For the past few months, I have been hearing about Chevron Deference vs the Rule of Lenity for how the ATF interprets law.
I’m not a lawyer but my understanding is Chevron Deference was “created” in 1984 when the Supreme Court ruled that courts should follow an agency’s interpretation of a law that is ambiguous. This is what the ATF is saying gives them the power to change the definitions of federal law.
The rule of Lenity on the other hand is supposed to make the court interpret ambiguous laws in favor of the defendants or plaintiffs (if challenging a law) if criminal penalties are involved.
On June 15 the Supreme Court overturned a lower court in a case called American Hospital Assn. v. Becerra. Many are saying that this decision has, for the most part, eliminated Chevron Deference.
If this is true it should restrict the ATF in the way it enforces the NFA and other federal laws.
Then today I found this.
Fifth Circuit Grants en Banc Review in Lawsuit Challenging Bump-Stock Ban and Chevron Deference
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-rele...vron-deference
The en banc court will consider two issues of exceptional importance: (1) doesthe statute’s definition of “machineguns” unambiguously include bump stocks?;and (2) if the statute is ambiguous, is ATF’s construction entitled to Chevron deference, or does the rule of lenity require interpreting any ambiguity inthis statute that has criminal applications in Mr. Cargill’s favor? The caseis calendared for oral argument in New Orleans, LA, on September 12. NCLA hasa similar case pending cert. at the U.S. Supreme Court in Aposhian v. Garland,et al.
https://nclalegal.org/cargill-v-garland/