It appears that the plaintiffs have some valid arguments about the ATF's stretch of the language in the GCA's defintion of a firearm. If the current Supreme Court rules in favor of the ATF, they would have to depart slightly from their strict relaince on text to adopt a position based more on common sense. It would also seem to be taking the opportunity - in a case that clearly even the right leaning members of Congress should have little stake - to appear less political in its rulings; a sort of bone to throw at the left? The case is a good example of how the composers of a piece of legislation cannot reasonably anticipate every future scenario that might cause disagreement as to the legislation's applicability. Great topic!
It appears that the plaintiffs have some valid arguments about the ATF's stretch of the language in the GCA's defintion of a firearm. If the current Supreme Court rules in favor of the ATF, they would have to depart slightly from their strict relaince on text to adopt a position based more on common sense. It would also seem to be taking the opportunity - in a case that clearly even the right leaning members of Congress should have little stake - to appear less political in its rulings; a sort of bone to throw at the left? The case is a good example of how the composers of a piece of legislation cannot reasonably anticipate every future scenario that might cause disagreement as to the legislation's applicability. Great topic!