Results 1 to 10 of 26
10-31-2014, 02:38 PM #1
Hollis V. Holder (Challenging the 1986 MG Ban)
Remember how the ATF approved some Form 1's for manufacturing a machinegun via a trust? ANd how then the ATF tried to rescind that approval?
The first of three lawsuits have been filed in US District Court. The first one originating in Texas. The other two will originate in two other states and I believe all three states are in separate circuit court jurisdictions.
10-31-2014, 02:41 PM #2
This is gonna be weird if there is a circuit split, how will that get resolved? Because you know if it goes poorly for the feds, they will appeal it.
Ultimately I don't think this is going to go anywhere, but it should be fun to watch. It would be funny as hell if the court goes halfway and forces BATFE to acnkowledge the issued stamps as being valid because of the fact that they approved them.
10-31-2014, 02:43 PM #3
I have started to read the complaint and it reads plainly and seems to address multiple issues with the law. I'm not a lawyer but I do know a little from reading up on case law and talking to people who do things in the legal field (like Terraformer). I have only skimmed the complaint but it looks like it might be a "shotgun approach" (which is very bad from an arguing a case and setting good case law standpoint). Now truthfully I have not read the Heller or McDonald original complaints so I don't know if they read similar and the actual attack on the law was narrowed to a specific point once the attorneys showed up in court and argued in person.
10-31-2014, 02:43 PM #4
10-31-2014, 02:46 PM #5
10-31-2014, 02:50 PM #6
On the other hand, I develop software for a living so everything eventually breaks down to a 1 or 0 in my mind and the fuzzy aspect of the law strikes me as complete BS.And now bills were passed, not only for national objects but for individual cases, and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt. - Tacitus
10-31-2014, 04:34 PM #7
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
- 2122 N. Clark St.
If the trust is not a person and a human performing tasks (say, manufacturing) for the trust is never in possession of the machinegun, how can the trust's rights as a person or the rights of said human acting through the trust possibly be violated?
10-31-2014, 04:49 PM #8
I don't have the time right at the moment to read it in detail but it sure as hell appears that this is the case that I was afraid we would see. There are a lot of people who think that Gura "got it wrong" in Heller, despite the fact Gura didn't touch FA in Heller and wasn't responsible for the court mentioning it. These people think they can do it better (despite the fact Gura wasn't really instrumental either way in the wrong they seek to right) and they want to be heroes. I can't tell you how many cases I see fail on their face being helmed by some arrogant ass who thinks he is going to do it all and with style. They end up failing miserably and screwing you and me in the process. I don't know what's happening in this case, but man do I hope this complaint doesn't reflect what is going on here.
10-31-2014, 04:52 PM #9
10-31-2014, 05:10 PM #10And now bills were passed, not only for national objects but for individual cases, and laws were most numerous when the commonwealth was most corrupt. - Tacitus