Supreme Court to consider overruling Chevron doctrine

The Hill ^ | BY ZACH SCHONFELD - 05/01/23 10:20 AM ET

[NorthMountain]

What needs to be reversed is Wickard v Filburn.

The trick, as always, is finding a way to get the issue in front of the Court.

[NorthMountain]

so now they risk having all AR style two-part receivers being ruled not to be firearms under the GCA

Compare the structure of an M1911A1 to that of an AR15.

Yes. Seriously. Do it.

They're really not that different, are they?

If no part of an AR15 is, by itself, a firearm ... then neither is any single part of an M1911A1.

Again, if you think I'm joking or being pedantic ... compare them. I'm serious. NFA'34 and GCA'68 were written by idiots who knew nothing about firearms.

[NorthMountain]

As you know, by the time the case got to SCOTUS, Miller himself had gone on the lam

IIRC, Miller himself had gone on to his eternal reward ...

[absalom01]

I’m pretty sure the sequence of events was he was released pending the outcome of the SCOTUS ruling, went into hiding (to resume his criminal career), and was was only found after someone had shot him multiple times, killing him.

[bIlluminati]

The justices next term will consider whether to overturn a decades-old precedent that grants agencies deference when Congress left ambiguity in a statute. ---

When the Supreme Court wants to overturn a bad law, one reason to do so is to rule that a law is Unconstitutionally vague. Of course, the Supreme Court has usually chosen not to invoke that consideration when it gives more power to the Omnipotent State. And when a law is perfectly clear, the Supreme Court will use language that is not in the Constitution, language that has never been used before in any legal decision, to get to the decision that the Supreme Court wants, for political and not legal reasons.

[FoxInSocks]

a decades-old precedent that grants agencies deference when Congress left ambiguity in a statute

One of the worst decisions from the Supreme Court. Obviously, the remedy to ambiguity is for the Congress to address it and rephrase the wording of the law. But then congressmen could be held responsible for their terrible laws and might get voted out someday.