NFA Lawsuits: Hollis v. Holder; Watson v. Holder New Machine Guns/Ending the NFA

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/168...4_.html&page=1

1. ATF ruled that a trust is not a person as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a) and the Gun Control Act (GCA).
2. Since ATF holds that an unincorporated trust is not a “person” under the GCA, the prohibition on the transfer or possession of machineguns as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(1) and 18 U.S. Code § 922(o) cannot apply to unincorporated trusts.
3. Numerous (See Footnote #1) trustees submitted Form 1 applications to build new machine guns.
4. ATF approved the applications and sent out stamps (See Footnote #2).
5. On or around 9/10/14, ATF began calling trustees that received stamps demanding that they be returned, or in the case of eForms, updating their online status from Approved to Disapproved. Those that were called were told they had to return the stamp. (See Footnote #3 for audio of one such call)
6. Attorneys are working on it now...

I would like to see the machinegunners prevail.

I've been watching this on arfcom. Several of them applied and got approved. I'm hoping it turns out well...or that it doesn't ruin trust NFA ownership as we'll know it.

Good luck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

...or that it doesn't ruin trust NFA ownership as we'll know it.

---

This.

Good luck to these guys. I really hope we can see an end to the garbage that is the NFA and the GCA during my lifetime.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sniper7

I've been watching this on arfcom. Several of them applied and got approved. I'm hoping it turns out well...or that it doesn't ruin trust NFA ownership as we'll know it.

---

At least 700 have been by the ATF`s own admission.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SG1

At least 700 have been by the ATF`s own admission.

---

Who were later contacted and told, Denied.

I read the entire brief. They are attacking the NFA on 2nd, 5th, 9th, 10th, and Commerce Clause basis. Also, the ATFE doesn't have authority to rescind a stamp that was approved and issued after the fact. The logic and cited precedents make me believe that and objective panel will rule for the plaintiff, pitching pretty much the whole NFA AND the restrictions in FOPA out the fuckin window.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/245057730/...lder-Complaint

IMO, SBR, SBS, and suppressor regulations are beyond stupid.

Automatics weapons don't concern me as much because I can't afford to put ammunition in belt fed weapons, but if law abiding, free citizens want them, then they should darn well not have their right to keep infringed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cstone

IMO, SBR, SBS, and suppressor regulations are beyond stupid.

Automatics weapons don't concern me as much because I can't afford to put ammunition in belt fed weapons, but if law abiding, free citizens want them, then they should darn well not have their right to keep infringed.

---

If this happens ammo companies will be forced to produce more and more ammo, which means prices will decrease.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

I read the entire brief. They are attacking the NFA on 2nd, 5th, 9th, 10th, and Commerce Clause basis. Also, the ATFE doesn't have authority to rescind a stamp that was approved and issued after the fact. The logic and cited precedents make me believe that and objective panel will rule for the plaintiff, pitching pretty much the whole NFA AND the restrictions in FOPA out the fuckin window.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/245057730/...lder-Complaint

---

Ooppps... There goes the case.

It would be hilarious if Holder, et al, failed to respond in a timely manner, and the plaintiff were granted a summary judgement..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

It would be hilarious if Holder, et al, failed to respond in a timely manner, and the plaintiff were granted a summary judgement..

---

Maybe we should all start getting up in arms about ferguson to keep him busy.

I guess keeping laws complicated keeps government in power and lawyers in jobs.

So much for government being for, by and of the people.

Complicated laws makes everyone a criminal for those times when the gov't needs control over someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kidicarus13

Complicated laws makes everyone a criminal for those times when the gov't needs control over someone.

---

“There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.”

― Ayn Rand

“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.” ~Ayn Rand

“America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

“Society will develop a new kind of servitude which covers the surface of society with a network of complicated rules, through which the most original minds and the most energetic characters cannot penetrate. It does not tyrannise but it compresses, enervates, extinguishes, and stupefies a people, till each nation is reduced to nothing better than a flock of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd.”
― Alexis de Tocqueville

"If this is how the state treats its law-abiding citizens, it doesn't deserve to have any" --Solzhenitsyn

23 of April is when we find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

Orders don't come in on a schedule. You wont know any outcome even post-hearing, usually.

Further, this will only determine if the suit moves forward. So, there isn't much to find out.

---

I know...It is still amazing to think of what could happen when/should we win....I mean did you ever think we would take this on?

I mean we should have taken it on sooner but hey at least we are pushing back.

See you on the battlefield.

Now we play the waiting game...

Is ther an update on this?

Holder and the ATF guy quit or was fired.

And were never brought to task on the Fast and Furious debacle. Notice how this just disapeared, kinda like the murderers at Waco. Feds are invulnerable. What a FUBAR country we are passing on to our children.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DOC

Holder and the ATF guy quit or was fired.

---

Word. If only they were smart enough to fear us.

They have proven that they don't have to fear us. Not anymore anyway.

Well the Lawyer was on a podcast about this lawsuit.

http://welikeshootingpodcast.com/093/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SG1

Well the Lawyer was on a podcast about this lawsuit.

http://welikeshootingpodcast.com/093/

---

Thank you. :)

Nolo did a AMA on Reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/commen...ynch_formerly/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SG1

Nolo did a AMA on Reddit.
https://www.reddit.com/r/guns/commen...ynch_formerly/

---

Awesome. I've changed my mind on this. I used to think it was rocking the boat (no, I do not have any MG stamps), but now I say F-it and am for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KestrelBike

Awesome. I've changed my mind on this. I used to think it was rocking the boat (no, I do not have any MG stamps), but now I say F-it and am for it.

---

What do we have to lose at this point? You never win wars being on the defensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by foxtrot

Precedent happens in the appeals court and above. (and can actually happen in the district court in published opinions, sort of) So depending on the relative skill of the attorney taking this on, if he doesn't invest quite enough time, or doesn't have quite enough experience in oral argument or tracking down case law. Losing can establish negative precedence. I haven't done enough digging on this case, I am somewhat uncomfortable that the Court is making accommodations for this "new" attorney. They have to gain experience somewhere, but firearm cases are NOT the place to be practicing how to do things right.

---

True but then again we do not know what the make up of the court will be in the future. A bird in the hand it worth two in the bush.

GOA filed amicus brief in the Watson v. Lynch case today.


​http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/168....html&page=155

http://www.thenation.com/article/the...snt-giving-up/

We are now on the Radar of the CSGV.

Liberal slant much?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Horribly Biased Article

 Given that a hypothetical American, who is underage, has been convicted of a gun crime, has restraining orders out against him, and is on a terror watchlist could go online and have an assault rifle shipped to his door without incident, the US gun lobby seems to have its work cut out for it: simply blocking any action in Congress will perpetuate this madness.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

Liberal lying through their teeth much?

Quote:

---

https://www.ar-15.co/images/tf_ideal...quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Horribly Biased Article  Given that a hypothetical American, who is underage, has been convicted of a gun crime, has restraining orders out against him, and is on a terror watchlist could go online and have an assault rifle shipped to his door without incident, the US gun lobby seems to have its work cut out for it: simply blocking any action in Congress will perpetuate this madness.

---

---

FIFY

Comments require having a paid subscription- like that's gonna happen... so I submitted a correction request.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TFOGGER

Liberal slant much?

---

Yes they do. IF he is under age it would not be a felony, nor would he have a RO issued against him, nor could he be on the No Fly List. They are that stupid.

They still think it is pre GCA, were we could have Anti Tank Rifles mailed to our door. I wish that was the case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 68Charger

FIFY

Comments require having a paid subscription- like that's gonna happen... so I submitted a correction request.

---

Who would pay for that site? WHY would anyone?

The first paragraph is so wrong the stupid hurts.

If I was in Congress every time some "sensible gun law" would come up for vote I would immediately tack on nationwide CCW reciprocity, removal of the 1996 date for full auto firearms, and override of firearm bans/magazine size limits. If their background checks and "closing the gun show loophole" is really worth anything then they should have no problem relaxing the other stupid laws that have not shown to be effective and just penalizes law abiding citizens.