This of critical importance: Chevron Deference says if the law is vague, the court hearing a lawsuit will find for the Agency as the Agency is most qualified to interpret any vagueness of the law. This, THIS, is the pretext the ATF and the EPA have been using to FAR exceed their authority, writing laws from scratch from tortured revised versions of laws already on the books.

Primarily, the National Firearms Act of 1935, the Gun Control Act of 1968, the Clean Air Act of 1967, Clean Water Act of 1972. The EPA has lost two Supreme Court cases in three terms, West Virginia v EPA where it was held they unconstitutionally exceeded limits of Chevron to create PUNITIVE restrictions on coal plants & auto makers rewriting the Clean Air Act, and in Sackett v EPA where SCOTUS held EPA far exceeded Chevron Deference authority by illegally rewriting and expanding the Clean Waters Act.

West Virginia v EPA:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/20-1530

Sackett v EPA:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/21-454_4g15.pdfEPA

Onto the ATF! Recently a Federal Court ruled the ATF’s expansion of the NFA to add bumpstocks illegally rewrote the NFA to add items. The NFA has specific technical language defining what a Machine Gun is—the ATF just rewrote the definition, told owners of bumpstocks under their new ‘rule’ (law made without congress) that they must file for & obtain a tax stamp, register them as machine guns or face 10 years in prison & a $250,000 fine. The 5th Circuit Court Of Appeals (COA) ruled against ATF.

Cargill v Garland:
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gfx/legaldocs/gdpzqwrjdvw/01062023cargill.pdf

This was the first shoe to drop. The ATF at the Biden White House & anti-gun enterprise extremist groups like ‘Moms Demand Action’ & ‘Everytown For Gun Safety’ & ‘Brady Group’ pressure illegally redefined bumpstocks & illegally added them to the NFA. The 5th Circuit COA ruled their bumpstock rule null & void as an illegal overreach on ATF’s part.

The decision on the VanDerStock v Garland case is the SECOND MAJOR SHOE to drop. In the Federal Court’s ruling, Judge Reed O’Conner ruled that the ATF illegally rewrote definitions clearly defined in the 1968 GCA just as ATF had done in Cargill v Garland. The ATF illegally rewrote the law by changing definitions to suit the Anti-Gun Agenda putting forth criminal penalties for makers, sellers and owners far exceeding their authority under Chevron Deference.

The plaintiffs in this case sued on the basis that the ATF’s *final* rule (law created without congress) frames/receivers violated the Administrative Procedures Act’s substantive & procedural requirements, & exceeded INFERRED powers of the ATF under GCA of ’68 & was unconstitutional.

Right away, the court goes into deciding the motions to add plaintiffs with an interest in the case, and of PARTICULAR NOTE is @polymer80inc who the ATF actually singled out explicitly in their press release on the new rule they sent to Federal Firearms License dealers (gun shops and gun sellers) (FFLs).
https://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2022/08/26/atf-2021r-05f-80-receiver-rule/

After establishing the full list of litigants opposing the government (ATF + DOJ + Merrick Garland), the court moves on & details it’s lawful jurisdiction to decide this case. See screenshot below.

From pages 23 – 34 in the ruling, the Court discusses in great detail citing other precedents the use of very specific technical language in the definitions that are written into laws, specifically how the GCA of 1968 is worded, and explains in detail how the ATF usurped the roll of Congress and knowingly rewrote the law. This is an ENORMOUS POINT: this is the SECOND FEDERAL RULING against the ATF in as many years finding that the ATF was usurping the roll of Congress &…

…violating the Separation of Powers as well as the Administrative Procedures Act by violating the spirit and the accepted regulatory authority granted by Chevron Deference. It’s further noted in this thread that the ATF knowingly violated the principle of Lenity in all of these capricious rules as well. The Rule of Lenity was also based on prior precedent & moderates how Agencies like ATF use Chevron. ATF has been ignoring it to act with Malice.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/rule_of_lenity

This is an issue which is front & center today as American Citizens deal with government overreach in efforts by Federal Agencies to weaponize their powers against Americans. Now onto the decision itself!

The Court finds that: “Because the ‘Final Rule’ purports to regulate both firearm components that are not yet a ‘frame or receiver’ & aggregations of weapon parts not otherwise subject to its statutory authority, the Court holds that ATF has acted IN EXCESS of its Statutory Jurisdiction by promulgating it..”
This next part is extremely telling: the ATF had the brazenness & arrogance in it’s filing to try to tell the court it doesn’t have the authority to vacate the rule! The court blatantly slaps the ATF down, and it is hilarious. 14, 15

The court goes on to say “Moreover, vacating the unlawful assertion of the agency’s authority would be minimally disruptive because vacatur simply “establish[es] the status quo” that existed for decades prior to the agency’s issuance of the Final Rule last year. Texas v. United States, 40 F.4th 205, 220 (5th Cir. 2022)."