastination is just a form of defiance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Neither SCOTUS or Congress have the authority to override the Constitution!


5 posted on 05/09/2023 1:42:25 PM PDT by justme4now (Our Right's are God given and I don't need permission from politicians or courts to exercise them!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Bkmk


6 posted on 05/09/2023 1:44:57 PM PDT by sauropod (“If they don’t believe our lies, well, that’s just conspiracy theorist stuff, there.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Bkmk


7 posted on 05/09/2023 1:45:00 PM PDT by sauropod (“If they don’t believe our lies, well, that’s just conspiracy theorist stuff, there.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justme4now
Nor does the Executive branch, which is what this addresses in certain technical cases. IOW, Chevron is about courts giving deference to the applicable administrative agency on technical subjects/issues in regard to regulation. For instance, if ATF defines gun furniture as a gun, Chevron says the courts should not interfere with that definition. A roll back of Chevron would allow the court to examine that definition and if it thinks it is erroneous, the Court can strike it down. Rolling it back is sorely needed to reign in the rampant BS with this mis-administration.
8 posted on 05/09/2023 1:53:43 PM PDT by jpp113
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Sequoyah101

I lost a court case over the interpretation of “reasonable” when applied to a road way design. All the other side did to defeat me was bring in a young engineer who said, yes, at any speed up to 35 mph, the design of the roadway was reasonable.

My contention was that the roadway was a freeway on ramp and there was no posted speed limit. For me it was “reasonable” to accelerate up to freeway speed. This would have resulted in our having a chance at a settlement of lots of $$ but the state would be in lots of trouble because this ramp design was very common and lots of people could have argued the use of the term “reasonable” if they opened the door for us.


9 posted on 05/09/2023 2:00:40 PM PDT by KC_for_Freedom (retired aerospace engineer and CSP who also taught)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Now that the Demoncrats are well on their way in destroying the middle class the next step in their plans to create a totalitarian government will be to disarm law abiding citizens.


10 posted on 05/09/2023 2:02:54 PM PDT by antidemoncrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_for_Freedom

Purely subjective isn’t it?

Great basis for a legal proceeding. /s


11 posted on 05/09/2023 2:12:54 PM PDT by Sequoyah101 (Procrastination is just a form of defiance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Chevron deference rarely applies to ATF. Most rules have a criminal penalty to it so is handled under rule of lenity. With ambiguous rules courts must rule in a way that is most favorable to the defendant.

The Sixth did this for the bumpstock.


12 posted on 05/09/2023 2:26:03 PM PDT by DevonD
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justme4now

<>Neither SCOTUS or Congress have the authority to override the Constitution!<>

LOL.

They’ve been doing it since FDR.

Despite this, I’m constantly told at FR how a Constitutional Article V COS is too dangerous to consider.


13 posted on 05/09/2023 2:34:59 PM PDT by Jacquerie (ArticleVBlog.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: CFW

Chevron deference should be abandoned, as Justice Thomas has been arguing for a long time.


14 posted on 05/09/2023 2:39:35 PM PDT by TBP (Decent people cannot fathom the amoral cruelty of the Biden regime.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jpp113

Hmm..in civil cases, ambiguities in the contract are usually settled against the party that drew up the contract, no?


15 posted on 05/09/2023 3:23:45 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: KC_for_Freedom

That’s the way I learned it.

See page 107:

https://driving-tests.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/LA_Guide-2017.pdf


Begin checking traffic while on the entrance ramp. Do not move slowly to the end of the entrance
ramp and stop. Start your turn signal to warn other drivers. Look for a gap in the approaching
traffic. Then, adjust your speed to meet that gap. As you merge, make sure you are traveling the
same speed as other traffic.


16 posted on 05/09/2023 3:31:37 PM PDT by scrabblehack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: CFW

The Chevron Defference won’t have real affect on gun rights.

However, it’s reversal will affect government rules and regulations al.ost across the board.

Here are just a few areas:

Regulations on car engines
Anything associated with the EPA
Anything associated with education
Anything associated with health imposition
Any restrictions on CO2 emissions
Pipelines and drilling for carbon-based energy

There are probably hundreds of other areas.

A reversal would would mean much more freedom for everyone.

Could also mean that the states are not required to provide education and healthcare to children of non-citizens; nor their parents.


17 posted on 05/09/2023 3:32:11 PM PDT by WASCWatch ( WASC)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: KC_for_Freedom

“My contention was that the roadway was a freeway on ramp and there was no posted speed limit. For me it was “reasonable” to accelerate up to freeway speed”

If you failed to accelerate to freeway speed you’d create a hazard to yourself and other drivers. Sounds reasonable to me!


18 posted on 05/09/2023 4:22:43 PM PDT by JimRed (TERM LIMITS, NOW! Militia to the border! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: WASCWatch

How does this relate to the same excesses created by State agencies promulgating regulation as law in excess of their charter?


19 posted on 05/09/2023 4:24:44 PM PDT by Lou Foxwell (It takes a deep level of stupidity to believe Trump is stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: scrabblehack

When I’m approaching an interchange in the right hand travel lane I’m in the habit of moving left if possible. If it’s safe to merge I’ll blink the merging traffic to let them know. If I can’t move left I’ll ease off and leave a gap if it’s practical to do so. If I’m exiting I’ll signal my intent a quarter mile away, blink the first car in the merge queue to go and drop In behind him.


20 posted on 05/09/2023 4:44:49 PM PDT by JimRed (TERM LIMITS, NOW! Militia to the border! TRUTH is the new HATE SPEECH.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-26 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson