If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
I really like the wording that Comm2A used in the Amicus brief. It was definitely well thought out.
We (Comm2A) simply re-hashed what we did for this case years ago when it was in the state court system. We think we have a compelling perspective on this issue and we're trying to get it in front of the courts.That was great read, good job Comm2A!
Chevron’s application in this case may be doubtful for other reasons too. The agency used to tell everyone that bump 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 agen-cies change their statutory interpretations almost as oftenas elections change administrations.
Looks like it's a "statement" rather than a dissent. He agrees it's not ripe for SCOTUS review as an interlocutory petition, but wanted to send a message to lower courts that they should rethink their approach.Cert denied in Guedes. Dissent by Gorsuch. Read it here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/030220zor_l5gm.pdf (Page 10)
They didn't cram it down the lowers courts' throats, so it's not great. Hopefully they're just waiting for another, stronger, case to come up. Hopefully.Is this good or bad?
The agency used to tell everyone that bump stocks don’t qualify as “machine guns.” Now it says the 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 often as elections change administrations. How, in all this, can ordinary citizens be expected to keep up—required not only to conform their conduct to the fairest reading of the law they might expect from a neutral judge, but forced to guess whether the statute will be declared ambiguous; to guessagain whether the agency’s initial interpretation of the law will be declared “reasonable”; and to guess again whether a later and opposing agency interpretation will also be held “reasonable”? And why should courts, charged with the independent and neutral interpretation of the laws Congress has enacted, defer to such bureaucratic pirouetting?
Despite these concerns, I agree with my colleagues that the interlocutory petition before us does not merit review.The errors apparent in this preliminary ruling might yet be corrected before final judgment. Further, other courts of appeals are actively considering challenges to the same regulation. Before deciding whether to weigh in, we would benefit from hearing their considered judgments—provided, of course, that they are not afflicted with the sameproblems. But waiting should not be mistaken for lack of concern.
Well, I reserve judgment on calling foul on him for this one. This interlocutory case has some issues and I'm hoping this is just a matter of waiting for one of the other, better cases to wend its way up to them. Ruling on a crummy case can be pretty bad, too.So much for Gorsuch I guess....I’ll read the dissent after work today.
The Truth About Guns
Read Justice Gorsuch's comments re the denial of cert in the Guedes bump stock ban appeal. The appeal was based on Chevron deference, NOT the merits of the ban.
As Gorsuch points out, the ban itself is still being argued in other cases. Hang in there.
Who knows? From a work management perspective, that makes sense. But the machinations of the court are hardly geared towards being efficient.So, with scheduled arguments in cases delayed, is there any chance the court will move up completing decisions on cases heard last fall and announce the decisions prior to June?