Except in cases where the Supreme Court adopts a specific interpretation of the statute, there would be no uniformity between circuits about which weapons and accessories are legal and which are contraband. Unless a court independently came to the same conclusion as the agency about the meaning of the statute, which seems unlikely in cases of statutory silence and gap-filling by an agency, violations of the rules would not constitute a crime. If none of these interpretive regulations receive any deference from courts, many substantive federal gun regulations (as opposed to statutes) could be found to have no legal effect, but will merely serve as general announcements of agency enforcement policies or priorities. The practical impact of a no- Chevron rule would be significant: all ATF regulations interpret criminal statutes to some extent, sometimes on mundane licensing matters for gun dealers, and sometimes with more controversial rulings, like classifying bump stocks as machine guns, or rules for what counts as a “user of a controlled substance” for purposes of enforcing the firearm prohibitor in 18 U.S.C. The opinions by the majority and the dissent lay out rather nicely the standard arguments for and against applying Chevron to agency interpretations of criminal statutes, citing precedent and explaining the policy concerns (Rule of Lenity, etc.). Once the majority concludes that Chevron does not apply, it undertakes its own de novo construction of the National Firearms Act and concludes that the most plausible reading of the statute would not include bump stock-equipped rifles in the definition of “machine gun.” The Sixth Circuit majority claims to be bound by circuit precedent to answer this question in the negative but acknowledges that the other circuits that reached a contrary result were following a different line of precedent in their circuits (note that Judge White’s dissent asserts the majority is mischaracterizing their own circuit precedent, citing cases that seem to go the other way). As I explained in my previous post about the other bump stock cases, there is a split of authority on this question, even from the Supreme Court, and the most important long-term effect of the bump stock litigation would be if the Supreme Court decided to settle this question, which could have far-reaching implications for all other federal firearm regulations promulgated by ATF or other agencies.
The Sixth Circuit’s decision focuses on fewer issues than those of the other circuits, distilling the entire matter down to whether Chevron deference applies to regulations that may carry criminal penalties for violations. A dissenting opinion by Judge White mostly restates, albeit more clearly, the arguments of the majority opinions in the other circuits. The majority, in fact, claims it is not creating a circuit split, because there was already a circuit split on the Chevron issues (the Chevron issues here are the same addressed by the DC Circuit and the Tenth Circuit in their opinions on the bump stock ban, and the majority’s arguments echo the dissenting opinions in the other circuit cases). Of course, if Congress enacts a statutory ban in the meantime, which is possible, the cases could be moot, as these are preemptive challenges to the rule, not defenses against prosecutions for violations.Īs with the other circuit court opinions about the bump stock ban, the new Sixth Circuit opinion does not even mention the Second Amendment – the entire opinion is about Chevron deference for ATF’s newly-adopted interpretation of the National Firearms Act, and the majority’s contrary reading of the same statute. The Sixth Circuit reached the opposite result, also on a preliminary injunction appeal, thereby creating a circuit split on the bump stock ban’s validity and making it more likely that the Supreme Court will have to take the case(s). (I discussed the latest decisions in these cases, for this blog here – including a quick explainer about bump stocks, the ATF ban, and the flurry of litigation that ensued to challenge it). Previously, the DC Circuit and the Tenth Circuit have upheld the ban (more precisely, have rejected preliminary injunctions with opinions that effectively reject the challenges to the ban), and the Supreme Court denied a cert petition in the DC case. Garland, holding that the ATF’s 2019 ban on bump stocks is invalid. In a break with other circuits, on March 25 the Sixth Circuit issued a decision in Gun Owners of America v. Sixth Circuit Breaks from Other Circuits and Invalidates the Bump Stock Ban By Dru Stevenson on ApCategories: Lawsuits, Regulations