Over a year ago, the Supreme Court made a significant change to federal regulations by overturning what’s known as Chevron’s Doctrine.
This doctrine, originating from a Supreme Court case in the 1980s, required federal judges to defer to the interpretations of federal agencies when laws were ambiguous.
The ruling in Loper Bright, which effectively put an end to this deference last June, has been viewed as a “return to judicial balance,” though its implications are now becoming evident.
One of the most notable effects of this decision is its impact on gun control measures, reducing the effectiveness of agencies that enforce regulations on firearms, alcohol, and tobacco. Since the Loper Bright ruling and the Supreme Court’s decision against bump stocks in Garland vs. Cargill, Southern courts have begun frequently overturning existing regulations.
Prior to Loper Bright, the ATF had the power to determine what constitutes a firearm, including modifications and additional parts. This flexibility helped curb the use of dangerous alterations.
Now, with Chevron effectively dismantled, the court is no longer required to defer to agency interpretations. Agencies like the ATF are losing the ability to fill in legislative gaps, meaning that new restrictions must be explicitly stated in law. Existing regulations are now facing legal challenges, with the Loper Bright ruling serving as a reference point in gun-related cases.
States in the South wasted no time acting. Following the ruling, judges began citing it, leading to visible changes within a year. For instance, there are moves towards less restrictive regulations concerning things like pistol braces, which allow pistols to function like rifles—previously deemed too ambiguous under stricter Biden-era policies.
A Texas judge recently blocked an ATF effort to regulate forced reset triggers, highlighting that only Congress can define what constitutes a machine gun. This ruling indicates that the loss of Chevron undermines the agency’s ability to interpret unclear laws.
The message is clear: if something isn’t specifically labeled as a firearm in law, the agency can’t rely solely on claims of authority in court. Without Chevron, regulators can’t just assume they have the right to act “for public safety”; their interpretations must stand on clearer legal ground.
The demise of Chevron has not only weakened the ATF but also destabilized the regulatory framework as a whole. Now, all gun regulations need to be articulated clearly, leaving a loophole until that occurs.
With Congress remaining silent, there is a rush of new weapon adaptations and changes emerging in the market, leading to confusion around rules and enforcement.
The court’s decision has stripped away one of the few mechanisms to maintain gun control. As long as Congress doesn’t legislate new rules, legal uncertainty and an influx of weapons are likely to be the new normal.
The choice has been made by the court. Now, it’s the responsibility of lawmakers, and unless they speak up, the rules will be dictated by those wielding firearms.
