Texas SOT

SCOTUS NYSRPA v Bruen may cause the National Firearms Act of 1934 to be found unconstitutional

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • ZX9RCAM

    Over the Rainbow bridge...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 14, 2008
    59,733
    96
    The Woodlands, Tx.
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    I don't think this is "the" case that makes the NFA go away.

    Hoover's attorneys are working out of their own pockets on this one, and we all know its money that wins big cases in our legal system. They are just looking to get Hoover freed, not trying to overturn the NFA (realistically -- if you gave them millions of dollars and Paul Clement as their lead counsel, sure, they'll take a swing).

    Hopefully Mr Hoover will be freed very soon, but he was a fool for trying to sell trinkets that he knew the ATF considered to be machine gun parts. I think he's facing an uphill battle, even though I believe his attorneys are correct on every point. I think the ATF regulation will be a key part of the result.
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    Mr. Hoover was promoting a product that a non elected bureaucrat chose to become the legislative branch and declare it as a prohibited weapon i.e. a "machine gun" in violation of Mr. Hoovers constitutional rights..

    Unelected bureaucrats make many of the regulations under which we live. Congress is allowed to delegate power.
     
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Sep 11, 2021
    40
    11
    Temple Texas
    Not powers which infringe on our RIGHTS.
    That is the core of what this is all about.
    This is what NYSRAPA V Bruen cleared up. the difference between our RIGHT to bear arms and our "privilege" to bear arms. (among many many other things.

    Another recent case is W. VA V EPA about 2 weeks ago.
    It has taken away the "delegated power" you just mentioned.
    It was called "Chevron Deference"
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    Not powers which infringe on our RIGHTS.
    That is the core of what this is all about.
    This is what NYSRAPA V Bruen cleared up. the difference between our RIGHT to bear arms and our "privilege" to bear arms. (among many many other things.

    Another recent case is W. VA V EPA about 2 weeks ago.
    It has taken away the "delegated power" you just mentioned.
    It was called "Chevron Deference"

    Yes, powers which infringe on our rights. No right is unlimited. You can't falsely cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater and get 1A protections. Even in Bruen, SCOTUS made clear that shall-issue permit schemes are A-OK.

    And it wasn't chevron deference that decided West Virginia, it was major policy doctrine, which is the opposite end of the spectrum from chevron deference.

    Chevron deference says, "SCOTUS will defer to the agency that has delegated authority from Congress on just about everything..."
    Major policy doctrine says, "...Unless it's a Really Big Thing, in which case the agency has to get a permission slip from Congress"
     
    Last edited:

    jrbfishn

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 9, 2013
    28,316
    96
    south of killeen
    Yes, powers which infringe on our rights. No right is unlimited. You can't falsely cry "Fire!" in a crowded theater and get 1A protections. Even in Bruen, SCOTUS made clear that shall-issue permit schemes are A-OK.

    And it wasn't chevron deference that decided West Virginia, it was major policy doctrine, which is the opposite end of the spectrum from chevron deference.

    Chevron deference says, "SCOTUS will defer to the agency that has delegated authority from Congress on just about everything..."
    Major policy doctrine says, "...Unless it's a Really Big Thing, in which case you have to get a permission slip from Congress"

    I am not a lawyer, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn recently, but,,,,,
    It seems to me a half smart lawyer would make this arguement in court.
    The EPA tried Chevron deference and claim the law gave them the power to do what they did. SCOTUS said no. Which means they no longer get to define the law. Basically, SCOTUS took away the power of the agencies to define what they could do and what their powers were.
    Congress makes the law
    Agencies enforce the law AS WRITTEN.
    The Courts define the law. NOT the agencies.

    Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
     

    etmo

    Well-Known
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Jan 25, 2020
    1,220
    96
    Cedar Creek, Tx
    I think if asked, Matt Hoover would say that taking away his liberty is "a Really Big Thing".

    I agree, but Matt doesn't get to decide, that's up to the courts now.


    Congress makes the law
    Agencies enforce the law AS WRITTEN.
    The Courts define the law. NOT the agencies.

    Almost. Yes, Congress writes/makes laws, but not "really" all of them. It turns out that in a nation of this size and complexity, there's just too much stuff for any single group of humans to handle.

    So Congress can create agencies, and give them power to make rules and regulations over certain areas of interest. Those rules and regulations carry the full force of law. Most of the rules and regulations under which we live didn't come from Congress. Congress is gridlocked much of the time (by design). They barely have time to pass a budget, much less many laws.

    Many agencies can also enforce most of the rules and regulations they create. They are legislature and executive branch all wrapped up in one nightmare. We see this in the Hoover case.

    And yes, the Courts interpret/define the law. "It is emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." Marbury vs Madison, 1803.
     

    jrbfishn

    TGT Addict
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    3   0   0
    Aug 9, 2013
    28,316
    96
    south of killeen
    Yes, the laws give agencies the power to make SOME regulations within limits spelled out in the law.
    They just got notified, they no longer get to define those powers or limits. Congress and the Courts do.

    Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk
     

    Axxe55

    Retiretgtshit stirrer
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Dec 15, 2019
    47,021
    96
    Lost in East Texas Elhart Texas
    Gee, if we only had a thread about this subject!

     

    ZX9RCAM

    Over the Rainbow bridge...
    TGT Supporter
    Lifetime Member
    Rating - 100%
    2   0   0
    May 14, 2008
    59,733
    96
    The Woodlands, Tx.
    Gee, if we only had a thread about this subject!


    Did you miss post #4?
     
    Top Bottom