> Congress has been writing laws for the past 4 decades assuming that the agencies can iron out the ambiguities My understanding is that the big problem is tha

> Congress has been writing laws for the past 4 decades assuming that the agencies can iron out the ambiguities My understanding is that the big problem is that this expectation is implicit. Congress isn't granting agencies the authority to make determinations as to what falls into a category, for instance. Instead, they're creating a category without further elaboration. Compare that to 18 USC 921(a)(4)(C), which says in part: The term “destructive device” shall not include any device which is neither designed nor redesigned for use as a weapon; any device, although originally designed for use as a weapon, which is redesigned for use as a signaling, pyrotechnic, line throwing, safety, or similar device; surplus ordnance sold, loaned, or given by the Secretary of the Army pursuant to the provisions of section 7684(2), 7685, or 7686 of title 10; or any other device which the Attorney General finds is not likely to be used as a weapon, is an antique, or is a rifle which the owner intends to use solely for sporting, recreational or cultural purposes. This explicitly established a process through which the Attorney General may exclude weapons from the "destructive device" category at their discretion. My understanding is that this would not be impacted by overturning Chevron, as the process was established by Congress explicitly. Hypothetically, if that provision did not exist and the AG unilaterally decided that a weapon that was otherwise included in the category should not be, then that would be an example of executive rulemaking within the bounds of Chevron.