Results 1 to 2 of 2
Like Tree2Likes
  • 2 Post By Judy

Thread: Supreme Court ruling in pending case could be the beginning of the end for ATF, DEA,

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #1
    Senior Member Airbornesapper07's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Posts
    20,782

    Supreme Court ruling in pending case could be the beginning of the end for ATF, DEA,

    HUGE: Supreme Court ruling granting cert in pending case could be the beginning of the end for federal regulators like the ATF, DEA and FDA

    (Natural News) Supreme Court watchers will tell you that even though many people wait with bated breath until June of each year when the high court unveils its decisions involving controversial cases, some of the most important work done by justices during their annual sessions happens quietly. In fact, a case with very far-reaching … [Read More...]

    Friday, December 14, 2018 by: JD Heyes
    Tags: administrative state, big government, Congress, congressional intent, Constitution, dismantling, federal agencies, federal courts, fourth branch, freedom, government, gun rights, legislation, Liberty, regulations, regulatory state, rule of law, rules, Supreme Court, Tyranny, unconstitutional, writ of certiorari

    3,160 Views


    (Natural News) Supreme Court watchers will tell you that even though many people wait with bated breath until June of each year when the high court unveils its decisions involving controversial cases, some of the most important work done by justices during their annual sessions happens quietly.

    In fact, a case with very far-reaching implications involving federal agencies cleared the high court just this week that could spell the end of the government’s vast regulatory powers.
    As reported by The Truth About Guns, that could include impacting major firearms regulations issued or implemented by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives.
    The website noted that the Supreme Court granted writ of certiorari in a case, Kisor v. Wilkie, involving a challenge to a previous legal precedent established in Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., both of which “direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous rule,” the SCOTUS Blog noted.
    Granting of a writ does not necessarily mean that the high court disagrees with a lower court’s decision. What it does mean is that at least four of the justices believe that the circumstances of a case are worth a review by the high court.
    The Truth About Guns (TTAG) noted further:
    Under what is known as Auer deference, named for a Supreme Court case, Auer v. Robbins, courts must defer to the agency’s interpretation of that agency’s own regulations unless such interpretation is plainly erroneous. Under a related doctrine, known as Chevron deference, where a statute implicitly gives an agency the power to promulgate regulations, the courts are not to substitute their interpretation of a statute for a reasonable one that has been made by the bureaucrats.
    Regulations have the rule of law even if it’s not what Congress intended

    Few Americans are aware of how the regulatory process works, but it’s important to understand it in order to understand the relevance of the high court’s granting of cert in the Kisor v. Wilkie case.
    Most of the time when Congress crafts a bill that eventually becomes law, the Legislative Branch leaves it up to the various federal agencies to write their own rules as to how the law will be carried out. The law itself is essentially a guideline providing the appropriate federal agency with broad policy objectives Congress seeks to achieve.
    For instance, the National Firearms Act of 1934 “imposed a tax on the manufacture and sale of machine guns, suppressors, SBS/SBR’s, etc., and required them to be registered with the federal government,” TTAG reported. But the law did not actually specify how that was to be done. It wasn’t clear how Congress intended for Americans to specifically comply with the law’s new requirements. (Related: Concealed carry permits in DC go BOOM as unconstitutional ‘good reason’ mandate is removed.)
    As such, the Legislative Branch left it up to federal bureaucrats to devise rules regarding the implementation of the law. And in many ways this process is appropriate, given that it is unreasonable to expect every piece of legislation to detail how proposed new laws are to be carried out, especially when today’s legislation is complex and references hundreds or thousands of existing rules, regulations, and laws upon passage.
    But on the other hand, many of the regulatory measures implemented by federal agencies are themselves cumbersome, nonsensical, impractical, and expensive. And yet, they have the rule of law: You can’t simply ignore a federal regulation even if you don’t think that the rule is a faithful execution of congressional intent.
    That said, federal regulations also give lawmakers cover. They can argue, and have argued, that they didn’t intend for their law to be carried out in the manner the federal agency prescribed, so they aren’t to blame for any negative impacts or consequences. And yet, they are ultimately responsible because they passed the legislation in the first place without adequate instruction to the corresponding federal agency as to how the new law should be carried out.
    “What happens when someone disagrees with a regulation or the agency’s interpretation of it, and argues that the regulation/interpretation is inconsistent with the law passed by Congress…or maybe isn’t even authorized by the law in the first place” TTAG asked?
    The fourth branch of government?

    You might think that federal courts are charged with deciding such issues, and that’s true to an extent. But things can and do get tricky at this point.
    That’s where the principle of Auer deference comes in; federal courts must usually defer to a government agency’s interpretation of its own rule. But recently, there has been an effort from some to revisit the principles of Auer deference and Chevron as well as additional aspects of the administrative law state with the objective of overturning many of them as blatantly unconstitutional.
    And this is where gun rights come into play or, rather, the lack of them.
    If those pushing to reverse Auer and Chevron are successful, the present ‘administrative state’ — which constitutional expert and talk show giant Mark Levin has called the “fourth branch of government” — would be ripe for dismantling.
    Justice Clarence Thomas has made some noise about this, but few others on the high court have. That may all change now that the Supremes have granted cert in a case specifically challenging the constitutionality of Auer deference.

    Video at the page link Liberal Democrats set their sights on gun control

    Stay informed about constitutional liberties and freedoms at Freedom.news.

    Sources include:
    TheTruthAboutGuns.com
    NewsTarget.com

    https://www.naturalnews.com/2018-12-...egulators.html
    If you're gonna fight, fight like you're the third monkey on the ramp to Noah's Ark... and brother its starting to rain. Join our efforts to Secure America's Borders and End Illegal Immigration by Joining ALIPAC's E-Mail Alerts network (CLICK HERE)

  2. #2
    Senior Member Judy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    55,862
    Wow. I actually agree with getting rid of the ATF and DEA. I would support moving all these employees to the border to work with CBP and HSI. States are fully capable of regulating and managing their own drugs, booze, cigarettes and guns. If there's something major that's beyond their capabilities in solving a crime, why then THAT's what we have the FBI for. I think the FBI needs more day to day responsibilities. When you have time to chase Presidents, their businesses, their families, their campaigns, friends, associates and contacts all over the country and the world looking for a "crime", then you clearly don't have enough real crime to justify your staff, personnel, agents and operating budget.
    Airbornesapper07 and Beezer like this.
    A Nation Without Borders Is Not A Nation - Ronald Reagan
    Save America, Deport Congress! - Judy

    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Similar Threads

  1. Justice Department will ask Supreme Court to review court’s ruling on Trump travel ba
    By Jean in forum illegal immigration News Stories & Reports
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-25-2017, 10:34 PM
  2. Florida Supreme Court resumes work, five key decisions pending
    By JohnDoe2 in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-29-2013, 11:42 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 06-27-2013, 01:51 PM
  4. Supreme Court overturns anti-Hazelton lower court ruling
    By AirborneSapper7 in forum News & Releases from Other Groups
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-07-2011, 09:01 AM
  5. CA. prisoner-release order on hold pending Supreme Court
    By JohnDoe2 in forum Other Topics News and Issues
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-19-2010, 02:18 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •