USSC Grants Review in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo

[lazarus]

Concur regarding a move to lessen deference. You can't expect Congress to pivot on archania like inspection intervals and procedures for aircraft airframes and so forth. A reigning is, though is needed. Here is an example of ATF run amuk on a firearms reg.

18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(B) provides:
(B) The term “armor piercing ammunition” means—

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper or depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

Note the list of metals, of which the bullet's core must be entirely comprised. Lead is not on that list. Under this section of the GCA, bullets that contain more than a trace amount of lead (of anything else not on the list) cannot be designated as armor-piercing by AFT. Nevertheless, ATF stated that M855 was AP under the definition, and the only reason it was not banned was because it fell under the sporting ammo exemption.

It doesn't take a PhD to understand that M855 has a significant amount of lead in its core. The 11 grain steel penetrator is only a small percentage of the bullets total 62 grain weight. It falls outside the definition of AP.

While M855 is still available, AFT banned importation of the 53 grain 7N6 round in 2014 for being AP, even though it, too, has a significant amount of lead in its core. Iits steel penetrator weighs in at 22 grains and the balance of the core is lead. It also does not fit the definition of AP under the statute. Despite this, ATF's erroneous interpretation of the statute stands. IDK whether the 7N6 ban has been challenged, but until the Chevron deference is reigned in, the ban would stand even though ATF not only clearly exceeds statutory its authority, it blatantly misread and misapplied the statute.

Don't get me started on AR lowers falling outside of the statutory definition of objects requiring a serial number. Under the statute, they do not. ATF just bent their interpretation to require serial numbers on lower.

For sure Chevron needs revisiting.

 

[JohnnyE]

The the courts' way of giving deference has been to effectively turn a completely blind eye to even the most patently obvious abuses of statutory authority.

 

[Inigoes]

The SCOTUS just added a new case about Chevron to the docket:

Relentless, Inc. v. Department of Commerce​

https://www.supremecourt.gov/search.aspx?filename=/docket/docketfiles/html/public/22-1219.html

22-1219

Supreme Court adds second case in battle over Chevron doctrine

The Supreme Court on Friday added a second case as it considers overruling a decades-old doctrine that gives executive agencies wide authority to enact regulations, enabling all nine justices to vo…

thehill.com

 

[JohnnyE]