User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 12:21:13 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
Originally Posted By gtfoxy:
Originally Posted By wolfwood:
I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck 15'er of the YEAR! (That's my welcome) You mentioned it, sort of, so I have to go OT & ask how much longer before the 99% Lower bomb gets dropped? 
The what now?????? Oh boy... the atf is not going to like this 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 12:22:49 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wolfwood:
I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck Thank you sir. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 12:27:20 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
If a trustee can't possess a post 86 MG then neither can other non-gov people such as an employee of a corporation like Colt or a Class 3 dealer with a demo letter. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By david05111:
Has the issue regarding actual physical possession of the guns been solved yet? Like the court might say a trust can manufacture, but it's irrelevant because a person can't possess it? I mean, I almost see that as the ultimate way out for the judge in the case. "Yes, you're right, but it's irrelevant." I'm pretty sure that isn't correct...something about agency law maybe and granted authority under the power of the government? I can't remember the actual verbiage, Point being, those companies act under the authority if the government, and thus so do their agents. That doesn't apply to a trust, which doesn't have that inherent authority. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 12:27:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By southerngunner: Oh boy... the atf is not going to like this Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By southerngunner: Originally Posted By TescoVee: Originally Posted By alphajaguars: Originally Posted By gtfoxy: Originally Posted By wolfwood: I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck 15'er of the YEAR! (That's my welcome) You mentioned it, sort of, so I have to go OT & ask how much longer before the 99% Lower bomb gets dropped? The what now?????? Oh boy... the atf is not going to like this  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 12:59:26 PM EDT
[#5]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 1:03:36 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By RyJones:
Originally Posted By medicmandan:
Hmm, does he have a two year membership now? yes Nolo, you might want to tell him about that so he can come back and change his avatar to something "Legalish" and update his bio. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 1:20:28 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wolfwood:
I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck Hell of a first post for a 15'er. 
I think I will let this guy post whatever he wants to here regarding these issues, and listen and learn. Thanks for chiming in. A government that can ban one gun can ban all guns in my opinion. |
|
|
|
SOM
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 1:29:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: boltcatch]
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
States cannot make laws that are contrary to the bill of rights. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By fargo007:
I don't understand how this would change STATE laws at all from a constitutional/legal perspective. States looking to their own constitutions are a completely different battlefield. The second amendment hasn't to my knowledge been incorporated as a whole. It would seem this would not have any top-down effect in that regard if the decision becomes about contemporary manufacturing and federally registering machine guns for non governmental use. Sure they can, though they're not nearly as successful at claiming you don't have standing to challenge them as the feds are. The extent to which Nolo can continue his work - and what results he can get - depends largely on how blatantly the government is willing to break the law. In any event, this thread is awesome. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 2:14:57 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By boltcatch:
Sure they can, though they're not nearly as successful at claiming you don't have standing to challenge them as the feds are. The extent to which Nolo can continue his work - and what results he can get - depends largely on how blatantly the government is willing to break the law. In any event, this thread is awesome. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By boltcatch:
Originally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By fargo007:
I don't understand how this would change STATE laws at all from a constitutional/legal perspective. States looking to their own constitutions are a completely different battlefield. The second amendment hasn't to my knowledge been incorporated as a whole. It would seem this would not have any top-down effect in that regard if the decision becomes about contemporary manufacturing and federally registering machine guns for non governmental use. Sure they can, though they're not nearly as successful at claiming you don't have standing to challenge them as the feds are. The extent to which Nolo can continue his work - and what results he can get - depends largely on how blatantly the government is willing to break the law. In any event, this thread is awesome. Given the current administration and the fact that even when they knowingly break the law they aren't likely to be punished, you should expect Nolo and Co to be busy for a while. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 2:28:08 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111: I'm pretty sure that isn't correct...something about agency law maybe and granted authority under the power of the government? I can't remember the actual verbiage, Point being, those companies act under the authority if the government, and thus so do their agents. That doesn't apply to a trust, which doesn't have that inherent authority. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111: Originally Posted By TescoVee: Originally Posted By david05111: Has the issue regarding actual physical possession of the guns been solved yet? Like the court might say a trust can manufacture, but it's irrelevant because a person can't possess it? I mean, I almost see that as the ultimate way out for the judge in the case. "Yes, you're right, but it's irrelevant." I'm pretty sure that isn't correct...something about agency law maybe and granted authority under the power of the government? I can't remember the actual verbiage, Point being, those companies act under the authority if the government, and thus so do their agents. That doesn't apply to a trust, which doesn't have that inherent authority. (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. If the stamp is approved for a trust by the gov then that is an authorization by the US Government just like they approve MG's for dealers and manufacturers through licensing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 3:41:54 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
Originally Posted By gtfoxy:
Originally Posted By wolfwood:
I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck 15'er of the YEAR! (That's my welcome) You mentioned it, sort of, so I have to go OT & ask how much longer before the 99% Lower bomb gets dropped?
The what now?????? Shut up and take my money!!! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 4:50:34 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By southerngunner:
Oh boy... the atf is not going to like this
I wonder about the end user... how many are going to get their doors kicked in? |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 4:53:19 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
(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. If the stamp is approved for a trust by the gov then that is an authorization by the US Government just like they approve MG's for dealers and manufacturers through licensing. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By david05111:
Originally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By david05111:
Has the issue regarding actual physical possession of the guns been solved yet? Like the court might say a trust can manufacture, but it's irrelevant because a person can't possess it? I mean, I almost see that as the ultimate way out for the judge in the case. "Yes, you're right, but it's irrelevant." I'm pretty sure that isn't correct...something about agency law maybe and granted authority under the power of the government? I can't remember the actual verbiage, Point being, those companies act under the authority if the government, and thus so do their agents. That doesn't apply to a trust, which doesn't have that inherent authority. (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. If the stamp is approved for a trust by the gov then that is an authorization by the US Government just like they approve MG's for dealers and manufacturers through licensing. I just have my serious doubts that argument is going to hold up in court when the court considers the congressional intent of Hughes. Has a stamp ever been interpreted by a court as authorization as you suggest? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 4:56:50 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jhota:
I wonder about the end user... how many are going to get their doors kicked in? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jhota:
Originally Posted By southerngunner:
Oh boy... the atf is not going to like this
I wonder about the end user... how many are going to get their doors kicked in? Ohh... yeah I didn't think about that |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 5:08:53 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111: I just have my serious doubts that argument is going to hold up in court when the court considers the congressional intent of Hughes. Has a stamp ever been interpreted by a court as authorization as you suggest? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 5:18:10 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wolfwood:
I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck Welcome! 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 5:25:50 PM EDT
[#17]
this keeps getting more interesting every day
|
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 5:38:25 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Welcome! Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By wolfwood:
I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck Welcome! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 5:42:25 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wolfwood:
I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck Welcome 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 6:29:53 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wolfwood:
I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck Welcome to the site, glad to have you here. Thanks for all your assistance and hope you and Nolo succeed with this case. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 6:40:24 PM EDT
[#21]
Thank you very much for the membership guys. I don't plan on posting on this case to much as I don't want to conflict with Nolo's plans on spreading information. However I appreciate the membership and I do plan on reading everyone's posts regularly.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 6:41:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: TescoVee]
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wolfwood: Thank you very much for the membership guys. I don't plan on posting on this case to much as I don't want to conflict with Nolo's plans on spreading information. However I appreciate the membership and I do plan on reading everyone's posts regularly.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 7:49:37 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111:
I just have my serious doubts that argument is going to hold up in court when the court considers the congressional intent of Hughes. Has a stamp ever been interpreted by a court as authorization as you suggest? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111:
Originally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By david05111:
Originally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By david05111:
Has the issue regarding actual physical possession of the guns been solved yet? Like the court might say a trust can manufacture, but it's irrelevant because a person can't possess it? I mean, I almost see that as the ultimate way out for the judge in the case. "Yes, you're right, but it's irrelevant." I'm pretty sure that isn't correct...something about agency law maybe and granted authority under the power of the government? I can't remember the actual verbiage, Point being, those companies act under the authority if the government, and thus so do their agents. That doesn't apply to a trust, which doesn't have that inherent authority. (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. If the stamp is approved for a trust by the gov then that is an authorization by the US Government just like they approve MG's for dealers and manufacturers through licensing. I just have my serious doubts that argument is going to hold up in court when the court considers the congressional intent of Hughes. Has a stamp ever been interpreted by a court as authorization as you suggest? Yeah, I don't think that's what those words mean in that context. The stamp is just proof of the NFA tax having been paid. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 8:17:19 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Just post "SOON" a lot. That's what Nolo does. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By wolfwood:
Thank you very much for the membership guys. I don't plan on posting on this case to much as I don't want to conflict with Nolo's plans on spreading information. However I appreciate the membership and I do plan on reading everyone's posts regularly. I'll post about it. Sooooooon........ |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 8:27:43 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alphajaguars: The what now?????? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alphajaguars: Originally Posted By gtfoxy: Originally Posted By wolfwood: I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck 15'er of the YEAR! (That's my welcome) You mentioned it, sort of, so I have to go OT & ask how much longer before the 99% Lower bomb gets dropped? The what now?????? Not to stray further of topic, but it stems from the ATF circular on 80% receivers, and Ares classic response to B Todd. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 8:44:34 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ShooterPatriot: Not to stray further of topic, but it stems from the ATF circular on 80% receivers, and Ares classic response to B Todd. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B99vEBRSpVxralZkNnlHOUFpeVk/view Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ShooterPatriot: Originally Posted By alphajaguars: Originally Posted By gtfoxy: Originally Posted By wolfwood: I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck 15'er of the YEAR! (That's my welcome) You mentioned it, sort of, so I have to go OT & ask how much longer before the 99% Lower bomb gets dropped? The what now?????? Not to stray further of topic, but it stems from the ATF circular on 80% receivers, and Ares classic response to B Todd. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B99vEBRSpVxralZkNnlHOUFpeVk/view |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 8:53:23 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ShooterPatriot: Not to stray further of topic, but it stems from the ATF circular on 80% receivers, and Ares classic response to B Todd. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B99vEBRSpVxralZkNnlHOUFpeVk/view Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ShooterPatriot: Originally Posted By alphajaguars: Originally Posted By gtfoxy: Originally Posted By wolfwood: I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck 15'er of the YEAR! (That's my welcome) You mentioned it, sort of, so I have to go OT & ask how much longer before the 99% Lower bomb gets dropped? The what now?????? Not to stray further of topic, but it stems from the ATF circular on 80% receivers, and Ares classic response to B Todd. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B99vEBRSpVxralZkNnlHOUFpeVk/view  |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2015 9:50:21 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic:
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic:
Originally Posted By ShooterPatriot:
Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
Originally Posted By gtfoxy:
Originally Posted By wolfwood:
I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck 15'er of the YEAR! (That's my welcome) You mentioned it, sort of, so I have to go OT & ask how much longer before the 99% Lower bomb gets dropped?
The what now?????? Not to stray further of topic, but it stems from the ATF circular on 80% receivers, and Ares classic response to B Todd. https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B99vEBRSpVxralZkNnlHOUFpeVk/view
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 1:35:59 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tazaroo: You realize that once here you can never leave.  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tazaroo: Originally Posted By wolfwood: I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck You realize that once here you can never leave. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 3:12:18 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
I'll post about it. Sooooooon........ Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By wolfwood:
Thank you very much for the membership guys. I don't plan on posting on this case to much as I don't want to conflict with Nolo's plans on spreading information. However I appreciate the membership and I do plan on reading everyone's posts regularly. I'll post about it. Sooooooon........ So when will you tell us the next update? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 8:33:31 AM EDT
[#31]
welcome and thank you alan. you and nolo rock. now go tear up some atf ass
|
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 9:03:19 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
I'll post about it. Sooooooon........ Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By wolfwood:
Thank you very much for the membership guys. I don't plan on posting on this case to much as I don't want to conflict with Nolo's plans on spreading information. However I appreciate the membership and I do plan on reading everyone's posts regularly. I'll post about it. Sooooooon........ soon \'sün, especially New England 'su?n adverb : at a time that is not long from now : in a short time after something happens : in a quick way |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 9:06:20 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
But you can check out any time you like Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Diesel_Maximus_2992:
Originally Posted By Tazaroo:
Originally Posted By wolfwood:
I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience. I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit. I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters. I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues. I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys. -Alan Beck You realize that once here you can never leave. Welcome to the Hotel Arfcomfornia...... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 9:18:23 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
We know of at least one post 86 MG the ATF has let someone keep. That's proof the gov has given authorization in the past but I don't believe that's ever been decided upon by a court. The point wouldn't matter anymore if the court tosses all of 922(o) out the window. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By david05111:
I just have my serious doubts that argument is going to hold up in court when the court considers the congressional intent of Hughes. Has a stamp ever been interpreted by a court as authorization as you suggest? We know of a lot more than one. There are a bunch of M60s out there that were "paper" guns, and are legally possessed by their owners but barred from transfer. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 9:26:33 AM EDT
[#35]
Good (Monday) Morning everyone!
Nolo, I'm thrilled to see that the Heller Foundation is on board. I just spammed all my Facebook groups with the link and will be putting the word out in other ways. I want to extend another heartfelt "thank you" to everyone patiently following this case and more so to the ones contributing to the legal fund. We're slowly moving ahead, but the momentum is on our side.
Now if I can just recover from my early St. Patrick's Day Celebration... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 9:29:00 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SimonPhoto:
We know of a lot more than one. There are a bunch of M60s out there that were "paper" guns, and are legally possessed by their owners but barred from transfer. Define "paper guns" please. Are you saying they Form 1'ed something that didn't exist until after '86? Or we're the forms not even filed until after '86? I've heard this term thrown around, but never explicitly defined. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 9:43:37 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51:
Define "paper guns" please. Are you saying they Form 1'ed something that didn't exist until after '86? Or we're the forms not even filed until after '86? I've heard this term thrown around, but never explicitly defined. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51:
Originally Posted By SimonPhoto:
We know of a lot more than one. There are a bunch of M60s out there that were "paper" guns, and are legally possessed by their owners but barred from transfer. Define "paper guns" please. Are you saying they Form 1'ed something that didn't exist until after '86? Or we're the forms not even filed until after '86? I've heard this term thrown around, but never explicitly defined. Maybe he's referring to the ones Nolo mentioned in his brief, or the ones where an SOT turned a MAC-10 into an M60 by grafting the SNs onto different receivers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 9:44:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: CleverNickname]
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51:
Define "paper guns" please. Are you saying they Form 1'ed something that didn't exist until after '86? Or we're the forms not even filed until after '86? I've heard this term thrown around, but never explicitly defined. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51:
Originally Posted By SimonPhoto:
We know of a lot more than one. There are a bunch of M60s out there that were "paper" guns, and are legally possessed by their owners but barred from transfer. Define "paper guns" please. Are you saying they Form 1'ed something that didn't exist until after '86? Or we're the forms not even filed until after '86? I've heard this term thrown around, but never explicitly defined. The form 2's were filed but the guns didn't actually exist before May 19, 1986. Manufacturers are supposed to make the gun then file the form 2, the opposite of a form 1. They were made after May 19, transferred to a non-SOT, and then after an audit the ATF realized the guns were actually post-samples. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 10:00:37 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mean_sartin:
Maybe he's referring to the ones Nolo mentioned in his brief, or the ones where an SOT turned a MAC-10 into an M60 by grafting the SNs onto different receivers. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By orpheus762x51:
Originally Posted By SimonPhoto:
We know of a lot more than one. There are a bunch of M60s out there that were "paper" guns, and are legally possessed by their owners but barred from transfer. Define "paper guns" please. Are you saying they Form 1'ed something that didn't exist until after '86? Or we're the forms not even filed until after '86? I've heard this term thrown around, but never explicitly defined. Maybe he's referring to the ones Nolo mentioned in his brief, or the ones where an SOT turned a MAC-10 into an M60 by grafting the SNs onto different receivers. Pretty sure he's referring to the Stemple guns that the ATF allowed to be transferred post-86 from Nolo's brief. The Mac-10 to M60 conversion was an interesting trick. Kinda surprised the ATF even caught on to it. At one point(pre-Hollis) I considered sending in a stack of Form1s SBRs and seeing if I could slip a MG in there.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 10:09:55 AM EDT
[#40]
gotcha
|
|
|
|
GA, USA
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 11:08:28 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By southerngunner:
Ohh... yeah I didn't think about that Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By southerngunner:
Originally Posted By jhota:
Originally Posted By southerngunner:
Oh boy... the atf is not going to like this
I wonder about the end user... how many are going to get their doors kicked in? Ohh... yeah I didn't think about that Just dont ship them to your house. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 11:32:05 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111:
when the court considers the congressional intent of Hughes. What is the "Congressional intent of Hughes"? An amendment dropped onto the floor with no debate or discussion, and that was defeated yet deemed to have passed by the presiding officer? You really think the antis want to open the can of worms of the "intent" of the Hughes amendment? |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 11:55:18 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762:
What is the "Congressional intent of Hughes"? An amendment dropped onto the floor with no debate or discussion, and that was defeated yet deemed to have passed by the presiding officer? You really think the antis want to open the can of worms of the "intent" of the Hughes amendment? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By david05111:
when the court considers the congressional intent of Hughes. What is the "Congressional intent of Hughes"? An amendment dropped onto the floor with no debate or discussion, and that was defeated yet deemed to have passed by the presiding officer? You really think the antis want to open the can of worms of the "intent" of the Hughes amendment? Are you aware that in the Heller decision the majority opinion purports to determine the thoughts of the majority of Americans who lived at the time the Second Amendment was proposed and ratified? When justices have psychic powers like that, determining the intent of the members of Congress in 1986 is child's play ... |
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 12:14:42 PM EDT
[#44]
Hasn't it come from the gubbament already that the intent and the nature of enforcement thereto was to curtail or provide a chilling effect on ownership?
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 12:17:01 PM EDT
[Last Edit: david05111]
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762:
What is the "Congressional intent of Hughes"? An amendment dropped onto the floor with no debate or discussion, and that was defeated yet deemed to have passed by the presiding officer? You really think the antis want to open the can of worms of the "intent" of the Hughes amendment? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By david05111:
when the court considers the congressional intent of Hughes. What is the "Congressional intent of Hughes"? An amendment dropped onto the floor with no debate or discussion, and that was defeated yet deemed to have passed by the presiding officer? You really think the antis want to open the can of worms of the "intent" of the Hughes amendment? Intent of the Hughes amendment seems pretty clear to me. They didn't want the average citizen possessing a machine gun made after May 19, 1986. It doesn't matter if there was a mistake in the language that allowed a work-around via trusts. They allowed a specific exemption to manufacturers, LEO, and mil (and those granted authority by the govt) and that's it. Anyone with a brain who reads the amendment can understand what they were going for. And so can a court, This case, at its most basic level, asks a court to uphold what is essentially a typographical error in the construction of the statutes. If courts still adhered to strict interpretation of the written law, we'd be in good shape. But they don't. And I find it difficult I believe that a judge is going to overlook the intent of the legislature when assessing that typographical error/omission. So you've got that problem firstly. And then if you can get past that, you have to get past the possession argument (people can't possess even though the trust can manufacture). Both those are going to be tough to win. Best argument on the table for me is for all of Hughes to be struck down as an outright ban on an entire class of weapons. Nolo's work product is great. And he and his team have raised some compelling arguments and issues, particularly the evidence of post 86 guns in the hands of civilians. But there are still some serious hurdles to victory here. Hopefully this new partnership will result in more awareness and funding of the cases for the months/years ahead. But all is not sunshine and rainbows. There's a whole lot of high-fiving and back-slapping in here lately, as though the governemnt has given up, etc. and that we've already won. Trust me, it's not even close to being over and just because you think you have a slam dunk case doesn't mean a court will think that. Keep donating and keep spreading the word. And don't get too over-confident. |
|
|
NE, USA
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 12:19:27 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By billth777:
Just dont ship them to your house. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By billth777:
Originally Posted By southerngunner:
Originally Posted By jhota:
Originally Posted By southerngunner:
Oh boy... the atf is not going to like this
I wonder about the end user... how many are going to get their doors kicked in? Ohh... yeah I didn't think about that Just dont ship them to your house. Or pay for them with your credit card! |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 12:30:18 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111:
Intent of the Hughes amendment seems pretty clear to me. They didn't want the average citizen possessing a machine gun made after May 19, 1986. It doesn't matter if there was a mistake in the language that allowed a work-around via trusts. They allowed a specific exemption to manufacturers, LEO, and mil (and those granted authority by the govt) and that's it. Anyone with a brain who reads the amendment can understand what they were going for. And so can a court, This case, at its most basic level, asks a court to uphold what is essentially a typographical error in the construction of the statutes. If courts still adhered to strict interpretation of the written law, we'd be in good shape. But they don't. And I find it difficult I believe that a judge is going to overlook the intent of the legislature when assessing that typographical error/omission. So you've got that problem firstly. And then if you can get past that, you have to get past the possession argument (people can't possess even though the trust can manufacture). Both those are going to be tough to win. Best argument on the table for me is for all of Hughes to be struck down as an outright ban on an entire class of weapons. Nolo's work product is great. And he and his team have raised some compelling arguments and issues, particularly the evidence of post 86 guns in the hands of civilians. But there are still some serious hurdles to victory here. Hopefully this new partnership will result in more awareness and funding of the cases for the months/years ahead. But all is not sunshine and rainbows. There's a whole lot of high-fiving and back-slapping in here lately, as though the governemnt has given up, etc. and that we've already won. Trust me, it's not even close to being over and just because you think you have a slam dunk case doesn't mean a court will think that. Keep donating and keep spreading the word. And don't get too over-confident. Quoting this so everyone will read it again, instead of posting yet another image macro. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 12:32:41 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111:
Intent of the Hughes amendment seems pretty clear to me. They didn't want the average citizen possessing a machine gun made after May 19, 1986. It doesn't matter if there was a mistake in the language that allowed a work-around via trusts. They allowed a specific exemption to manufacturers, LEO, and mil (and those granted authority by the govt) and that's it. Anyone with a brain who reads the amendment can understand what they were going for. And so can a court, This case, at its most basic level, asks a court to uphold what is essentially a typographical error in the construction of the statutes. If courts still adhered to strict interpretation of the written law, we'd be in good shape. But they don't. And I find it difficult I believe that a judge is going to overlook the intent of the legislature when assessing that typographical error/omission. So you've got that problem firstly. And then if you can get past that, you have to get past the possession argument (people can't possess even though the trust can manufacture). Both those are going to be tough to win. Best argument on the table for me is for all of Hughes to be struck down as an outright ban on an entire class of weapons. Nolo's work product is great. And he and his team have raised some compelling arguments and issues, particularly the evidence of post 86 guns in the hands of civilians. But there are still some serious hurdles to victory here. Hopefully this new partnership will result in more awareness and funding of the cases for the months/years ahead. But all is not sunshine and rainbows. There's a whole lot of high-fiving and back-slapping in here lately, as though the governemnt has given up, etc. and that we've already won. Trust me, it's not even close to being over and just because you think you have a slam dunk case doesn't mean a court will think that. Keep donating and keep spreading the word. And don't get too over-confident. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111:
Originally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By david05111:
when the court considers the congressional intent of Hughes. What is the "Congressional intent of Hughes"? An amendment dropped onto the floor with no debate or discussion, and that was defeated yet deemed to have passed by the presiding officer? You really think the antis want to open the can of worms of the "intent" of the Hughes amendment? Intent of the Hughes amendment seems pretty clear to me. They didn't want the average citizen possessing a machine gun made after May 19, 1986. It doesn't matter if there was a mistake in the language that allowed a work-around via trusts. They allowed a specific exemption to manufacturers, LEO, and mil (and those granted authority by the govt) and that's it. Anyone with a brain who reads the amendment can understand what they were going for. And so can a court, This case, at its most basic level, asks a court to uphold what is essentially a typographical error in the construction of the statutes. If courts still adhered to strict interpretation of the written law, we'd be in good shape. But they don't. And I find it difficult I believe that a judge is going to overlook the intent of the legislature when assessing that typographical error/omission. So you've got that problem firstly. And then if you can get past that, you have to get past the possession argument (people can't possess even though the trust can manufacture). Both those are going to be tough to win. Best argument on the table for me is for all of Hughes to be struck down as an outright ban on an entire class of weapons. Nolo's work product is great. And he and his team have raised some compelling arguments and issues, particularly the evidence of post 86 guns in the hands of civilians. But there are still some serious hurdles to victory here. Hopefully this new partnership will result in more awareness and funding of the cases for the months/years ahead. But all is not sunshine and rainbows. There's a whole lot of high-fiving and back-slapping in here lately, as though the governemnt has given up, etc. and that we've already won. Trust me, it's not even close to being over and just because you think you have a slam dunk case doesn't mean a court will think that. Keep donating and keep spreading the word. And don't get too over-confident. While trusts are a part of the case, the main part of this case is that bearable arms are protected by the Second Amendment, and that an M16 is a bearable arm. Period. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 12:36:42 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111:
Intent of the Hughes amendment seems pretty clear to me. They didn't want the average citizen possessing a machine gun made after May 19, 1986. It doesn't matter if there was a mistake in the language that allowed a work-around via trusts. They allowed a specific exemption to manufacturers, LEO, and mil (and those granted authority by the govt) and that's it. Anyone with a brain who reads the amendment can understand what they were going for. And so can a court, This case, at its most basic level, asks a court to uphold what is essentially a typographical error in the construction of the statutes. If courts still adhered to strict interpretation of the written law, we'd be in good shape. But they don't. And I find it difficult I believe that a judge is going to overlook the intent of the legislature when assessing that typographical error/omission. So you've got that problem firstly. And then if you can get past that, you have to get past the possession argument (people can't possess even though the trust can manufacture). Both those are going to be tough to win. Best argument on the table for me is for all of Hughes to be struck down as an outright ban on an entire class of weapons. Nolo's work product is great. And he and his team have raised some compelling arguments and issues, particularly the evidence of post 86 guns in the hands of civilians. But there are still some serious hurdles to victory here. Hopefully this new partnership will result in more awareness and funding of the cases for the months/years ahead. But all is not sunshine and rainbows. There's a whole lot of high-fiving and back-slapping in here lately, as though the governemnt has given up, etc. and that we've already won. Trust me, it's not even close to being over and just because you think you have a slam dunk case doesn't mean a court will think that. Keep donating and keep spreading the word. And don't get too over-confident. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By david05111:
Originally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By david05111:
when the court considers the congressional intent of Hughes. What is the "Congressional intent of Hughes"? An amendment dropped onto the floor with no debate or discussion, and that was defeated yet deemed to have passed by the presiding officer? You really think the antis want to open the can of worms of the "intent" of the Hughes amendment? Intent of the Hughes amendment seems pretty clear to me. They didn't want the average citizen possessing a machine gun made after May 19, 1986. It doesn't matter if there was a mistake in the language that allowed a work-around via trusts. They allowed a specific exemption to manufacturers, LEO, and mil (and those granted authority by the govt) and that's it. Anyone with a brain who reads the amendment can understand what they were going for. And so can a court, This case, at its most basic level, asks a court to uphold what is essentially a typographical error in the construction of the statutes. If courts still adhered to strict interpretation of the written law, we'd be in good shape. But they don't. And I find it difficult I believe that a judge is going to overlook the intent of the legislature when assessing that typographical error/omission. So you've got that problem firstly. And then if you can get past that, you have to get past the possession argument (people can't possess even though the trust can manufacture). Both those are going to be tough to win. Best argument on the table for me is for all of Hughes to be struck down as an outright ban on an entire class of weapons. Nolo's work product is great. And he and his team have raised some compelling arguments and issues, particularly the evidence of post 86 guns in the hands of civilians. But there are still some serious hurdles to victory here. Hopefully this new partnership will result in more awareness and funding of the cases for the months/years ahead. But all is not sunshine and rainbows. There's a whole lot of high-fiving and back-slapping in here lately, as though the governemnt has given up, etc. and that we've already won. Trust me, it's not even close to being over and just because you think you have a slam dunk case doesn't mean a court will think that. Keep donating and keep spreading the word. And don't get too over-confident. Reference US v. Leary... We have precedence on that alone to kill the Hughes Amendment. I have faith that Alan and Nolo will far exceed that. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/16/2015 12:51:46 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
While trusts are a part of the case, the main part of this case is that bearable arms are protected by the Second Amendment, and that an M16 is a bearable arm. Period. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By david05111:
Originally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By david05111:
when the court considers the congressional intent of Hughes. What is the "Congressional intent of Hughes"? An amendment dropped onto the floor with no debate or discussion, and that was defeated yet deemed to have passed by the presiding officer? You really think the antis want to open the can of worms of the "intent" of the Hughes amendment? Intent of the Hughes amendment seems pretty clear to me. They didn't want the average citizen possessing a machine gun made after May 19, 1986. It doesn't matter if there was a mistake in the language that allowed a work-around via trusts. They allowed a specific exemption to manufacturers, LEO, and mil (and those granted authority by the govt) and that's it. Anyone with a brain who reads the amendment can understand what they were going for. And so can a court, This case, at its most basic level, asks a court to uphold what is essentially a typographical error in the construction of the statutes. If courts still adhered to strict interpretation of the written law, we'd be in good shape. But they don't. And I find it difficult I believe that a judge is going to overlook the intent of the legislature when assessing that typographical error/omission. So you've got that problem firstly. And then if you can get past that, you have to get past the possession argument (people can't possess even though the trust can manufacture). Both those are going to be tough to win. Best argument on the table for me is for all of Hughes to be struck down as an outright ban on an entire class of weapons. Nolo's work product is great. And he and his team have raised some compelling arguments and issues, particularly the evidence of post 86 guns in the hands of civilians. But there are still some serious hurdles to victory here. Hopefully this new partnership will result in more awareness and funding of the cases for the months/years ahead. But all is not sunshine and rainbows. There's a whole lot of high-fiving and back-slapping in here lately, as though the governemnt has given up, etc. and that we've already won. Trust me, it's not even close to being over and just because you think you have a slam dunk case doesn't mean a court will think that. Keep donating and keep spreading the word. And don't get too over-confident. While trusts are a part of the case, the main part of this case is that bearable arms are protected by the Second Amendment, and that an M16 is a bearable arm. Period. This was my thought on the trust thing and geting the approved form 1 then having it stolen back just made it easier to open the door for the law suit to go after the ATF on MGs and the current "ban" on them. |
|
|
|
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.
