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

[SG1]

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...

[kidicarus13]

I would like to see the machinegunners prevail.

[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.

[HoneyBadger]

...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.

[SG1]

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.

[Great-Kazoo]

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

Who were later contacted and told, Denied.

[Bailey Guns]

Good luck.

[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

[Bailey Guns]

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.

[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.