Live to Shoot - Defending our 2nd Amendment Rights

Supreme Court Threatening Power of the ATF

May 07, 2023 Jeff Dowdle Episode 162
Live to Shoot - Defending our 2nd Amendment Rights
Help us continue making great content for listeners everywhere.
Starting at $3/month
Show Notes Transcript

Welcome to the Leadership Podcast. My name is Jeff Dole and I've been a licensed farm dealer for the last 15 years, and this podcast will talk about all things related to the Second Amendment, or something going on in my personal life, or any other news story that might be interesting. So welcome, welcome, welcome. Today is Sunday, May 7th. And I'm just getting this out. I had originally had another topic I wanted to discuss, but other things came up and so I'm gonna push it out for a little bit. It's more of an evergreen type topic and not really even related to the Second Amendment, but today, these definitely, this definitely isn't, this is about the Supreme Court. So this week is, was a big week for the Supreme Court. They, they agreed. To hear a case called Loper v Romana. And why is that important? Cause it is not a Second Amendment case. It's not a second case at all. It's about a fishing company and they're suing a agency that. Was wanting to put ADI people on these fishing boats as monitors and make the fishermen actually pay the salary of these monitors. And this has gone all the way up and now has hit the Supreme Court and. Why it's important is because the question at hand here, and what this is dealing with is what is referred to as Chevron difference. And Chevron difference is where all these agencies, particularly the ATF, get their powers. Because what the Chevron difference stemmed from a case where Chevron usa had a case against the natural resources Defense Council. And out of that Case came the concept of of deference, Chevron deference. And in that, what it states is that courts must defer to the administrative agency interpretations of the authority granted to the to them by Congress when the intent of Congress was ambiguous and the interpretations was reasonable or permissible. So what this says is that, If there, if Congress writes legislation and it's vague or doesn't absolutely cover everything and ends up going to court, the courts have to defer to the agency's expertise that they are the experts. And so they get to interpret that rule how they see fit. And that is where these agencies get all their power. Epa, fda the Atf C D c, we've seen all these agencies step way beyond their buildings and take on additional power. And then case in point is, is the ATF taking on and saying, you know, a pistol brace makes a, is a short barrel rifle or a pump stock is a machine gun, or changing the definition of a firearm to include pieces of metal that if you have all the right tools, You can make a gun out of it. Those are where the agency has interpreted or reinterpreted the The law is to for their enforcement benefits. And so if we can get this Chevron difference concept overturned, thrown out, whatever you say, it's significantly cuts down the power of the atf. It will take, it will restrict what they're able to do. Now, why are we confident about this? Well, two things. In this case, then the Supreme Courts decide to hear it. One is that Justin Justice Jackson has Recused herself because she heard this case in the lower courts. And so that leaves only eight justices. And typically when that is gonna be the case where you have the threat of a tie, potentially the courts won't hear a case. They'll wait for a, they're interested in the topic, they'll wait for another case to come along. Or what have you. But they won't hear that when they, because it's just can cause so many different issues. But in those rare cases where they feel that the outcome is gonna be so one-sided, that the lack of one vote isn't going to make a difference, and that appears to be what the case might be here, that they're anticipating that this is gonna be a slam dunk. You know, I got six two. Six seven, one type decision to throw out Chevron deference. And if that is the case, the ATF is going to have their wings clipped seriously. Now the other big thing happens in Supreme Court and it's one of my favorite justice. She hasn't ruled the way I like her in every case. But Amy Coney Barrett and she is a big proponent of Second Amendment and. What has happened here is that, you know, you've heard, I mean, various states have been have been issuing their very own different firearm bans and such where they're just thumbing their noses just outright thumbing their noses at the Bruin decision that the Supreme Court came down with. But one in particular in Illinois, who love the state of Illinois, was in the city of Naperville. I municipality actually created an assault man and. It went to court. You know, saying it violated their second Amendment rights and the trial court, they went to the trial court asking for an injunction to just, you know, can't, don't force us to shit. And the trial court said, Nope, we're not gonna have an injunction. And so they took it immediately to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals and the seventh Circuit court appeal said, Nope, we're not gonna issue an injection. So what they did then is they, They appeal directly to the Supreme Court, and in particular you can do this, you can appeal directly to one particular justice because One Justice, each Justice has their own circuit that they're responsible for. And the seventh Circuit is Amy Coney Barrett's circuit. And typically when you do this to the, you appeal to the justice. They will hear it. Not much will typically happen. They will, you know, sit on it. It'll take a little while even for them to get to it. All this type of thing, but in this case, Amy Coney Barrett jumped on this immediately and. She has come back on a decision and, and defendants have until tomorrow. She only gave him really the weekend to come up and tell her why, that she should not issue an injunction on this ruling. So she is very interested in this case. She's given them very short window to respond in. And so this may be another one where the. Supreme Court Justice steps up and just slaps the hand of, of one of these municipalities and puts an injunction on it using her own ability. So two big cases this week in the Supreme Court and we're gonna make the the Chevron difference cases. One, I am been watching for a long time all the way back from the c d C and mandates and closings and. All those directives that they put down on us during Covid was completely outta the C'S realm of authority, but they used it and they were able to get away with it. And we need to kill this administrative powers that all these people have. So we're gonna be watching this case. I'll be updating you now. I don't know if I'll get a podcast out in next weekend. My youngest is graduating from high school. It's gonna be a busy weekend, gonna be an emotional weekend, and so we'll see how, how the week goes. So but if anything breaks on these particular cases, I'll definitely get something out so that everybody can, you know, so I'm get an update to everybody. So I thank you for listening. We have to keep fighting. Our second Amendment rights are in such jeopardy, our freedoms in jeopardy. They're coming at us from all different angles. One point I and on that point, one thing I wanna bring up about the Chevron jack deference is this is why these things in the Supreme Court is why they're coming so hard. For Justice Thomas, they've got these ethic claims out against him from way back in, you know, 15, 16 years ago that are completely bogus. But they're trying to remove him from the chess board. They've removed Tucker, they're trying to, they've removed James O'Keefe. They're trying to remove the president Trump. They're trying to get everybody off the chess board that is in opposition to him, and that's why. We have to stay on the board. We have to keep fighting. They can't get rid of all of us, so keep fighting, share this. Let everybody know. Have a great weekend and I'll talk to you later.

Podcasts we love