Videos tagged with EPA

This video discusses the Supreme Court's decision to strike down Chevron deference. The description highlights this as a significant victory against government overreach by agencies like the ATF and EPA, stating that courts will now be responsible for interpreting laws rather than relying on agencies as subject matter experts. This legal development is presented as a positive outcome for those concerned about agency power.

This video discusses a recent budgetary agreement that, while averting a government shutdown, includes a 7% reduction in the ATF's budget. The creator argues this cut is a double-edged sword for gun owners, as it may not target NFA-related activities and comes alongside the reauthorization of the Undetectable Firearm Act (UFA). The video also highlights the Biden administration's involvement in signing the Consolidated Appropriations Bill into law, framing it as a significant loss for the President and a win for gun control opponents. A separate link to a video explaining why the UFA is considered problematic is also provided.

This video discusses a new Supreme Court case that could significantly impact the regulatory power of federal 'alphabet agencies' such as the ATF, FBI, DOJ, and EPA. The central theme is that these agencies may no longer be able to effectively create laws through rule-making, potentially reining in their authority. The content aligns with the channel's focus on God, Family, and Guns, and encourages viewer support through Patreon.

This video discusses the Supreme Court's ruling in Sackett V EPA, which significantly limits the EPA's power under the Clean Water Act. The speaker draws parallels between this ruling and recent actions by the ATF, suggesting that Second Amendment organizations will leverage this precedent in their legal arguments. The channel positions itself as an educational resource promoting responsible gun ownership and safety, emphasizing its independence from commercial interests in firearms sales.

This video analyzes a recent Supreme Court decision in Sackett v. EPA, highlighting its implications for federal executive agencies like the ATF. The ruling curtails agency authority to create laws through regulations, offering powerful language that could be used against the ATF in legal challenges concerning bump stock bans and pistol brace rules. The video features constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, who breaks down the legal aspects and the broader significance for Second Amendment rights.

William Kirk, President of Washington Gun Law, analyzes the Supreme Court's decision in West Virginia v. EPA, drawing parallels between the EPA's overreach and the ATF's alleged legislative overstepping. He argues that the EPA's "major questions doctrine" ruling, which limits agency authority to areas explicitly granted by Congress, has significant implications for ATF regulations. Specifically, Kirk highlights the ATF's pistol brace rule, rulings on Rare Breed Triggers, and regulations concerning solvent traps, receivers, and 80% lowers as potentially unconstitutional under this precedent. The video encourages lawful gun owners to educate themselves on these legal challenges.

This video discusses a recent statement by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC) advocating for the abolition of the Supreme Court and the filibuster, citing her constitutional oath. The content links this stance to broader left-wing reactions to recent Supreme Court rulings on cases such as Dobbs, EPA, and Bruen, suggesting a dissatisfaction with judicial decisions that the speaker characterizes as preventing desired outcomes.

This video discusses upcoming Supreme Court orders that are expected to be released tomorrow afternoon, potentially impacting Second Amendment gun rights. The content is presented by constitutional attorney Mark W. Smith, who is associated with the Supreme Court Bar, and is a frequent Fox News guest and New York Times bestselling author. The analysis delves into the "four boxes" of American liberty and provides context for understanding Bill of Rights news. The video references historical practices and cites an article from SCOTUSblog regarding the conclusion of October Term 2021.

This product spotlight from the 2016 SHOT Show features MT2, a leading provider of firing range maintenance, lead recovery, and environmental remediation services. Rachel Kopczyk interviews Jim Uhlinger, Director of Business Development for MT2, who highlights the company's extensive experience since 2000, having removed millions of pounds of lead and returned significant revenue to range owners. MT2 specializes in lead reclamation, range maintenance, OSHA & Environmental Consulting, and uses patented ECOBOND® technology. They emphasize compliance with all regulations, safety for all stakeholders, and offer comprehensive insurance to mitigate risks for range owners.

This video features Cam Edwards interviewing Larry Keane, General Counsel for the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF). The discussion centers on the EPA's decision to deny a petition from an anti-hunting group seeking to ban traditional ammunition. The interview, originating from NRA News in 2012, addresses the legal and advocacy aspects surrounding ammunition types and their potential regulation.

This video features Darren La Sorte, Manager of NRA-ILA Hunting Policy, discussing a recent EPA announcement. The EPA has stated it lacks jurisdiction to regulate lead in ammunition and shells. The discussion centers on the implications of this decision for hunters and firearm owners, with a link provided for further information on the NRA-ILA website.

This video features Cam Edwards interviewing Bill Brassard from the National Shooting Sports Foundation. The discussion centers on the urgent need for firearm owners, hunters, and shooters to contact their elected officials. The primary focus is on urging lawmakers to oppose potential EPA regulations that could ban traditional ammunition, specifically those containing lead. The interview highlights the importance of advocating for the protection of existing ammunition types against such legislative or regulatory actions.