SCOTUS To Hear Case That
Could Curb ATF Overreach

By Mark Chesnut. May 11, 2023

How is the National Marine Fisheries Service seeking to charge herring fishing vessels as much as $700 a day to monitor what they catch even vaguely related to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) redefining braced pistols as short-barreled rifles (SBRs)? That's what the U.S. Supreme Court is set to determine. Last week, the high court announced it would hear the case Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, which revolves around the excessive powers usurped by various federal agencies over the past few decades. Representatives from the fishing industry say that even though a law passed by Congress allows for the monitors on herring boats, the agency is making up its own rules by forcing the owners of the boats pay for that monitoring.

The case seeks to limit or overturn the important ruling in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council. That 1984 ruling set the precedent that if part of the law Congress wrote relegating an agency's power is ambiguous but the agency's interpretation is reasonable, judges should defer to the agency's discretion. [EDITOR'S NOTE: Basically, in the case of firearms, when Congress writes vague laws due to a lack of understanding on how the gun industry operates, or due to a poor understanding of Founder's intent regarding the 2nd Amendment, BATFE steps in to interpret how the new law can be enforced as Congress did not detail that information, or exactly what was banned. Congress is also to be blamed.]

"Chevron deference has proven corrosive to the American system of checks and balances and directly contributed to an unaccountable executive branch, overbearing bureaucracy and runaway regulation," Ryan Mulvey, counsel with Cause of Action that represents the fishermen, said of the longstanding precedent. "These fishing families and all those seemingly living at the mercy of Washington deserve better."

If making up rules that aren't actually found in federal law sounds familiar, that's because the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has become quite adept at doing just that, especially when directed to by an anti-gun president. Two recent examples, of course, are the recent "rules" redefining "firearms," "receivers" and "frames," along with the one redefining braced pistols as "short-barreled rifles" (SBRs). .....