• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

10th circuit vacates "bump stock ban" and grants en banc hearing

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
another top poster on gun issues made me aware of this ruling and I just finished reading what I could. The "Chevron" standard has been a topic of heated discussion over the last 10 years and SC nominees are often asked about their views concerning ""Chevron" deference

this could send the idiotic ban before the supreme court


NCLA Earns En Banc Review from 10th Circuit in Bump Stock Ban Case, Including on Chevron Issues


NCLA released the following statements:
“The full Tenth Circuit has recognized the troubling consequences of the panel’s prior decision. Chevron deference cannot guarantee a win for an agency even when the parties agree it doesn’t apply, because it contradicts the constitutional rule that criminal laws should be construed against the government. We look forward to the Court setting a major precedent limiting Chevron’s unconstitutional reach.”
Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“NCLA is grateful that the Tenth Circuit has recognized the importance of our client’s civil liberties at stake in this case. We are also delighted that the judges have decided to take a close look at several key Chevron-related issues that have surfaced. The bump stock ban illustrates some of the many problems with Chevron deference—including constitutional ones.”
— Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, NCLA
 

noonereal

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Aug 31, 2018
Messages
44,700
Reaction score
18,268
How ****in sad... sick
 

OrphanSlug

A sinister place...
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 24, 2011
Messages
33,016
Reaction score
32,746
Location
Atlanta
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Reading that decision, this is going to get even more messy now.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,976
Reaction score
52,339
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
another top poster on gun issues made me aware of this ruling and I just finished reading what I could. The "Chevron" standard has been a topic of heated discussion over the last 10 years and SC nominees are often asked about their views concerning ""Chevron" deference

this could send the idiotic ban before the supreme court


NCLA Earns En Banc Review from 10th Circuit in Bump Stock Ban Case, Including on Chevron Issues


NCLA released the following statements:
“The full Tenth Circuit has recognized the troubling consequences of the panel’s prior decision. Chevron deference cannot guarantee a win for an agency even when the parties agree it doesn’t apply, because it contradicts the constitutional rule that criminal laws should be construed against the government. We look forward to the Court setting a major precedent limiting Chevron’s unconstitutional reach.”
Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“NCLA is grateful that the Tenth Circuit has recognized the importance of our client’s civil liberties at stake in this case. We are also delighted that the judges have decided to take a close look at several key Chevron-related issues that have surfaced. The bump stock ban illustrates some of the many problems with Chevron deference—including constitutional ones.”
— Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, NCLA


Hey Turtle. What's a chevron issue? New one on me.
 

Novichok

Banned
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
719
Reaction score
153
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Leftists are right. AR-15 rifles are useless in self-defense if the bad guy is further than, say, 50 feet. That jury will not believe you that he was threat. On top of that little problem, you can't carry them loaded in your car in some states.

AR-15 pistols are another matter. Those can be carried loaded just like the regular pistols. I want one to great the scum who would come to vist uninvited. Equipped with a laser, you can shoot from the hip and be deadly accurate.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Hey Turtle. What's a chevron issue? New one on me.

controversial USSC decision concerning the interpretation of statutes or regulations by an agency charged with enforcing said rules. This explains it better than I could


Chevron deference (doctrine) - Ballotpedia





Chevron deference, or Chevron doctrine, is an administrative law principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer. The principle derives its name from the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.[1]Though it has been applied inconsistently across cases, justices had been reluctant to formally indicate any desire to formally abandon the doctrine. However, since 2015, “f one counts King v. Burwell, all nine justices have at least once signed an opinion explicitly holding that Chevron should not apply in a situation where the administrative law textbooks would previously have said that it must apply.”[2]

The Trump administration has been open about its desire to nominate judicial appointees who are, according to a March 2018 New York Times article, "devoted to a legal doctrine that challenges the broad power federal agencies have to interpret laws and enforce regulations, often without being subject to judicial oversight." The criteria were first applied when nominating Justice Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gorsuch's rulings have been critical of the Chevron doctrine. His opposition to Chevron has made him the model for Trump administration judicial appointments.[3]
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Leftists are right. AR-15 rifles are useless in self-defense if the bad guy is further than, say, 50 feet. That jury will not believe you that he was threat. On top of that little problem, you can't carry them loaded in your car in some states.
AR-15 pistols are another matter. Those can be carried loaded just as the regular pistols. I want one to great the scum who would come to vist univited. Equipped with a laser, you can shoot from the hip and be deadly accurate.

seriously? 50 feet?
 

Novichok

Banned
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
719
Reaction score
153
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
seriously? 50 feet?
I am not offering any legal advice other than that the distance to the bad guy is a factor. AR-15 is clearly very effective way beyond the distance of legitimate threat. If you shoot a guy from that far, or you will be going down.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,976
Reaction score
52,339
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
controversial USSC decision concerning the interpretation of statutes or regulations by an agency charged with enforcing said rules. This explains it better than I could


Chevron deference (doctrine) - Ballotpedia





Chevron deference, or Chevron doctrine, is an administrative law principle that compels federal courts to defer to a federal agency's interpretation of an ambiguous or unclear statute that Congress delegated to the agency to administer. The principle derives its name from the 1984 U.S. Supreme Court case Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc.[1]Though it has been applied inconsistently across cases, justices had been reluctant to formally indicate any desire to formally abandon the doctrine. However, since 2015, “f one counts King v. Burwell, all nine justices have at least once signed an opinion explicitly holding that Chevron should not apply in a situation where the administrative law textbooks would previously have said that it must apply.”[2]

The Trump administration has been open about its desire to nominate judicial appointees who are, according to a March 2018 New York Times article, "devoted to a legal doctrine that challenges the broad power federal agencies have to interpret laws and enforce regulations, often without being subject to judicial oversight." The criteria were first applied when nominating Justice Neil Gorsuch to the U.S. Supreme Court. Gorsuch's rulings have been critical of the Chevron doctrine. His opposition to Chevron has made him the model for Trump administration judicial appointments.[3]



Thank you. Very informative as always.
 

Novichok

Banned
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
719
Reaction score
153
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Why would anyone want an AR-15 rifle?

That was a good question the AR-15 guys have no good answer. The same applies to the concealed carry license. I have one and have no intention of carrying. There are better ways to avoid being harmed.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I am not offering any legal advice other than that the distance to the bad guy is a factor. AR-15 is clearly very effective way beyond the distance of legitimate threat. If you shoot a guy from that far, or you will be going down.

really? fifty feet is a chip shot with a shotgun or many handguns.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,976
Reaction score
52,339
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am not offering any legal advice other than that the distance to the bad guy is a factor. AR-15 is clearly very effective way beyond the distance of legitimate threat. If you shoot a guy from that far, or you will be going down.


Not really. If he is shooting at you from 50 feet, he is a shoot-able threat in most jurisdictions. After all, it is entirely possible to hit someone from 50 feet even with a pistol. Easy, even... in my prime I could drill 1" holes at that distance all day with a good pistol. Pistols are considered legit threats out to at least 25 yards (75') by most agencies, with good reason.
 

Novichok

Banned
Joined
Sep 8, 2020
Messages
719
Reaction score
153
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Not really. If he is shooting at you from 50 feet, he is a shoot-able threat in most jurisdictions. After all, it is entirely possible to hit someone from 50 feet even with a pistol. Easy, even... in my prime I could drill 1" holes at that distance all day with a good pistol. Pistols are considered legit threats out to at least 25 yards (75') by most agencies, with good reason.
I am not going to argue if it's 50 feet. My point is that the local DA and later the jury will nail you if they deem the distance too far to claim a deadly threat.

An AR-15 rifle for home defense is a total joke because it's too loud and too long. An AR-15 pistol is another matter, especially with a laser and light.
 
Last edited:

Chomsky

Social Democrat
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 28, 2015
Messages
76,661
Reaction score
62,638
Location
Third Coast
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
another top poster on gun issues made me aware of this ruling and I just finished reading what I could. The "Chevron" standard has been a topic of heated discussion over the last 10 years and SC nominees are often asked about their views concerning ""Chevron" deference

this could send the idiotic ban before the supreme court


NCLA Earns En Banc Review from 10th Circuit in Bump Stock Ban Case, Including on Chevron Issues


NCLA released the following statements:
“The full Tenth Circuit has recognized the troubling consequences of the panel’s prior decision. Chevron deference cannot guarantee a win for an agency even when the parties agree it doesn’t apply, because it contradicts the constitutional rule that criminal laws should be construed against the government. We look forward to the Court setting a major precedent limiting Chevron’s unconstitutional reach.”
Caleb Kruckenberg, Litigation Counsel, NCLA

“NCLA is grateful that the Tenth Circuit has recognized the importance of our client’s civil liberties at stake in this case. We are also delighted that the judges have decided to take a close look at several key Chevron-related issues that have surfaced. The bump stock ban illustrates some of the many problems with Chevron deference—including constitutional ones.”
— Mark Chenoweth, Executive Director and General Counsel, NCLA
I'm no fan of bumpstocks, but my reading of the statutes when this all was going down was that they were legal. I was surprised the court went against them.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I am not going to argue if it's 50 feet. My point is that the local DA and later the jury will nail you if they deem the distance too far to claim a deadly threat.

An AR-15 rifle for home defense is a total joke because it's too loud and too long. An AR-15 pistol is another matter, especially with a laser and light.

I have both and guess what-the AR 15 pistol is louder-especially for the user. and not that much shorter
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,976
Reaction score
52,339
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Why would anyone want an AR-15 rifle?

That was a good question the AR-15 guys have no good answer. The same applies to the concealed carry license. I have one and have no intention of carrying. There are better ways to avoid being harmed.


I've had a carry license for many years, and I carry everywhere it is lawful to do so. I have had several occasions to be glad I was armed.

Granted there is far more to self protection that simply being armed; 90% of the time other measures, chiefly avoidance, are preferred. However, if the day comes that those other measures fail (and you never know when or if that day will come for you), there is no substitute for being suitably prepared and equipped to meet the threat.

I regret to say I have loved ones I can only visit in the graveyard, who were unprepared when the moment came for them.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm no fan of bumpstocks, but my reading of the statutes when this all was going down was that they were legal. I was surprised the court went against them.

it was pandering to loud mouths in the public and press. Trump figured he had to do something and this was what he figured he could do with out really pissing off his pro gun supporters. I suspect he was hoping the courts would strike it down so he could claim he did something and not get harmed by pro gun voters retaliating
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
46,976
Reaction score
52,339
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I am not going to argue if it's 50 feet. My point is that the local DA and later the jury will nail you if they deem the distance too far to claim a deadly threat.

An AR-15 rifle for home defense is a total joke because it's too loud and too long. An AR-15 pistol is another matter, especially with a laser and light.




And yet it has been successfully used in that capacity on quite a few occasions.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
I'm no fan of bumpstocks, but my reading of the statutes when this all was going down was that they were legal. I was surprised the court went against them.

given there is only one reported case of one of the 50,000 or so bumpstock owners using a BS for criminal purposes, why do you dislike them? you do know they are purely a reaction to the democrats banning people from being able to register and own machine guns made after May 19, 1986
 

Integrityrespec

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2018
Messages
21,005
Reaction score
8,970
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I am not offering any legal advice other than that the distance to the bad guy is a factor. AR-15 is clearly very effective way beyond the distance of legitimate threat. If you shoot a guy from that far, or you will be going down.

So frankly I don't see the commotion about AR15's. Honestly it's not the gun but the guy on the end of it. If you just look at most shootings, they are with handguns and the Virginia Tech shooting shows this.
One thing that makes gun laws hard to change is the exaggeration of the left having to do with guns. The left never wants to compromise so important issues are not dealt with. Governing has to do with compromise and getting what you want in small amounts instead of getting nothing.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
281,619
Reaction score
100,383
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
So frankly I don't see the commotion about AR15's. Honestly it's not the gun but the guy on the end of it. If you just look at most shootings, they are with handguns and the Virginia Tech shooting shows this.
One thing that makes gun laws hard to change is the exaggeration of the left having to do with guns. The left never wants to compromise so important issues are not dealt with. Governing has to do with compromise and getting what you want in small amounts instead of getting nothing.

every bad thing you can do with a firearm is already illegal.those with records, mental or judicial, etc cannot own any firearms. All that is left are desires to restrict honest people from owning firearms. So compromising is silly now.
 

swing_voter

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 4, 2019
Messages
13,042
Reaction score
8,457
Location
'Murica
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Independent
4513A25700000578-0-image-m-19_1536499860460.jpg




This guy used a bump stock to kill 58 people and wound over a hundred. Stephen Craig Paddock, 64


He was upset about some gambling loses apparently.
 
Top Bottom