#even though it does not fit the clear definition of a machine gun put forth in the law

[laundryandtaxes]

I think it is so bizarre that liberals are really arguing en masse that the administrative state doesn't need to have its hand slapped away from the candy bowl of pulling outright bad faith interpretations of the law (set out by the representatives elected by the people to make those laws) out of thin air, while at the same time they are arguing they're the side that's looking out for the strength of American democracy. In no way is it reasonable for Americans to have to put up with decrees, enforcable at gunpoint as if they were law, made by unelected beaureacrats that have granted themselves the power to intentionally twist the law toward their own ends, especially given the existence of agencies like the ATF which deal directly with personal rights set forth in the Bill of Rights. The most reasonable argument they could make is that preventing judges (who are often political appointees or outright elected officials) from interfering with the administration of those agencies' duties should insulate those policies from the instability of the political process. That is at least a practical argument- a poor one, because if that was going to work then it would have already and there would be no case before the Supreme Court attempting to relitigate this. But I think it is specious to make the claim that there's really nothing to see here wrt the power regulatory agencies believe themselves to have despite never having actually been granted it, and if the government falls apart as a result of reigning in that power, that is the fault of Congress for failing to actually make laws which those agencies could then utilize if needed.