Interesting
Interesting
The Bruen decision was big. There's no denying that one, and while Rahimi rolled it back a bit, it was still a vital decision for protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
But another recent decision might have been just as important. In fact, it's arguably more important from a certain perspective.
See, the ATF has the authority to determine if some things are or aren't legal. Their job is to interpret the law and determine if a given product meets the legal definition of a given thing.
For example, bump stocks. The ATF decided they were machine guns--after previously saying they weren't--and suddenly they were banned, despite the law clearly saying otherwise.
The Supreme Court overturned that ruling by the ATF, but the groundwork for that decision was laid by ending the Chevron deference. And ending that abomination is wrecking gun control laws all over the place.
>
The Bruen decision was big. There's no denying that one, and while Rahimi rolled it back a bit, it was still a vital decision for protecting the right to keep and bear arms.
>
But another recent decision might have been just as important. In fact, it's arguably more important from a certain perspective.
>
See, the ATF has the authority to determine if some things are or aren't legal. Their job is to interpret the law and determine if a given product meets the legal definition of a given thing.
>
For example, bump stocks. The ATF decided they were machine guns--after previously saying they weren't--and suddenly they were banned, despite the law clearly saying otherwise.
>
The Supreme Court overturned that ruling by the ATF, but the groundwork for that decision was laid by ending the Chevron deference. And ending that abomination is wrecking gun control laws all over the place.
(post is archived)