User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
NV, USA
|
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 3:31:40 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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.  Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 9:31:40 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 10:03:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Banditman]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Thank you for all you have done. This is very sincere. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 1:26:26 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Texas dismissed Hollis case on lack of standing and some other grounds. Will file opinion shortly. 5th circuit here we come! Set phasers to SOON. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 9:30:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: mean_sartin]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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? Quote HistoryOriginally 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. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 10:47:02 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Thank you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 11:03:29 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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 |
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 12:39:11 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 1:41:13 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By realhuman:
The truth hurts. You get what you pay for. Internet chat room lawyer takes on ATF..................Outcome no surprise. Quote HistoryOriginally 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? |
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 1:46:58 PM EDT
[#16]
https://hellerfoundation.org/product/7480/
I thought you could select Hollis but I don't see that option anymore. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
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) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 1:54:51 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 2:10:11 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases! You did however secure your personal income. Isnt that the most important thing. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 2:18:27 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. For clarification. Are these cased related to, or similar to Watson & Hollis? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 2:38:00 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 2:40:24 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 2:43:41 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By brich2929:
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 2:58:26 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner:
For clarification. Are these cased related to, or similar to Watson & Hollis? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By UtahShotgunner:
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. For clarification. Are these cased related to, or similar to Watson & Hollis? DC case is much different. Iowa is NFA related but not MG. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 5:59:02 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 6:03:23 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pyotr_k: Uh... so you just admitted to having an illegal MG? Quote HistoryOriginally 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? |
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 8:44:36 PM EDT
[#27]
I'm glad there was plans for different attacks and different angles
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 8:45:35 PM EDT
[#28]
Nolo when will we see info on those new cases
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 8:47:25 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Let's be honest. That's the true meaning of "will not comply". Quote HistoryOriginally 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? you sure he isn't sparticus? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 9:31:10 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Let's be honest. That's the true meaning of "will not comply". Quote HistoryOriginally 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? Do what now? |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 10:13:07 PM EDT
[#31]
This is only the beginning. Keep up the good work Nolo.
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 8/9/2015 10:19:38 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. ...... 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. |
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 7:34:48 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 7:42:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: JIMBEAM]
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 9:36:14 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JIMBEAM:
Who would play nolo? Mathew Mcconaughey? Adam Baldwin? James Woods? Vince Vaughn? Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/10/2015 9:51:13 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Greg Grunberg, if he lost a few pounds, would be a good choice for Nolo. Quote HistoryOriginally 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? |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
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/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 11:25:12 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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/ Somehow, I find this argument unsurprising, lol. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 11:28:41 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Harmonic_Distortion]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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/
I'm sorry but BATFE is a bunch of goddamn retards. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 11:38:29 AM EDT
[Last Edit: shinoi]
[#40]
ETA
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 11:43:19 AM EDT
[#41]
|
|
|
|
OK, USA
|
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 3:59:04 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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/ 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. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
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? |
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 7:07:15 PM EDT
[Last Edit: kpel308]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 7:15:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kpel308: That's supposed to be the job of the Inspectors General. ETA: www.ignet.gov Quote HistoryOriginally 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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 7:18:32 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Banditman:
Same group that just got neutered last week. Dire days Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Banditman:
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 F*@#.
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2015 8:02:46 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cardboardkiller:
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. Why not just ask Oversight to follow up on their emails? I mean, they already have all the pleadings and FOIAs. If they wanted to do something, they would have already. |
|
|
|
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.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
