Cargill Case

[gsneff]

The Cargill case, as most know, did not argue the Bruen test in their defense of bunpstocks. Instead they focused on the ability of Feds to redefine the law to fit.

It seems that the ruling could go either way which at the time bothered me but I started thinking this morning that us “losing” this case might be a win.

If we lose this solely because the definitions found within the law they are NOT saying the law is constitutional as that wasn’t the question asked. Instead what the court has done is make “machine guns” recently in “common use for legal purposes” which takes away which takes away the history and tradition of government limiting “dangerous and unusual” firearms.

I’m no attorney, just a guy who works on public policy at a conservative think tank (so I have some knowledge of how courts and agencies think) which doesn’t specialize in 2A law (so I don’t have in house experts to ask) so I thought I would post this here to see if any of you who might be attorneys think.

 

[Magdump]

Chevron Deference

 

[gsneff]

Chevron Deference

The original thought was they would throw out chevron as the justices have been looking for the opportunity to do so but the attorney did such a bad job in the second half we might now win.

 

[thperez1972]

Chevron Deference

Correct me if I'm wrong (as if you wouldn't anyway, but I believe Chevron Deference was only supposed to about regulatory issues and not issues where criminal charges could be filed. For the latter instances, the rule of lenity should apply.

 

[Magdump]

Correct me if I'm wrong (as if you wouldn't anyway, but I believe Chevron Deference was only supposed to about regulatory issues and not issues where criminal charges could be filed. For the latter instances, the rule of lenity should apply.

Ask CRS Firearms I suppose (Matthew Raymond Hoover) He’s still in prison.
Apologies to you for my part in any conflict here. Regardless of what your post suggests, I really don’t live to correct you or to spark conflict with you or anyone else here. I don’t feel like I’ve ever purposefully attempted to provoke anyone here. I have to admit, it’s been a bumpy ride at times, but when you have the same 4 or 5 members literally conspiring to get a rise out of you and openly discussing it, you feel less inclined to hold your tongue. Sorry if you think my objective to disagree with you, I assure you it is not. Again, very sorry.

 

[Magdump]

Chevron Deference is basically the leeway given to regulatory agencies (usually) in interpreting laws and statutes. My two word comment was meant to infer this very situation. Chevron Deference. If a federal regulatory agency is on the case, they can and will flex this leeway and interpret laws in their area of interest to flow with their intent. It does not matter the nature of the case. I’m not sure why there would be any disconnect there, especially in this age of enforcement by regulation. Agencies like the ATF have used chevron deference to impose decisions that turn law abiding gun owners into felons overnight. I’m hoping everyone here is aware of at least a few of these interpretations and “definitions”. We good?
Does that not cover the criminal charges issue? Why would they not use that in any criminal case?
I was alive and aware during the Regan days and remember when this became a thing. The EPA was the agency involved at the time. Didn’t hear much from the ATF in those days, but they were obviously taking notes.

 

[thperez1972]

Yes, agencies will interpret statutes in a way that best suits them. In civil cases, chevron deference is used. In cases where criminal penalties may apply, the rule of lenity should apply. Of cours, agencies will always try to argue chevron deference. The courts are supposed to keep them in check.

 

[Magdump]

Yes, agencies will interpret statutes in a way that best suits them. In civil cases, chevron deference is used. In cases where criminal penalties may apply, the rule of lenity should apply. Of cours, agencies will always try to argue chevron deference. The courts are supposed to keep them in check.

Federal agencies also should not be able to reach as far as they already have countless times. All I’m saying here is, if you’re the defendant in a case where prior rules, letters, decisions etc that have been made by an agency have put you in a situation and your entire case rests on the rule of lenity, better add a lot of prayer and good luck and hope to that defense, not to mention every dime you can muster. Coulda woulda shoulda is kinda like that old proverb about wishing in one hand and pooping in the other. Guess which hand fills up first.
Hopefully our Supreme Court will eventually put these agencies in check, but it’s a case by case thing that will take time unless Congress decides to act. Chevron deference has been a thing for like 40 years now? There is some support there in some regards, the SEC comes to mind. Congress seems to be after them, but not so much the ATF.

 

[thperez1972]

Correct me if I'm wrong (as if you wouldn't anyway), but I believe Chevron Deference was only supposed to about regulatory issues and not issues where criminal charges could be filed. For the latter instances, the rule of lenity should apply.