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 ...
Pray! Pray real hard. TEOTWAWKI
If the court doesn’t thrown out Chevron, then it’s not committed to the rule of law.
In other words, the Chevron Defense is that the feds get their way as long as someone says it is “reasonable”.
Wonderful.
Neither SCOTUS or Congress have the authority to override the Constitution!
Bkmk
Bkmk
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.
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.
Purely subjective isn’t it?
Great basis for a legal proceeding. /s
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.
<>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.
Chevron deference should be abandoned, as Justice Thomas has been arguing for a long time.
Hmm..in civil cases, ambiguities in the contract are usually settled against the party that drew up the contract, no?
That’s the way I learned it.
See page 107:
https://driving-tests.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/LA_Guide-2017.pdf
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.
“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!
How does this relate to the same excesses created by State agencies promulgating regulation as law in excess of their charter?
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.
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.