Still has to be heard by the panel....So, they are legal again?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Still has to be heard by the panel....So, they are legal again?
All very boring.
And WTF is the Chevron they keep referring to in the first article?
It's a legal precedent call the "Cheveron Deference" or "Chevron Defense." Its a legal precedent that compels federal courts to defer to federal agencies in matters that are unclear or ambiguous. It gets its name from a case back in the mid 80's (I think?) In which Chevron was the defendant. The idea being that the federal agency would have more knowledge regarding the issue than the court would and, as such, the court would agree with the agency. I think, if I'm reading this correctly, it is being said that the chevron defense should not have been used in this case because they intend to argue that there is nothing unclear or ambiguous regarding the bump stock ban. I dont see this going anywhere, but it is good gamesmanship.And WTF is the Chevron they keep referring to in the first article?