It's pretty clear that this case isn't really about bump stocks, it's about Chevron and other deference to Executive Branch regulatory expertise. How can DOJ possibly argue it's opinions are infallible when it now directly contradicts its own previous conclusions, and, more importantly, how can courts then continue to presume that a regulatory agency is always correct when that judgement is subsequently questioned - by themselves? The twisted logic gives me a headache.
Oh, and then there's the whole 4th Amendment Takings issue, too.
Oh, and then there's the whole 4th Amendment Takings issue, too.