Supreme Court Considers Striking Down ATF Tyranny In Two Cases!!!

Published on September 7, 2022
Duration: 8:31

Two Second Amendment cases, Apache v. Garland and Goev v. Garland, are before the Supreme Court, challenging the ATF's reclassification of bump stocks as machine guns. These cases could limit the ATF's ability to arbitrarily change regulatory definitions and impact future agency actions. The outcome may hinge on the application of Chevron deference and the Major Questions Doctrine, potentially requiring clear congressional authorization for significant agency rules.

Quick Summary

Two Second Amendment cases, Apache v. Garland and Goev v. Garland, are before the Supreme Court, challenging the ATF's reclassification of bump stocks as machine guns. These cases could limit the ATF's ability to arbitrarily change regulatory definitions and impact future agency actions, potentially relying on the Major Questions Doctrine over Chevron deference.

Frequently Asked Questions

What are the two main Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court?

The two key Second Amendment cases before the Supreme Court are Apache v. Garland and Goev v. Garland. Both cases challenge the ATF's reclassification of bump stocks as machine guns and question the agency's authority to arbitrarily change regulatory definitions.

How did the ATF reclassify bump stocks?

Following an incident in Las Vegas, the ATF, under President Trump's direction, changed its regulatory definition to classify bump stocks as machine guns. This rule, effective March 2019, required owners to destroy or surrender the devices, with non-compliance carrying penalties.

What is Chevron deference and how does it relate to these cases?

Chevron deference is a legal doctrine where courts defer to an administrative agency's interpretation of an ambiguous statute if that interpretation is reasonable. In these cases, the Biden administration argues for Chevron deference, while petitioners question its application to criminal statutes and the ATF's interpretation.

What is the Major Questions Doctrine and why is it relevant?

The Major Questions Doctrine, established in West Virginia v. EPA, states that agencies need clear statutory authorization from Congress to make decisions on issues of major national significance. This doctrine could limit the ATF's ability to broadly interpret laws like the NFA and GCA without explicit congressional backing.

Related News

All News →

More 2nd Amendment & Law Videos You Might Like

More from Armed Scholar

View all →