Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page / 224
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 2:43:55 PM EDT
[#1]
The sole exception to this exists under section 479.105(e) and allows ATF to approve such application “provided it is established by specific information” that the making of the weapon is at the request and on behalf of a Federal, State or local government entity. Please be aware that no such information has been provided, and therefore, pursuant to the disapproved application, the firearm is not registered to you or the Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis Revocable Living Trust in the National Firearms Registry and Transfer Record. Your continued possession of such a firearm without a valid registration violates the NFA. (26 U.S.C. § 5861(d)).

And therefore there is 200+ felons approved by the ATF (see Stemple letter). Lets file a FOIA for the examiner who approved each of the M60's and charge THEM with the crime...
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 3:31:40 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
...
VIII. “Person” under the GCA
Alternatively, Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) does not
prohibit unincorporated trusts from manufacturing or possessing machine guns.
Section 922(o) provides that:

(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer
or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to--
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United
States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or
political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully
possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Section 921(a)(1) provides that:
(a) As used in this chapter—
(1) The term “person” and the term “whoever” include any individual, corporation,
company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.
18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(1). Accordingly, the issue before the Court is whether the Hollis Trust is a
“person” under the the GCA. Hollis relies on the plain language of the GCA, which, unlike the
definition of “person” in the Internal Revenue Code that applies to the NFA, does not include
“trust” as a “person.”

The Hollis Trust was created and exists under the laws of the State of Texas. Dkt. No. 1
¶ 4. “The general rule in Texas (and elsewhere) has long been that ‘the term ‘trust’ refers not to
a separate legal entity but rather to the fiduciary relationship governing the trustee with respect
to the trust property.’” In re Guetersloh, 326 S.W.3d 737, 739 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010, no
pet.) (quoting Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920, 926 (Tex. 1996) (emphasis in original)); see
also Ditta v. Conte, 298 S.W.3d 187, 191 (Tex. 2009) (“A trust is not a legal entity.”). For
example, “suits against a trust must be brought against the trustee.” Id. (citing Werner v.
Colwell, 909 S.W.2d 866, 870 (Tex. 1995)).


However, and importantly for the purposes of the Hollis Trust, “[t]he trustee is vested
with legal title and right of possession of the trust property but holds it for the benefit of the
beneficiaries, who are vested with equitable title to the trust property.” Faulkner v. Bost, 137
S.W.3d 254, 258–59 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2004, no pet.). Accordingly, as the trustee of the Hollis
Trust, only Hollis could “transfer or possess a machinegun,” as is prohibited under § 922(o). As
an individual human being, Hollis is a “person” within the meaning of § 922(a)(1), and he is
subject to the prohibitions of § 922(o), which prevent him from possessing or transferring a
machine gun. See United States v. King, 735 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2013) (“King, as an
individual human being, is therefore a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 922(a)(1)(A).”).

Accordingly, the Court finds that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) prohibited Hollis, individually, and as
trustee of the Hollis Trust, from possessing a machine gun, and Plaintiff’s alternative request for
declaratory and injunctive relief to the contrary is dismissed for failure to state a claim
.


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
...
VIII. “Person” under the GCA
Alternatively, Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) does not
prohibit unincorporated trusts from manufacturing or possessing machine guns.
Section 922(o) provides that:

(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer
or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to--
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United
States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or
political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully
possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Section 921(a)(1) provides that:
(a) As used in this chapter—
(1) The term “person” and the term “whoever” include any individual, corporation,
company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.
18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(1). Accordingly, the issue before the Court is whether the Hollis Trust is a
“person” under the the GCA. Hollis relies on the plain language of the GCA, which, unlike the
definition of “person” in the Internal Revenue Code that applies to the NFA, does not include
“trust” as a “person.”

The Hollis Trust was created and exists under the laws of the State of Texas. Dkt. No. 1
¶ 4. “The general rule in Texas (and elsewhere) has long been that ‘the term ‘trust’ refers not to
a separate legal entity but rather to the fiduciary relationship governing the trustee with respect
to the trust property.’” In re Guetersloh, 326 S.W.3d 737, 739 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010, no
pet.) (quoting Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920, 926 (Tex. 1996) (emphasis in original)); see
also Ditta v. Conte, 298 S.W.3d 187, 191 (Tex. 2009) (“A trust is not a legal entity.”). For
example, “suits against a trust must be brought against the trustee.” Id. (citing Werner v.
Colwell, 909 S.W.2d 866, 870 (Tex. 1995)).


However, and importantly for the purposes of the Hollis Trust, “[t]he trustee is vested
with legal title and right of possession of the trust property but holds it for the benefit of the
beneficiaries, who are vested with equitable title to the trust property.” Faulkner v. Bost, 137
S.W.3d 254, 258–59 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2004, no pet.). Accordingly, as the trustee of the Hollis
Trust, only Hollis could “transfer or possess a machinegun,” as is prohibited under § 922(o). As
an individual human being, Hollis is a “person” within the meaning of § 922(a)(1), and he is
subject to the prohibitions of § 922(o), which prevent him from possessing or transferring a
machine gun. See United States v. King, 735 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2013) (“King, as an
individual human being, is therefore a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 922(a)(1)(A).”).

Accordingly, the Court finds that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) prohibited Hollis, individually, and as
trustee of the Hollis Trust, from possessing a machine gun, and Plaintiff’s alternative request for
declaratory and injunctive relief to the contrary is dismissed for failure to state a claim
.




Shared the entire PDF and this section in particular with a friend who is a retired attorney.

His reply:

A Trust is not really an "entity"; it is a relationship wherein legal ownership and equitable ownership are severed. The former resides in the trustee and the latter in the beneficiary. The "personhood" of a trust is the trustee itself. The trustee may be a natural person or a corporation. The trust may be a taxpayer, hence the IRS inclusion of "trust" in "persons".

Although there can be trusts in which the trustee and the beneficiary are the same person, its legal effect is dubious, since the two "severed" ownership rights reside in the same person.

I believe the decision is correct.

Link Posted: 8/8/2015 4:25:49 PM EDT
[#3]
The ATF is desparately trying to avoid discovery at all costs. Being supoenad to product post 86 MG's will be another embarrassment to an agency whose SOLE purpose was only to be a tax collection agency under the Dept. of the treasury. I still don't know how exempting LEO and Military agencies posessing such weapons is not a violation of the equal protection clause. Couldn't wait to see a judge rule that the Secret Service had to give up their uzi's.
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 8:57:00 PM EDT
[#4]
Friends I filed the Hawaii carry case over 4 years ago.  I have two Ninth Circuit appeals behind that.  I lost the carry case at the district court. I won at the Ninth on the same day Peruta was decided. Hawaii and CA filed to have the respective cases heard en banc.  We are waiting for the en banc decision right now. Either way the en banc court rules the next step will be the Supreme Court.  Assuming I win it will be 6-7 years before a Hawaii carry law is enjoined.

The district court decisions in Hollis/Watson are just the beginning of what is going to be a multi year court proceeding.  Win or lose this is nowhere close to being over.
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 9:31:40 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By wolfwood:
Friends I filed the Hawaii carry case over 4 years ago.  I have two Ninth Circuit appeals behind that.  I lost the carry case at the district court. I won at the Ninth on the same day Peruta was decided. Hawaii and CA filed to have the respective cases heard en banc.  We are waiting for the en banc decision right now. Either way the en banc court rules the next step will be the Supreme Court.  Assuming I win it will be 6-7 years before a Hawaii carry law is enjoined.

The district court decisions in Hollis/Watson are just the beginning of what is going to be a multi year court proceeding.  Win or lose this is nowhere close to being over.
View Quote


Understood by most who are paying attention.

A few cheerleaders and a few detractors.

The loudest 'voices' get the most attention.  

THANK YOU for a calm voice!

Been waiting 29 years.  I'll calmly wait a few more.
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 10:03:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Banditman] [#6]


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By wolfwood:



Friends I filed the Hawaii carry case over 4 years ago.  I have two Ninth Circuit appeals behind that.  I lost the carry case at the district court. I won at the Ninth on the same day Peruta was decided. Hawaii and CA filed to have the respective cases heard en banc.  We are waiting for the en banc decision right now. Either way the en banc court rules the next step will be the Supreme Court.  Assuming I win it will be 6-7 years before a Hawaii carry law is enjoined.





The district court decisions in Hollis/Watson are just the beginning of what is going to be a multi year court proceeding.  Win or lose this is nowhere close to being over.
View Quote



Thank you for all you have done. This is very sincere.





 
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 1:26:26 AM EDT
[#7]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:


Texas dismissed Hollis case on lack of standing and some other grounds. Will file opinion shortly.



5th circuit here we come!
View Quote




 
Set phasers to SOON.
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 9:30:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: mean_sartin] [#8]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:


Do you work for free?  How many hours do you think it took Nolo to put together the case, brief this issues, and prepare for oral argument?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.



Do you work for free?  How many hours do you think it took Nolo to put together the case, brief this issues, and prepare for oral argument?

Anybody can talk like a faggoty lawyer. It's not that hard.
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 10:47:02 AM EDT
[#9]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By wolfwood:
Friends I filed the Hawaii carry case over 4 years ago.  I have two Ninth Circuit appeals behind that.  I lost the carry case at the district court. I won at the Ninth on the same day Peruta was decided. Hawaii and CA filed to have the respective cases heard en banc.  We are waiting for the en banc decision right now. Either way the en banc court rules the next step will be the Supreme Court.  Assuming I win it will be 6-7 years before a Hawaii carry law is enjoined.

The district court decisions in Hollis/Watson are just the beginning of what is going to be a multi year court proceeding.  Win or lose this is nowhere close to being over.
View Quote


Thank you.
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 11:03:29 AM EDT
[#10]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By UtahShotgunner:


Understood by most who are paying attention.

A few cheerleaders and a few detractors.

The loudest 'voices' get the most attention.  

THANK YOU for a calm voice!

Been waiting 29 years.  I'll calmly wait a few more.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By UtahShotgunner:
Originally Posted By wolfwood:
Friends I filed the Hawaii carry case over 4 years ago.  I have two Ninth Circuit appeals behind that.  I lost the carry case at the district court. I won at the Ninth on the same day Peruta was decided. Hawaii and CA filed to have the respective cases heard en banc.  We are waiting for the en banc decision right now. Either way the en banc court rules the next step will be the Supreme Court.  Assuming I win it will be 6-7 years before a Hawaii carry law is enjoined.

The district court decisions in Hollis/Watson are just the beginning of what is going to be a multi year court proceeding.  Win or lose this is nowhere close to being over.


Understood by most who are paying attention.

A few cheerleaders and a few detractors.

The loudest 'voices' get the most attention.  

THANK YOU for a calm voice!

Been waiting 29 years.  I'll calmly wait a few more.

chess vs checkers
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 12:31:05 PM EDT
[#11]
Nolo...are you keeping a journal so that when you win you willl be able to sell the movoe rights and have an accurate film portrayal?
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 12:34:40 PM EDT
[#12]
This is not the end of either case.

This is equivalent to the end of the first inning of game one of the world series. We're a long way from winning or losing.
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 12:39:11 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
Nolo...are you keeping a journal so that when you win you willl be able to sell the movoe rights and have an accurate film portrayal?
View Quote





Link Posted: 8/9/2015 1:41:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By realhuman:


The truth hurts.  You get what you pay for. Internet chat room lawyer takes on ATF..................Outcome no surprise.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By realhuman:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.



Do you work for free?  How many hours do you think it took Nolo to put together the case, brief this issues, and prepare for oral argument?


The truth hurts.  You get what you pay for. Internet chat room lawyer takes on ATF..................Outcome no surprise.


Do you have any idea how this works? You don't get a case to the Supreme Court without bad judicial decisions and appeals.

How are things over at Subguns?
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 1:42:48 PM EDT
[#15]
Fuck the haters.

You're a hero Nolo. Keep up the fight.

Anyone got a donation link handy?
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 1:46:58 PM EDT
[#16]
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 1:54:00 PM EDT
[#17]
It's amazing at some opinions within our own firearms community let alone inside a less friendly courtroom.

Kudos to those trying to keep moving it forward.
The initial 1986 ban was an action for a non-problem. We need friends in high places to help pull when we push.

(Thx.  Mr. Nolo)
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 1:54:51 PM EDT
[#18]
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 2:10:11 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.

View Quote


Link Posted: 8/9/2015 2:18:27 PM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:

It's expanding to 3rd circuit Watson case and an undisclosed DC district court case, an Iowa case and something else. Heller accepting donations for Watson and Hollis.
View Quote


For clarification.

Are these cased related to, or similar to Watson & Hollis?
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 2:38:00 PM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:


It's expanding to 3rd circuit Watson case and an undisclosed DC district court case, an Iowa case and something else. Heller accepting donations for Watson and Hollis.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By medicmandan:
https://hellerfoundation.org/product/7480/


I thought you could select Hollis but I don't see that option anymore.


It's expanding to 3rd circuit Watson case and an undisclosed DC district court case, an Iowa case and something else. Heller accepting donations for Watson and Hollis.





Go get 'em!
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 2:40:24 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:


It's expanding to 3rd circuit Watson case and an undisclosed DC district court case, an Iowa case and something else. Heller accepting donations for Watson and Hollis.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By medicmandan:
https://hellerfoundation.org/product/7480/


I thought you could select Hollis but I don't see that option anymore.


It's expanding to 3rd circuit Watson case and an undisclosed DC district court case, an Iowa case and something else. Heller accepting donations for Watson and Hollis.


Interesting. . . I look forward to seeing things unfold and I wish there was more I could do to effectively advance these cases.
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 2:43:41 PM EDT
[#23]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brich2929:


View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By brich2929:
Originally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.





Not big enough.

Link Posted: 8/9/2015 2:58:26 PM EDT
[#24]
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 5:59:02 PM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Marlboroman79:
I WILL NOT COMPLY. ........


Im off to pay the little weird guy at the pawn shop $100 for my little U shaped "upper/lower gap tighten device" he made me.

The justice system has made a joke of the laws, why bother playing their skewed game, build on brothers. ......
View Quote



Uh... so you just admitted to having an illegal MG?
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 6:03:23 PM EDT
[#26]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pyotr_k:
Uh... so you just admitted to having an illegal MG?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pyotr_k:



Originally Posted By Marlboroman79:

I WILL NOT COMPLY. ........





Im off to pay the little weird guy at the pawn shop $100 for my little U shaped "upper/lower gap tighten device" he made me.



The justice system has made a joke of the laws, why bother playing their skewed game, build on brothers. ......







Uh... so you just admitted to having an illegal MG?
Let's be honest. That's the true meaning of "will not comply".

 
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 8:44:36 PM EDT
[#27]
I'm glad there was plans for different attacks and different angles
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 8:45:35 PM EDT
[#28]
Nolo when will we see info on those new cases
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 8:47:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Let's be honest. That's the true meaning of "will not comply".  
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By pyotr_k:
Originally Posted By Marlboroman79:
I WILL NOT COMPLY. ........


Im off to pay the little weird guy at the pawn shop $100 for my little U shaped "upper/lower gap tighten device" he made me.

The justice system has made a joke of the laws, why bother playing their skewed game, build on brothers. ......



Uh... so you just admitted to having an illegal MG?
Let's be honest. That's the true meaning of "will not comply".  

you sure he isn't sparticus?
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 9:31:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Let's be honest. That's the true meaning of "will not comply".  
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By pyotr_k:
Originally Posted By Marlboroman79:
I WILL NOT COMPLY. ........


Im off to pay the little weird guy at the pawn shop $100 for my little U shaped "upper/lower gap tighten device" he made me.

The justice system has made a joke of the laws, why bother playing their skewed game, build on brothers. ......



Uh... so you just admitted to having an illegal MG?
Let's be honest. That's the true meaning of "will not comply".  

Do what now?
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 10:13:07 PM EDT
[#31]
This is only the beginning.   Keep up the good work Nolo.
Link Posted: 8/9/2015 10:19:38 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Marlboroman79:
I WILL NOT COMPLY. ........


Im off to pay the little weird guy at the pawn shop $100 for my little U shaped "upper/lower gap tighten device" he made me.

The justice system has made a joke of the laws, why bother playing their skewed game, build on brothers. ......




View Quote


What an idiot.  

Dont have other people make it for you.

Dont tell people about it either.

And the ATF dont care what you call it.  They will still throw your dumbass in prision.
Link Posted: 8/10/2015 7:34:48 AM EDT
[#33]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
#45 Memorandum Opinion and Order

As we will appeal this decision, please refrain from making any derogatory comments about the Judge or opposing counsel.  There is no need for that here.
View Quote


Frankly, I'm not surprised.  The US government is working over time to block legitimate access.  The reality is this is what we get for asking nicely.
Link Posted: 8/10/2015 7:42:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: JIMBEAM] [#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
Nolo...are you keeping a journal so that when you win you willl be able to sell the movoe rights and have an accurate film portrayal?
View Quote



Who would play nolo? Mathew Mcconaughey? Adam Baldwin? James Woods? Vince Vaughn?
Link Posted: 8/10/2015 9:36:14 AM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:



Who would play nolo? Mathew Mcconaughey? Adam Baldwin? James Woods? Vince Vaughn?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
Nolo...are you keeping a journal so that when you win you willl be able to sell the movoe rights and have an accurate film portrayal?



Who would play nolo? Mathew Mcconaughey? Adam Baldwin? James Woods? Vince Vaughn?


Greg Grunberg, if he lost a few pounds, would be a good choice for Nolo.
Link Posted: 8/10/2015 9:51:13 AM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Undefined:


Greg Grunberg, if he lost a few pounds, would be a good choice for Nolo.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By JIMBEAM:
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
Nolo...are you keeping a journal so that when you win you willl be able to sell the movoe rights and have an accurate film portrayal?



Who would play nolo? Mathew Mcconaughey? Adam Baldwin? James Woods? Vince Vaughn?


Greg Grunberg, if he lost a few pounds, would be a good choice for Nolo.

I thought we already decided on Rick Gomez?
Link Posted: 8/11/2015 11:12:50 AM EDT
[#37]
In a FOIA case brought against the ATF by Historic Arms, LLC, Len Savage, and the FFL Defense Research Center, the ATF claims it is not an "agency" under FOIA, so it doesn't have to comply with FOIA reqeusts:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/274094380/Atf-Foia-Suit-Response

They REALLY don't want anyone else looking at their work, do they?  Sounds like someone like Sen. Grassley can have another field day with this one.

HT: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/08/david-codrea/atf-denies-being-an-agency-to-avoid-foia-compliance-requirements/
Link Posted: 8/11/2015 11:25:12 AM EDT
[#38]


Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By movingalong:

In a FOIA case brought against the ATF by Historic Arms, LLC, Len Savage, and the FFL Defense Research Center, the ATF claims it is not an "agency" under FOIA, so it doesn't have to comply with FOIA reqeusts:



https://www.scribd.com/doc/274094380/Atf-Foia-Suit-Response



They REALLY don't want anyone else looking at their work, do they? Sounds like someone like Sen. Grassley can have another field day with this one.



HT: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/08/david-codrea/atf-denies-being-an-agency-to-avoid-foia-compliance-requirements/
View Quote


Somehow, I find this argument unsurprising, lol.
Link Posted: 8/11/2015 11:28:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Harmonic_Distortion] [#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By movingalong:
In a FOIA case brought against the ATF by Historic Arms, LLC, Len Savage, and the FFL Defense Research Center, the ATF claims it is not an "agency" under FOIA, so it doesn't have to comply with FOIA reqeusts:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/274094380/Atf-Foia-Suit-Response

They REALLY don't want anyone else looking at their work, do they?  Sounds like someone like Sen. Grassley can have another field day with this one.

HT: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/08/david-codrea/atf-denies-being-an-agency-to-avoid-foia-compliance-requirements/
View Quote



I'm sorry but BATFE is a bunch of goddamn retards.
Link Posted: 8/11/2015 11:38:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: shinoi] [#40]
ETA
Link Posted: 8/11/2015 11:43:19 AM EDT
[#41]
Link Posted: 8/11/2015 11:48:15 AM EDT
[#42]
Just skimmed the Hollis ruling.

Total misunderstanding of Texas law.

The stuff about trusts seems like a twisting of words too.

Disappointing, but there's a long road ahead.
Link Posted: 8/11/2015 3:59:04 PM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By movingalong:
In a FOIA case brought against the ATF by Historic Arms, LLC, Len Savage, and the FFL Defense Research Center, the ATF claims it is not an "agency" under FOIA, so it doesn't have to comply with FOIA reqeusts:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/274094380/Atf-Foia-Suit-Response

They REALLY don't want anyone else looking at their work, do they?  Sounds like someone like Sen. Grassley can have another field day with this one.

HT: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/08/david-codrea/atf-denies-being-an-agency-to-avoid-foia-compliance-requirements/
View Quote


Only in their world can both a trust be a person and an agency be not an agency.

Contrast this to Orwell's 1984, where .gov exerted power through the control of language.

If there is hope, it lies with the proles.
Link Posted: 8/11/2015 6:49:48 PM EDT
[#44]
Sounds like a "Go Fund Me" to setup and operate an "inquest organization" is needed. Not sure how many people and signatures needed or even the right approach would be but we need a CIVILIAN organization that has been given the power to over rule Government "classified" protection to do no BS investigations into wrong doing. With the power to bring charges against Fed LE's themselves and the legal right to walk in without "search warrants" into FED facilities to change the ball game. Basically a group who carries out the FOIA request IN PERSON and then makes heads roll based on if there is any findings of wrong doing. We will need a LEGAL way to trump the stone walling that hopefully doesn't require the brute force of the 2A...

Im sure many of you know more about the "letter of the law" in regards to Constitutional Law than I do, but in all seriousness, how do we get something like this started. Enough with the griping, an actual no BS getting of the ball rolling?
Link Posted: 8/11/2015 7:05:47 PM EDT
[#45]
The government has shown that they will not obey the law over and over.



Dire times
Link Posted: 8/11/2015 7:07:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: kpel308] [#46]
Link Posted: 8/11/2015 7:15:52 PM EDT
[#47]

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By kpel308:





That's supposed to be the job of the Inspectors General.



ETA:  www.ignet.gov
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By kpel308:



Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:

Sounds like a "Go Fund Me" to setup and operate an "inquest organization" is needed. Not sure how many people and signatures needed or even the right approach would be but we need a CIVILIAN organization that has been given the power to over rule Government "classified" protection to do no BS investigations into wrong doing. With the power to bring charges against Fed LE's themselves and the legal right to walk in without "search warrants" into FED facilities to change the ball game. Basically a group who carries out the FOIA request IN PERSON and then makes heads roll based on if there is any findings of wrong doing. We will need a LEGAL way to trump the stone walling that hopefully doesn't require the brute force of the 2A...



Im sure many of you know more about the "letter of the law" in regards to Constitutional Law than I do, but in all seriousness, how do we get something like this started. Enough with the griping, an actual no BS getting of the ball rolling?


That's supposed to be the job of the Inspectors General.



ETA:  www.ignet.gov


Same group that just got neutered last week.



Dire days



 
Link Posted: 8/11/2015 7:18:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Link Posted: 8/11/2015 7:30:28 PM EDT
[#49]
Would asking for a little help from some pro-gun congresmen help with the FOIA request? As much as I hate Rubio, the jackass is pro-gun and I'll hand deliver anything I can to him.
Link Posted: 8/11/2015 8:02:46 PM EDT
[#50]
Page / 224
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! Win a FREE Membership!

Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!

You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top