1-30-2016 Big case goes to court .HOLLIS v. Holder in Texas

Rating - 100%
14   0   0
Joined
Oct 26, 2008
Messages
1,065
Likes
362
Location
West of Boston
Cases are making their way thru the courts, one was denied and is on appeal...the other is making tremendous headway...Counsel has demanded discovery to see the registry...AFT has refused...stating categorically that they are ZERO approvals of MG since 86...Counsel just produced leaked copies of several "Special Snow Flake" Approvals, he has redacted the names and addresses but it is implied they are big wigs, politicians, big donors...that got special treatment from BATFE and were in fact allowed to form 1 a MG after the 86 Hughes Amendment Date...IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW...counsel thinks this will bust case wide open and allow discovery.
 

rivet_42

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
1,085
Likes
506
Case is now known as Hollis v. Lynch, if anyone goes a-Googling, reflecting the replacement of Eric Holder by Loretta Lynch.

Brief synopsis of the case: Hollis paid a $200 tax to BATFE to manufacture an M16. BATFE then rescinded their approval. The case seeks to invalidate the Hughes Amendment on the idea that the M16 is the quintessential "militia arm" and thus protected under Heller. It also seeks to invalidate the notion of "dangerous and unusual weapons", citing old English common law that "dangerous and unusual weapons" refers to carrying and display rather than simple possession.
 

rivet_42

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
1,085
Likes
506
Aww man, this could be really really good or really really bad.
I'm going to say "really bad". Judgment will likely go against the petitioner "because machine gun". Fully-automatic firearms have traditionally been a sphere where courts have been reluctant to expand private ownership. As much as we celebrate Heller, it was fairly narrow in its operation. Heller stated that long-standing regulations on ownership and carry of arms were presumptively lawful; just that such laws could not constitute a ban on keeping common firearms in one's home.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
59   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
70,271
Likes
30,534
Aww man, this could be really really good or really really bad.
The only "bad" that could come out of this is if you're one of the gifted people getting wallhack stamps that might stop happening.... but I honestly don't see it going anywhere as a whole, "cuz guns r bad".

The feds have been caught with their pants down with the registry on more than one occasion, although it usually comes via the vector that the registrty the feds have is incomplete and doesn't fully reflect all the guns that have been registered. IIRC many years ago some guy took the feds to court because they wouldn't let him reactivate a DEWAT maxim (and reactivation is allow by law if the gun is registered). He had docs proving registration and they couldn't find it in their system.... but there are likely thousands of records missing from that system for one reason or another.

-Mike
 
Top Bottom