The power of lasers was never set by law and left up to interpretation by the FDA.  Now that's dead, when will companies start selling us plebs full power lasers?

Just needs challenged in court.

the internet experts have said that the way Roberts did this opinion, nothing that already screwed us is subject to the precedent.  If it already happened, it's too bad for you/us.

There is habeas corpus, and there is this

I suspect challenges to this could still go.

I've wondered about this.

Given all the ways FATF has screwed us with their rules and definitions, it would be nice if they are now invalid. But I suspect it'll take some test cases to see if they are now invalid, or hold by precedent.

As in the current technology or current products?

It's not dead. Chevron being overturned means that it's possible to challenge if the government is overreaching in court.

If the FDA is given power by law to regulate lasers (spoiler alert, they are) for public safety or whatever, prior Chevron being overturned, basically whatever the FDA said was gospel. If it said it needed a regulation, it was considered to true that the regulation was needed. It's a valid regulation that's not overstepping because - well they said so.

Now, you can challenge in the court whether a regulation or enforcement is actually necessary, or if the government is overstepping. Is what the government doing within the purpose and scope of the laws that give them power? Now the courts decide, not the agency in question.

As a simplified example, If the FDA is empowered to protect the public harmful and unnecessary emissions from electronic devices, you could now take them to court to argue a full power IR laser is either not harmful, or not unnecessary. If it's not one of those two, the FDA would theoretically lose some or even all of their regulatory power over it. If both are true, then their regulations probably will hold.

It's all going to come down to the strength of language the law has given the FDA. The stronger the language, purpose and scope is spelled out in the act giving the FDA power over lasers, the less likely you would be able to overturn it in court. It doesn't need to actually specify a specific MW limit in the law itself for the FDA to have regulatory authority even in a post Chevron world.

Congress has passed no laws regarding the powers of lasers that are legal for US citizens to own or prohibit.  The current system was made up by an executive agency.  This is exactly what Chevron deference being overturned relates to.  Now will any of the big players with government contracts want to test the waters?  Probably not, we will need a company with some cojones to start selling them, but once they do the FDA will have no legal ground to tell them to step.

This doesn't address anything I've said. The laws do not need to state that the FDA has to regulate the specific MW powers of lasers operated in order for their regulatory authority to hold. It just has to, reasonably, give them that power.

The NMFS had no authority, explicit or based on reason, to charge fees to pay for the monitoring of herring fisheries. It's just not in the act. They just made that up, full stop.

The flip side is the Radiation Control for Health and Safety Act explicitly gives the FDA power to regulate radiation emitting devices for public safety and to create performance standards for devices to limit unnecessary exposure to the public. A laser is a radiation emitting device. Before Chevron getting yeeted, it was the FDA who got to say what was safe and unsafe, and what was unnecessary or not. That would hold forever. Now you can take them to court over it. Now you can argue that a 50mw laser isn't unsafe, or it's unnecessary. If you can convince a judge? You are good.

They are given this power via the law and by law makers. So the argument can't be they don't have the power to regulate the devices - they do. If that law didn't exist, it'd be closer to the Herring fishery - they just don't have any power. They do have that power tho, so now you have to make an argument that they are stepping outside of their jurisdiction that the law has granted them with. That is way harder to do.

I have not read the FDA regs in so many years but I recall different classifications of lasers with some requiring a safety emission light, a safety key, intermittent operation, and in some cases even an audible indicator. With this said I have always wondered if an argument could be made that certain IR emitting laser devices are firearms accessories.

Fact is we can own firearms and if someone acted recklessly with one they could kill or maim someone. Now the FDA says manufacturers are precluded from selling civilians IR lasers if they emit over a certain mW because if someone acted recklessly it could maim someone. While most people who use NV understand the nature of IR emissions and its dangers, most also understand firearms safety. Makes me wonder if an argument can be made to carve out some wiggle room.  

Of course I am sure the FDA would argue there is no "right" to own certain devices and that there would be no way to limit the use of such devices to firearms only.

While this kind of thing does give me some hope, I also think the bureaucracy is so firmly entrenched that they feel free to ignore just about anything they want, including the Supremes.  

This whole argument about if peeps should be trusted to not harm each other is a red herring IMHO.  Of course people are assholes and they're gonna hurt each other; the fact that these assholes think they can change human nature is the hallmark of the progressive/communist movement.  So I reject this whole premise on the face of it.  

All this crap is simply government over-reach for more power dressed up as concern for your well being.   The vendors will comply and even over-comply with an eye on the next big contract.  Maybe an independent would have the 'nads to break away, but that would be a huge risk for them.  

Do not expect much to change, domestically.  Hope foreign imports steadily improve.  

But hey, would love for someone to prove me wrong.