Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
NRA Bump Stock Statement
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Dave70968" data-source="post: 3099988" data-attributes="member: 13624"><p>I agree that we should certainly be fighting this, just not with bullets. And I agree that there's a serious problem when an unaccountable, unelected agency can make up the rules as it goes along. Believe it or not, that's also being fought: the seminal case giving administrative agencies that power is <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc." target="_blank"><em>Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.</em>, 467 U.S. 837 (1984)</a>, which held that</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute . . . Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.</p><p></p><p>As it turns out, Congress <em>has</em> written a definition of machine gun, and it defines it as more than one round fired by a single operation of the trigger. There's room to challenge such an ATF decision in court even under so-called "<em>Chevron</em> deference." Moreover, the Court has opined that it may be time to revisit <em>Chevron</em> and rein it in. Such a case is not presently before the Court, but it's definitely coming; the Court has noticed that there's an awful lot of power in unaccountable hands, and is not impressed.</p><p></p><p>As to a Fifth Amendment violation...that was settled long ago, unfortunately. The Fifth Amendment states, in part, "...nor shall private property be taken <em>for public use</em>, without just compensation [emphasis mine].” Note the italics: the property in question isn't being taken for public use (such as a road, military base, or--in the bass-ackward case of <em>Kelo</em>--redevelopment), but being declared contraband. I can't think of the case offhand, but that's been precedent for a long time, and it <em>does</em> make a certain amount of sense in the context of the amendment as written. I <em>don't</em> like it, but there it is.</p><p></p><p>And before anybody thinks of the <em>ex post facto</em> clause, nope, it's not that either. That's making something illegal retroactively; this is saying "it's legal up to <em>x</em> date; after that, you're busted."</p><p></p><p>So...definitely keep your powder dry, but don't be too quick to start dropping hammers.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Dave70968, post: 3099988, member: 13624"] I agree that we should certainly be fighting this, just not with bullets. And I agree that there's a serious problem when an unaccountable, unelected agency can make up the rules as it goes along. Believe it or not, that's also being fought: the seminal case giving administrative agencies that power is [URL='https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevron_U.S.A.,_Inc._v._Natural_Resources_Defense_Council,_Inc.'][I]Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.[/I], 467 U.S. 837 (1984)[/URL], which held that [INDENT]First, always, is the question whether Congress has directly spoken to the precise question at issue. If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court, as well as the agency, must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress. If, however, the court determines Congress has not directly addressed the precise question at issue, the court does not simply impose its own construction on the statute . . . Rather, if the statute is silent or ambiguous with respect to the specific issue, the question for the court is whether the agency's answer is based on a permissible construction of the statute.[/INDENT] As it turns out, Congress [I]has[/I] written a definition of machine gun, and it defines it as more than one round fired by a single operation of the trigger. There's room to challenge such an ATF decision in court even under so-called "[I]Chevron[/I] deference." Moreover, the Court has opined that it may be time to revisit [I]Chevron[/I] and rein it in. Such a case is not presently before the Court, but it's definitely coming; the Court has noticed that there's an awful lot of power in unaccountable hands, and is not impressed. As to a Fifth Amendment violation...that was settled long ago, unfortunately. The Fifth Amendment states, in part, "...nor shall private property be taken [I]for public use[/I], without just compensation [emphasis mine].” Note the italics: the property in question isn't being taken for public use (such as a road, military base, or--in the bass-ackward case of [I]Kelo[/I]--redevelopment), but being declared contraband. I can't think of the case offhand, but that's been precedent for a long time, and it [I]does[/I] make a certain amount of sense in the context of the amendment as written. I [I]don't[/I] like it, but there it is. And before anybody thinks of the [I]ex post facto[/I] clause, nope, it's not that either. That's making something illegal retroactively; this is saying "it's legal up to [I]x[/I] date; after that, you're busted." So...definitely keep your powder dry, but don't be too quick to start dropping hammers. [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
NRA Bump Stock Statement
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom