Important aspect is the decision, that points to Executive Orders, making essentially, law, and how Unconstitutional they are.
The Sixth Circuit said that the legal precedent used by the ATF to reinterpret the statute, known as Chevron deference, likely does not apply in reinterpreting criminal conduct.
“Whether ownership of a bump-stock device should be criminally punished is a question for our society. Indeed, the Las Vegas shooting sparked an intense national debate on the benefits and risks of bump-stock ownership,” the judges wrote in the majority opinion. “And because criminal laws are rooted in the community, the people determine for themselves — through their legislators — what is right or wrong. The executive enforces those determinations. It is not the role of the executive — particularly the unelected administrative state — to dictate to the public what is right and what is wrong.”
“In sum, for criminal statutes, where the primary question is what conduct should be condemned and punished, the first rationale of Chevron deference — deferring to an agency’s expertise — is unconvincing because the agency’s technical specialized knowledge does not assist in making the value-laden judgment underlying our criminal laws,” the judges wrote. “That judgment is reserved to the people through their duly elected representatives in Congress.”