I might see a reversal.
But I really can't imagine anyone paying.
Chevron’s application in this case may be doubtful forother reasons too. The agency used to tell everyone thatbump stocks don’t qualify as “machineguns.” Now it saysthe opposite. The law hasn’t changed, only an agency’s interpretation of it. And these days it sometimes seems agencies change their statutory interpretations almost as oftenas elections change administrations. How, in all this, canordinary citizens be expected to keep up
Further, other courts ofappeals are actively considering challenges to the same regulation. Before deciding whether to weigh in, we wouldbenefit from hearing their considered judgments—provided, of course, that they are not afflicted with the sameproblems. But waiting should not be mistaken for lack ofconcern.
Justice Gorsuch on the Bump Stock Ban Denial of Cert in GUEDES v. BATFE
https://gunwatch.blogspot.com/2020/03/justice-gorsuch-on-bump-stock-ban.html
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/19pdf/19-296_8n59.pdf
[h=3]Chevron deference (doctrine) - Ballotpedia[/h]
Another Trump-Appointed Judge Benchslaps the Trump Administration for Rewriting Federal Gun Laws
https://reason.com/2020/04/01/anoth...dministration-for-rewriting-federal-gun-laws/
Oh, so good.
THREE D chess the Trump administration will ensure that accessories will not be banned.
Sent with a belly laugh for the TDS crowd!
Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.
I don't believe that the president really expected the ATF to come up with a different result the third time.
So you would have preferred the Paul Ryan house create a bill with help from the dems?
That was the ONLY other option I was aware of?
You think the Senate would have passed it?So you would have preferred the Paul Ryan house create a bill with help from the dems?
That was the ONLY other option I was aware of?