Originally Posted By jtb33:
Just wondering if they use Chevron Deference to say that an open bolt gun is a machinegun.

Originally Posted By jtb33:
Just wondering if they use Chevron Deference to say that an open bolt gun is a machinegun.

(b)Machinegun
The term “machinegun” means any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger. The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.

Originally Posted By Bye_Felicia:


Correct. And ATF would be able to provide a pile of examples of guns that were on the market as semi-auto open bolts that can be " can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger."

In any fight with the Fed.gov we want cases that are not only winnable, but can set a clear ruling that disrupts the ATFs ability to rule against us in the future.

Originally Posted By mak0:


I'm not saying I agree with it but the interpretation was based on the "can be readily restored" verbiage in the law. Converting open bolt guns is generally much simpler than converting closed bolt designs.

Originally Posted By jtb33:
I mean, the recent SCOTUS Loper-Bright Entperprises decision that knocked down Chevron Deference made it clear that any determinations that agencies had made prior using Chevron Deference were still valid - but that they could be challenged, and now the agency couldn't use CD to justify those.  

The ATF has used CD quite extensively throughout the last several decades, which suggests that there are a lot of their interpretations that we have come to accept as being the status-quo, that could theoretically be challenged in court now.

I'm not suggesting that the open-bolt ruling be challenged, but just asking as an example, if the ATF used CD to make that determination or if there is some other rationale behind why they did that.

Originally Posted By Colt653:
good question

makes me wonder about the

“ once a machine gun, always a machine gun “

imagine all the M14 rifles that could have gone to the CMP

…just grid off a bit of the receiver

Originally Posted By jtb33:
But "open bolt = machinegun" is still an interpretation of the ATF, right?

Originally Posted By dahugo:
You don't understand Chevron deference. It is not a doctrine applied by the administrative agency but a now-defunct standard of review courts applied to challenges to agency regulations.

Originally Posted By Colt653:
good question

makes me wonder about the

“ once a machine gun, always a machine gun “

imagine all the M14 rifles that could have gone to the CMP

…just grid off a bit of the receiver

Originally Posted By jtb33:
I do understand that, but am looking beyond that.  Agencies were emboldened to 'interpret' certain laws based on courts deferring to the agency "as the expert" rather than courts.

As I understand it, agencies should now interpret laws as they are written, in the context that they were written - and when a problem arises, the judiciary is the ultimate arbiter now, not deferring to the agencies as the experts.

Originally Posted By D_Man:
It's important to understand that the Chevron Deference was a judicial policy.  So it's not that the ATF directly used it to make their rules based on vague law, but rather if a case were to go to trial where the ATF interpreted a vague law a certain way, then the judge/jury would be inclined to put more weight on the ATF's interpretation of the law rather than having the court interpret the law's meaning.

The ATF did use their regulatory interpretive discretion, emboldened to do so by things like Chevron knowing they would have an edge if it went to a trial, to decide that open bolts were MGs, yes.  As said above, they cited the phrase "...can be readily restored to shoot..." in the legal definition as their reasoning, because to do the conversion all that is needed is to remove or modify the disconnector.

That said, with Chevron gone, this is now open to a legal challenge which would seek to determine in court what "can be readily restored to shoot" really means and if open bolts fit that.  However to get there, you would have to be caught with an unregistered open bolt gun, charged with possession of an unregistered MG, and go through all of that fun stuff.  And in the end, you're still at the mercy of the court to decide if the ATF's interpretation is right or wrong, and for this I could really see it go either way.  It would depend a lot on how convincing the arguments were on both sides.

Originally Posted By spmx7777:


There might be another way.  (a) get a manufacturer FFL and SOT, (b) design an open-bolt semi-auto, (c) submit an example to ATF for approval for sale to the public, (d) when ATF says "heck no" you now have standing to challenge the law.

Originally Posted By AR18:
I think it was the Intertec Tec-9 variation, MAC-10 or the Model A Uzi examples they used for the open bolt ban hammer.

It was something on the same line that it only took x amount of time to make it full auto again.

Originally Posted By KalmanPhilter:
SW Daniels made single shot open bolt guns to challenge the notion but jury instructions appear to have been influenced by Chevron deference.

https://casetext.com/case/sw-daniel-inc-by-through-daniel-v-us

The problem is that NFA precedents are not “relevant case law.” Ibid. As to ordinary GCA firearms, ATF is limited to regulating things that can “readily be converted” into firearms. 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3). That means 45 No. 23-10718 things that are close enough to firearms that they can be finished “in about five seconds,” Morales, 280 F. Supp. 2d. at 272, in “about fifteen to twenty minutes,” Reed, 114 F.3d at 1056, or in “easily less than an hour,” Mullins, 446 F.3d at 755. ATF cannot avail itself of the NFA’s much broader for machine guns. Yet in interpreting the GCA’s ordinary-gun standard, ATF expressly relied on cases like Smith and its eight-hours-in-a-professionalshop-with-expertise standard. See Final Rule, 87 Fed. Reg. at 24662 n.43; see also id. at 24678–79 (explicitly linking the Final Rule’s understanding of “readily” to the machine-gun-restoration standard under the NFA).

The practical implications of ATF’s position are staggering. According to ATF, the word “readily” means the same thing in the GCA, the NFA, and the Final Rule. If that were true, then millions and millions of Americans would be felons-in-waiting. That is because the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America; almost 20 million of them were in American homes as of 2020. See NSSF Releases Most Recent Firearm Production Figures, https://perma.cc/TBS8-JSSH (Nov. 16, 2020). But every single AR-15 can be converted to a machine gun using cheap, flimsy pieces of metal—including coat hangers. See Mike Searson, Turning Your AR-15 into an M-16, Recoil Magazine, https://perma.cc/L5G9-E9BJ (June 5, 2019). That is obviously far easier than the 8-hour-in-a-professional-shop standard announced in Smith to govern “ready restoration” under the NFA.  

Originally Posted By jtb33:
But "open bolt = machinegun" is still an interpretation of the ATF, right? ...it's not written in as part of the law.  I'm asking if they used Chevron Deference to make that determination.