- Joined
- Oct 12, 2005
- Messages
- 281,619
- Reaction score
- 100,389
- 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
Hey Turtle. What's a chevron issue? New one on me.
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.
How ****in sad... sick
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.seriously? 50 feet?
Why would anyone want one?
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]
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.
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.
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.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'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.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 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.
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'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.
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'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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?