User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:28:25 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee: Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee: SNIP I cant remember his name but read on here that some guy with a with a rifle that came from the factory with full auto lpk sans the autosear had a double at the range. The ATF jumped on him and got a conviction for an unregistered MG through some shenanigans. Olofson. This is getting pretty off topic. If you want to read about Olofson and what has been considered a machinegun here is a good thread I started a month or two ago. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1712220_.html&page=1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:29:10 PM EST
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762:
If MGs are a right, there won't be any "states that aren't MG friendly" anymore. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By orpheus762x51:
traveling over state lines/to states that aren't MG friendly If MGs are a right, there won't be any "states that aren't MG friendly" anymore. If you think they'll go quietly, even after a SCOTUS ruling, you are mistaken. If Nolo wins, there will likely be a decades-long fight to unravel the derp-tastic anti-MG laws in states like New York, California, Illinois, Connecticut, and the like. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:29:50 PM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51: I'm familiar with that case. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51: Originally Posted By Top_Secret: Originally Posted By TescoVee: I cant remember his name but read on here that some guy with a with a rifle that came from the factory with full auto lpk sans the autosear had a double doubled at the range. The ATF jumped on him and got a conviction for an unregistered MG through some shenanigans. That was Olofson.  I'm familiar with that case. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:30:51 PM EST
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost: Olofson. This is getting pretty off topic. If you want to read about Olofson and what has been considered a machinegun here is a good thread I started a month or two ago. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1712220_.html&page=1 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost: Originally Posted By TescoVee: SNIP I cant remember his name but read on here that some guy with a with a rifle that came from the factory with full auto lpk sans the autosear had a double at the range. The ATF jumped on him and got a conviction for an unregistered MG through some shenanigans. Olofson. This is getting pretty off topic. If you want to read about Olofson and what has been considered a machinegun here is a good thread I started a month or two ago. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1712220_.html&page=1 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:40:15 PM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Fourays2:
yup, mac10s and stens are going to be $350, M16s will be $700 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Fourays2:
Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Subguns deletes a post that is not inflammatory in the least. I posted: "what would it take for you to believe? A national organization stepping in?" And they deleted it.  NOLO, im guessing they are loosing more sleep over this than the ATF? "Do I sell off now and risk having to purchase back at higher than already massively inflated prices, or do I keep and HOPE nothing changes." These guys have serious money invested in items that may drop value by orders of magnitude overnight, to the point of becoming nearly worthless. Who is going to buy a beat up POS M-16 from the 80's when they can place an order for a selectfire SCAR/LMT/COLT thats brand new? I have tried to spread the word about this all over the web, its very difficult! THIS THREAD and its contents are the BEST KEPT SECRET SINCE HILLARY'S EMAILS!! [ img]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_smartass.gif[/url] yup, mac10s and stens are going to be $350, M16s will be $700 I think it... yep... It moved... 
|
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:43:24 PM EST
[#6]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:44:55 PM EST
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:46:27 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. 2nd Amendment was incorporated by McDonald. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 2:47:24 PM EST
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
States cannot make laws that are contrary to the bill of rights. And yet we have NY, CT, CA, IL, etc. I agree with you, I'm just pointing out that they don't give a shit about the BoR. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 3:02:11 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
I posted a new examiner article. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By ARDestructo:
So far the Examiner article has been posted what, 3 times? Four? I posted a new examiner article. Yes you did! 
“I was a bit disappointed reading the sur-sur-reply,” attorney for the plaintiff Stephen Stamboulieh told Gun Rights Examiner. “Apparently the government thinks its case is very strong, even in light of a longer standing portion of the Gun Control Act being struck down a few weeks ago. Wouldn't want to hot link it!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 3:23:14 PM EST
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51:
And yet we have NY, CT, CA, IL, etc. I agree with you, I'm just pointing out that they don't give a shit about the BoR. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51:
Originally Posted By TescoVee:
States cannot make laws that are contrary to the bill of rights. And yet we have NY, CT, CA, IL, etc. I agree with you, I'm just pointing out that they don't give a shit about the BoR. I believe all unfriendly MG state laws would fall if it's declared a right. I still don't understand how state laws can be stricter or lighter than federal laws. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 3:23:34 PM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
2nd Amendment was incorporated by McDonald. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
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. 2nd Amendment was incorporated by McDonald. yep, look up incorporation doctrine |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 3:25:26 PM EST
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wmjlar15:
I believe all unfriendly MG state laws would fall if it's declared a right. I still don't understand how state laws can be stricter or lighter than federal laws. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By wmjlar15:
Originally Posted By orpheus762x51:
Originally Posted By TescoVee:
States cannot make laws that are contrary to the bill of rights. And yet we have NY, CT, CA, IL, etc. I agree with you, I'm just pointing out that they don't give a shit about the BoR. I believe all unfriendly MG state laws would fall if it's declared a right. I still don't understand how state laws can be stricter or lighter than federal laws. there's a great deal of potential grey area of outcomes of these cases between abject failure and a s.court dicta stating machine guns are "a right" |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:11:51 PM EST
[Last Edit: pyotr_k]
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Fourays2:
yup, mac10s and stens are going to be $350, M16s will be $700 Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Fourays2:
Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Subguns deletes a post that is not inflammatory in the least. I posted: "what would it take for you to believe? A national organization stepping in?" And they deleted it. NOLO, im guessing they are loosing more sleep over this than the ATF? "Do I sell off now and risk having to purchase back at higher than already massively inflated prices, or do I keep and HOPE nothing changes." These guys have serious money invested in items that may drop value by orders of magnitude overnight, to the point of becoming nearly worthless. Who is going to buy a beat up POS M-16 from the 80's when they can place an order for a selectfire SCAR/LMT/COLT thats brand new? I have tried to spread the word about this all over the web, its very difficult! THIS THREAD and its contents are the BEST KEPT SECRET SINCE HILLARY'S EMAILS!! [ img]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_smartass.gif[/url] yup, mac10s and stens are going to be $350, M16s will be $700 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:16:37 PM EST
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By pyotr_k:
Originally Posted By Fourays2:
Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Subguns deletes a post that is not inflammatory in the least. I posted: "what would it take for you to believe? A national organization stepping in?" And they deleted it. NOLO, im guessing they are loosing more sleep over this than the ATF? "Do I sell off now and risk having to purchase back at higher than already massively inflated prices, or do I keep and HOPE nothing changes." These guys have serious money invested in items that may drop value by orders of magnitude overnight, to the point of becoming nearly worthless. Who is going to buy a beat up POS M-16 from the 80's when they can place an order for a selectfire SCAR/LMT/COLT thats brand new? I have tried to spread the word about this all over the web, its very difficult! THIS THREAD and its contents are the BEST KEPT SECRET SINCE HILLARY'S EMAILS!! [ img]http://www.ar15.com/images/smilies/smiley_smartass.gif[/url] yup, mac10s and stens are going to be $350, M16s will be $700 http://i.imgur.com/cYanmPn.gif This gif has been used an appropriate amount of times this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:35:02 PM EST
[#16]
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:38:46 PM EST
[#17]
Is there somewhere I can donate to this cause? Checked out the website in the OP but didn't see any info about giving towards this.
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:39:39 PM EST
[Last Edit: pyotr_k]
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
#33 Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Rule 26(f) Conference So that's a pre-trial hashing out by the counsels of both sides to see if an agreement can be made that everyone can live with to avoid a drawn out case, or am I misunderstanding? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:41:39 PM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: #33 Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Rule 26(f) Conference For the inevitable questions: Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) states: "Except in a proceeding exempted from initial disclosure under Rule 26(a)(1)(B) or when the court orders otherwise, the parties must confer as soon as practicable – and in any event at least 21 days before a scheduling conference is to be held or a scheduling order is due under Rule 16(b).” Its like defense is standing there in white undies yelling "THANK YOU SIR MAY I HAVE ANOTHER!" and Nolo keeps swinging the paddle. I could watch this all day. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:42:29 PM EST
[#20]
Nice, Lets get this disclosure of the registry going.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:44:09 PM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pyotr_k:
So that's a pre-trial hashing out by the counsels of both sides to see if an agreement can be made that everyone can live with to avoid a drawn out case, or am I misunderstanding? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By pyotr_k:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
#33 Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Rule 26(f) Conference So that's a pre-trial hashing out by the counsels of both sides to see if an agreement can be made that everyone can live with to avoid a drawn out case, or am I misunderstanding? (2) Conference Content; Parties’ Responsibilities. In conferring, the parties must consider the nature and basis of their claims and defenses and the possibilities for promptly settling or resolving the case; make or arrange for the disclosures required by Rule 26(a)(1); discuss any issues about preserving discoverable information; and develop a proposed discovery plan. The attorneys of record and all unrepresented parties that have appeared in the case are jointly responsible for arranging the conference, for attempting in good faith to agree on the proposed discovery plan, and for submitting to the court within 14 days after the conference a written report outlining the plan. The court may order the parties or attorneys to attend the conference in person. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:44:36 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
#33 Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Rule 26(f) Conference Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
#33 Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Rule 26(f) Conference 
Love #11: 11. Neither Rule 26 nor the Local Rules allow a party to litigation to refuse to participate in a
Rule 26(f) conference until after the Court rules on a Motion to Dismiss. Additionally, “Filing a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not automatically stay discovery or require postponing a Rule 26(f) conference until the motion is resolved.” Basically a "the law doesn't state that so shove it." if I read it correctly. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:44:59 PM EST
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: #33 Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Rule 26(f) Conference |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:48:06 PM EST
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
#33 Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Rule 26(f) Conference They're going to get loved tenderly. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:51:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: NCUrk]
[#25]
Cliff Notes:
Nolo: I want to play... Gov: I dont want to play... Nolo: Oh, We are going to play, see here is the rule book.. Gov: Rule book Schmoo book, I don't want to play!!!!! Leave me alone!!! Nolo: See you soon. ETA: Another Thank you Nolo. |
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 5:51:55 PM EST
[#26]
Thanks to all putting in the effort.
The serial number on my homemade full auto "ghost gun" will be. FBATFE-WEW1N |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 6:08:46 PM EST
[#27]
I joined this forum because of all the good work I see going on here! Thank you very much nolo, and everyone else that's assisting!
Since I'm in one of the federal districts where this is playing out, would it be prudent to apply for a stamp so that when I'm denied, and when all of these proceedings finally play out, I could then file a suit for equal treatment? Provided, of course, they play out in the way we want them to.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 6:14:23 PM EST
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By banjoboss:
I joined this forum because of all the good work I see going on here! Thank you very much nolo, and everyone else that's assisting! Since I'm in one of the federal districts where this is playing out, would it be prudent to apply for a stamp so that when I'm denied, and when all of these proceedings finally play out, I could then file a suit for equal treatment? Provided, of course, they play out in the way we want them to.. There are going to be a lot of stamps, hopefully all over the country....... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 6:21:33 PM EST
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCUrk:
Cliff Notes: Nolo: I want to play... Gov: I dont want to play... Nolo: Oh, We are going to play, see here is the rule book.. Gov: Rule book Schmoo book, I don't want to play!!!!! Leave me alone!!! Nolo: See you soon. ETA: Another Thank you Nolo. Thank you for dumbing it down enough for me. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 6:28:23 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762: If MGs are a right, there won't be any "states that aren't MG friendly" anymore. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762: Originally Posted By orpheus762x51: traveling over state lines/to states that aren't MG friendly If MGs are a right, there won't be any "states that aren't MG friendly" anymore. Incorrect. NJ will continue to ignore the 2A and federal laws less restrictive than it's laws. NJ is run by tyrants. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 6:30:50 PM EST
[#31]
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. Are you unfamiliar with NJ's gun laws? (OK I'll stop now) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 6:41:23 PM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Possum-Sammich:
They're going to get loved tenderly. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Possum-Sammich:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
#33 Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Rule 26(f) Conference They're going to get loved tenderly. I prefer the term "struggle snuggle". |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 6:56:55 PM EST
[#33]
So...how would this work if we win.....I file form 1, it gets approved, then I can take my ARs to a gunsmith to have the receiver modified and assembled with a FA fire control group??
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 7:04:26 PM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JoeCoastie:
I prefer the term "struggle snuggle". Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JoeCoastie:
Originally Posted By Possum-Sammich:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
#33 Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Rule 26(f) Conference They're going to get loved tenderly. I prefer the term "struggle snuggle". Good one. For the uninitiated, the Rule 26(f) conference is required by the rules governing federal court litigation. Both sides get together to discuss document preservation, production, deposition scheduling, etc. Some local district courts are quite serious about it. For the Northern District of Texas, and many other courts, if a party thinks they are exempt from the 26(f) conference, the correct course of action is to request a postponement from the court by motion. You can't just say "F off, we've got a pending motion to dismiss." That would completely eliminate the 26(f) conference in most litigation, as there's almost always a pending motion to dismiss. Here, the DOJ [/spits to the side] doesn't want to talk discovery. They may not have instituted a document destruction hold, despite the pending litigation, and are instead waiting until the 26(f) conference to do so. Regardless, the judge will almost certainly compel them to talk to Nolo. Unfortunately, that may take the form of them sitting across a conference table saying, "We'll take it under advisement and get back to you." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 7:16:54 PM EST
[#35]
Nolo can you request a Videographer be in attendance for this Conference?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 7:19:21 PM EST
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Banditman:
Nolo can you request a Videographer be in attendance for this Conference? I'd love to see that video. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 7:22:57 PM EST
[#37]
I would pay to watch that show!
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 7:30:26 PM EST
[#38]
As summary please, for we mere mortals.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 8:01:56 PM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Chris0013:
So...how would this work if we win.....I file form 1, it gets approved, then I can take my ARs to a gunsmith to have the receiver modified and assembled with a FA fire control group?? Can't say because it depends on the decision by the judge as to what relief Hollis would get and why. Some variations: 1. There is no provision in law to revoke an approved stamp and registration (contention between "it was a mistake" and ATF correcting the error vs. Nolo showing that at least 4 different ATF employees had to give approvals for Hollis and Watson to get stamps and whatever other policies come out in discovery or Nolo already has) Hollis gets his stamp back and weapon, those other trusts not approved then sue for equal treatment and here we go again. 2. Court rules that trusts are not persons for the purposes of the Hughes amendment, and thus any trust may now make a machinegun. No laws are overturned, and things go as they did pre Hughes for trusts. 2A issues are litigated later when an individual sue to make a machinegun, directly challenging Hughes et. al. 3. Court rules that Hughes in a ban of a class of weapons, which is not permitted by the 2A. NFA items go back to the way they were pre Hughes and anyone can now form 1 and make a NFA machinegun after approval. 4. Court rules NFA and Hughes unconstitutional infringements of the 2A, applying strict scrutiny, and and no more tax stamps, machineguns, short barreled rifels, etc. are treated the same as any other firearm under law.. In case, of 3 or 4 the order would likely to be stayed, pending appeal heard by the circuit court. 1 and 2 would probably also get appealed, but the court might not stay that order ... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 8:03:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: Mariner82]
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Kaufmaniac:
I would pay to watch that show! No shit... would make real interesting watching for the Judiciary and the Gov Reform and Oversight Committees too. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 8:04:53 PM EST
[#41]
If someone had told me the details of this 15 years ago, I would have died laughing.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 8:08:01 PM EST
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fortydelta:
If someone had told me the details of this 15 years ago, I would have died laughing. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 8:10:05 PM EST
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By fortydelta: If someone had told me the details of this 15 years ago, I would have died laughing.  |
|
|
|
TN, USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 8:14:13 PM EST
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks:
Can't say because it depends on the decision by the judge as to what relief Hollis would get and why. Some variations: 1. There is no provision in law to revoke an approved stamp and registration (contention between "it was a mistake" and ATF correcting the error vs. Nolo showing that at least 4 different ATF employees had to give approvals for Hollis and Watson to get stamps and whatever other policies come out in discovery or Nolo already has) Hollis gets his stamp back and weapon, those other trusts not approved then sue for equal treatment and here we go again. 2. Court rules that trusts are not persons for the purposes of the Hughes amendment, and thus any trust may now make a machinegun. No laws are overturned, and things go as they did pre Hughes for trusts. 2A issues are litigated later when an individual sue to make a machinegun, directly challenging Hughes et. al. 3. Court rules that Hughes in a ban of a class of weapons, which is not permitted by the 2A. NFA items go back to the way they were pre Hughes and anyone can now form 1 and make a NFA machinegun after approval. 4. Court rules NFA and Hughes unconstitutional infringements of the 2A, applying strict scrutiny, and and no more tax stamps, machineguns, short barreled rifels, etc. are treated the same as any other firearm under law.. In case, of 3 or 4 the order would likely to be stayed, pending appeal heard by the circuit court. 1 and 2 would probably also get appealed, but the court might not stay that order ... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks:
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
So...how would this work if we win.....I file form 1, it gets approved, then I can take my ARs to a gunsmith to have the receiver modified and assembled with a FA fire control group?? Can't say because it depends on the decision by the judge as to what relief Hollis would get and why. Some variations: 1. There is no provision in law to revoke an approved stamp and registration (contention between "it was a mistake" and ATF correcting the error vs. Nolo showing that at least 4 different ATF employees had to give approvals for Hollis and Watson to get stamps and whatever other policies come out in discovery or Nolo already has) Hollis gets his stamp back and weapon, those other trusts not approved then sue for equal treatment and here we go again. 2. Court rules that trusts are not persons for the purposes of the Hughes amendment, and thus any trust may now make a machinegun. No laws are overturned, and things go as they did pre Hughes for trusts. 2A issues are litigated later when an individual sue to make a machinegun, directly challenging Hughes et. al. 3. Court rules that Hughes in a ban of a class of weapons, which is not permitted by the 2A. NFA items go back to the way they were pre Hughes and anyone can now form 1 and make a NFA machinegun after approval. 4. Court rules NFA and Hughes unconstitutional infringements of the 2A, applying strict scrutiny, and and no more tax stamps, machineguns, short barreled rifels, etc. are treated the same as any other firearm under law.. In case, of 3 or 4 the order would likely to be stayed, pending appeal heard by the circuit court. 1 and 2 would probably also get appealed, but the court might not stay that order ... So 1 or 2 have your trust ready and get ready to donate a stamps worth for a class action? 3 or 4 Katie bar the door? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 8:39:38 PM EST
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bad2006z71:
Wow that is some straight up weaksauce. Rip their legs off and beat the shit out of them NOLO. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bad2006z71:
Wow that is some straight up weaksauce. Rip their legs off and beat the shit out of them NOLO. Wow, so that's what they're going with...good for them. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:06:55 PM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
#33 Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Rule 26(f) Conference Is this the "game changer" to which you alluded? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:14:05 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NCUrk:
Cliff Notes: Nolo: I want to play... Gov: I dont want to play... Nolo: Oh, We are going to play, see here is the rule book.. Gov: Rule book Schmoo book, I don't want to play!!!!! Leave me alone!!! Nolo: Soon... ETA: Another Thank you Nolo. Fixt.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:15:09 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conju:
Is this the "game changer" to which you alluded? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conju:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
#33 Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Rule 26(f) Conference Is this the "game changer" to which you alluded? No. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:16:46 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conju:
Is this the "game changer" to which you alluded? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Conju:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
#33 Motion to Compel Defendants to Participate in Rule 26(f) Conference Is this the "game changer" to which you alluded? This seems simply procedural to me. Nolo is just beating the DOJ with their own 22" king-dong dildo until it's the appropriate time for the game-changer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/12/2015 9:49:38 PM EST
[Last Edit: Colsrob]
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By yavorssj: Looks like it is here early... Seriously, I am surprised!!! Time to start reading. EDIT: Seriously, that is it!!!? "The plaintiff added little and we will yada yada yada..." SERIOUSLY!!!? Weak. * Nolo, does their sur-sur-reply make you more giddy or more concerned? I seen it as good for you/us, but I am no lawyer and a lot of your profession escapes me. |
|
|
|
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.
