The Temptations, Detroit’s legendary Motown vocal group, summed it up best for this morning in their tune “Ball of Confusion!” They claimed that’s what the world is, today. The leadership of one of the major parties seems to be in that position as well, with a possible decision on whether the candidate they support ought to be invited to breakfast tomorrow. We are in general agreement at the picnic table, as least as far as the confused part goes. Some want to go to church, others demand more choices for breakfast, and the rest just looked dazed from the consequences of Saturday night.

DeMille looked a little haggard as he consumed a bedraggled egg sandwich and sipped Chock Full O’ Nuts. “We were going to wrap up the Supreme Court Decision Season today. Then, Chief Justice Roberts announced some of the biggest ones will not be released until tomorrow. So, we wound up spending the afternoon on the implications of the biggest one so far. The Overturn of the 1984 “Chevron Decision.” He took a bite of English muffin.

Splash smiled. “That one had established a judicial doctrine that empowered federal regulators to interpret portions of legitimately-passed laws that were unclear.”

“Seems reasonable. Someone has to make the laws understandible.”

“If we are expected to be compliant with them, it might be useful!” growled Rocket.

For most of us who casually follow the antics of Congress in assembling their massive bills of law, it is not surprising that parts of them, arrived by compromise, could be open to some question on the “intent” of the lawmakers with opposing views who crafted them.

What all this confusion about the Court’s attempt to straighten it out is still unclear. We hoped we would have some answers to you today, but all we have is more questions. Splash remained confused. He had been a responsible owner of a firearm or two when such ownership was clear, legal and the purpose of their use was equally plain. Given a variety of other, somewhat confused social factors, there was pressure from reasonable people who considered the basis of such ownership to be a contributing factor to some of our current troubles.

We agree that use of firearms for illicit purposes is a bad thing and the means to discourage it is worth vigorous discussion. So, naturally from a discussion about an Oil Company being told to save the environment to an animated discussion of a new Federal “rule” that could be affected by the Chevron reversal.

You can see how we get a little confused. In April, Attorney General Merrick Garland had signed out a “final rule” crafted by his Department’s Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (and Explosives). It re-defined the definition of the term “Dealer in Firearms.”

We are in favor of clear definitions, since they reduce confusion. Or could, since it was a fairly broad sort of semantic change. We can’t possibly even capture the nature of it in a couple short sentences. But in essence, the definition of the term “dealer” changed from what the Congress considered to constitute such a merchant. In our experience, that is a person who runs a store that sells guns.

Technology has changed, partially to avoid restrictions imposed on such shops. The ATF was attempting to deal with the fact that extensive regulation on registered dealers had migrated to other forms of commercial activity not previously subject to Federal monitoring.

The new Final Rule is much more comprehensive to deal with the change. It now includes a requirement for a background check on individual sale of a firearm from one citizen to another. Worthy of some discussion, right? That leads immediately to some of the underpinnings of our founding documents. We are not attempting to open that tortured discussion, since the intent of the Expert rule formulation would also to be establishment of a national registry of a previously unregulated and thus legal activity.

Confused yet? That is the nature of the process these days. On the eve of our Fourth of July celebrations it seems appropriate.

We are not asserting a position on anything this morning. We are interested in the messaging about it. Splash actually rose from his folding chair to wave the postcard that had been included in the solicitation for funds to protest the Final Rule from ATF. It is not remotely connected in subject but directly related to the idea that the Court addressed: “Shouldn’t the people have a voice in Government rule-making through their democratically elected representatives?”.

We asked Splash to write the unelected people asking for money to explain whether the ATF Final Rule would be subject to revision under the Chevron decision. We can’t ask the Court directly, of course, and there will be years of Expert discussion about who can do what to whom, all of it under penalty of law as interpreted by the same sort of Experts.

By the time we got through that one small aspect of the possible ramifications of just one of the Court Decisions we decided not to worry about what the Supremes will determine in the last decisions tomorrow morning, starting at 10:00AM, EST.

What are those? The top three, held for the culmination of this Decision Session, will include the one regarding a former President’s bid to avoid prosecution on federal charges of election interference. There are a couple others regarding the ability of the government to influence what is posted on Social Media. Like this one.

So, the arcane complexities of law mingle with some events conducted in the household. We are pleased we are not seated someplace we are expected to apply our Expert opinion on anything. It is too complicated, you know? It had a tendency to wrap us up in a ball of…

Copyright 2024 Vic Socotra
www.vicsocotra.com