ATF being sued over approving legal machine guns

[Kaikias]

District judge- Barbara M. G. Lynn. Maybe her initials bode well for is

This video of her has also been going around the arfcom thread.

 

[alnen]

I wish I could be optimistic about this one.

But this case is based on an administrative mistake.

I can't figure out how it will end well for gun folks. Just because someone misfiles an app with the DOT, the entire highway fund doesn't fall apart. Similarly, they IRS makes clerical errors all the time, but the tax system isn't dismantled or modified in any way. I don't see any kind of precedent or basis for this NFA to be modified or overturned at all. Just because some examiner/secretary screwed up-what's the big deal?

Good luck-and I mean that sincerely..... But I can't see this going anywhere. I don't see any kind of basis for anything to change-sadly.

This is much deeper than an administrative error. There are multiple issues... ie special friends of atf agents being approved for post 86 mgs. An error may have allowed an easy foot in the door, but there is SO much more!

Please help by donating. Even if you feel the odds are against us.

To other people who have posted in an almost malicious manner about this case... if you are not going to support this case, and let others support/fund/litigate it, do you plan to take advantage if positive changes are made? Will you own a full auto weapon/stampless sbr/stampless suppressor down the road if it is decriminalized?

 

[RamRoddoc]

The NFA of 1934 is unconstitutional and so is the 1986 ban.

Now to articulate that. Stephan is a former Marine and now lawyer. I don't think he initiated this for the money. it's the principle of eroding our rights. He asked only enough money to cover cost. If he wins this he will become famous.

I was thinking about Hellar assisting him and even considering sending mail to stack our deck a bit.

At no other time has the moment been ripe to overturn the restrictions/ban on Machine guns.

 

[alnen]

The NFA of 1934 is unconstitutional and so is the 1986 ban.

Now to articulate that. Stephan is a former Marine and now lawyer. I don't think he initiated this for the money. it's the principle of eroding our rights. He asked only enough money to cover cost. If he wins this he will become famous.

I was thinking about Hellar assisting him and even considering sending mail to stack our deck a bit.

At no other time has the moment been ripe to overturn the restrictions/ban on Machine guns.

 

[TresMonos]

I'm not sure I could afford one even if the rules were changed....the cost of ammunition alone would keep me from making my mortgage. If it is overturned, is anyone else hoping for Ammo Entitlements? We can call them Omaba-Shot family assistance grants.

 

[righter13]

I'm not sure I could afford one even if the rules were changed....the cost of ammunition alone would keep me from making my mortgage. If it is overturned, is anyone else hoping for Ammo Entitlements? We can call them Omaba-Shot family assistance grants.

All I want is the ability to have burst. Ask anyone who has ever relied on their weapon outside of the range and they'll be the first to tell you that FA is just for giggles when it's on a shoulder fired weapon.

240/249/M2 is a different story.

 

[ShawnZR-1]

This is an excerpt focused on the NFA from a novel by John Ross, Unintended Consecuences:
http://misc.weedwhacker.org/misc/Unintended_Consequences.pdf

May 15, 1939 World events were coming to a head. The Munich Conference had been held eight months earlier, and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain had made his famous claim of having secured 'Peace in our time' by acceding to Hitler's demand to occupy western Czechoslovakia with German troops. Although most Americans did not even know how to spell Czechoslovakia, let alone care what happened between it and Germany, in three and a half months the little man with the toothbrush mustache would start the invasion of Poland. America would soon agree with Winston Churchill's assessment of the seriousness of the Axis threat. Those national sentiments were months in the future on this Monday in May, however. On this spring morning, the Supreme Court would issue a ruling that virtually no one at the time would notice. Further, the ultimate results of the decision would not fully be felt by U.S. citizens for many decades.

The Court had spent considerable time reviewing the government's brief in the case. It was not often that a district court ruled that a federal law was unconstitutional. It was even rarer that one of the participants not even show up to argue its side of a Supreme Court case, or file a brief on behalf of the client. Still, the court considered the government's position in the fairest way that it could, without assuming any facts or statements not presented. The decision, unlike most Supreme Court decisions that would come in future years, was only four pages long.

The reasoning behind the Court's decision was contained in the second paragraph: "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." Gordon Dean's straw man argument had worked. Without opposing counsel, the Court was never told that shotguns with barrels of less than eighteen inches were used in the military. The Court was never informed that the National Firearms Act applied to automatic weapons that were obviously military issue, which would have killed the government's own argument right there. Finally, no one had pointed out, as had District Court Judge Heartsill Ragon, that militia weapons were, by definition, the personal arms of the private citizenry, and therefore whether or not a particular weapon was issued to army troops was completely irrelevant.

The language of the decision would ultimately cause the government much trouble, however. The wording clearly showed that the Supreme Court viewed all military-issue small arms as being Constitutionally protected. Since the National Firearms Act infringed upon the citizens' right to keep and bear many obviously military-issue small arms, the Court should have found the Act unconstitutional. But the Court did not know about this element of the Act, and so the National Firearms Act remained on the books as part of federal law. Jack Miller and Frank Layton, innocent men the day before, were once again guilty of a federal crime. They had no known address, however, and in 1939, tracking down a couple of poor Arkansas hillbillies because a year earlier they had had a piece of steel shorter than a certain length was not top priority for Treasury agents. Jack Miller and Frank Layton were never seen again by law enforcement authorities.

In 1939, few if any people complained about the National Firearms Act, just as few people complained about the much more obvious 'Jim Crow' laws that existed throughout the country. Just like the doctrine of 'separate but equal,' the National Firearms Act would remain an embarrassing stain on the nation's fabric for over half a century. Just as with that other civil rights violation, the National Firearms Act would spawn other, more outrageous infringements, like a tumor that slowly metastases into ever-widening and ever more aggressive forms of cancer.

Finally, as was true of civil rights violations everywhere in the world, the choice would come down to eradicating the cancer or letting it kill the patient. That decision, however, would not happen for more than fifty years. When it did, it would be precipitated by several people who on that May afternoon in 1939 had not yet been born, and one who was then only a year old.

I believe that if there were a direct challenge to the NFA of 1939, it would be deemed unconstitutional. The only reason it was upheld was because the Supreme Court heard no arguments from the opposing side and passed their decision down based on one single sided argument laced with falsehoods.

 

[RamRoddoc]

This is an excerpt focused on the NFA from a novel by John Ross, Unintended Consecuences:
http://misc.weedwhacker.org/misc/Unintended_Consequences.pdf

I believe that if there were a direct challenge to the NFA of 1939, it would be deemed unconstitutional. The only reason it was upheld was because the Supreme Court heard no arguments from the opposing side and passed their decision down based on one single sided argument laced with falsehoods.

That is absolutely truth. No opposing argument and our rights infringed and for every generation afterwards, until overturned.



The gofundme campaign is ending now that Heller is involved. If able to contribute to those who are fighting to restore our once held rights contact the Heller Foundation: https://hellerfoundation.org/hvh/

The Heller Foundation is pleased to announce that it has teamed with Jay Hollis and attorneys Stephen Stamboulieh and Alan Beck to fight the federal restrictions on machine gun ownership. Complying with the onerous registration requirements for automatic firearms and paying the $200 tax to exercise his right, Mr. Hollis filed a Form 1 with the BATFE to manufacture an M16 machine gun. The BATFE then approved that Form 1, giving Mr. Hollis permission to manufacture the M16. Shortly afterward the BATFE erroneously and without due process revoked Mr. Hollis’ approval.

On October 30, 2014 Mr. Hollis filed his complaint against Eric Holder and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“BATFE”) seeking to overturn both the National Firearms Act and the ban on private ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. The case, Hollis v. Holder, et al, Civil Action No.3:14-cv-03872-M, is being led by attorneys Stephen Stamboulieh and Alan Beck. It is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. “The M16 is the quintessential militia arm and is thus protected under any reading of Miller or Heller,” said attorney Stephen Stamboulieh.

“Winning this case is critical to the security of the nation’s citizens,” added Dick Heller, Chairman of the Heller Foundation. “We think it’s important enough that donors to the Heller Foundation can now make a directed contribution on our web site, HellerFoundation.org, for the support of this case.”

Almost seven years ago the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Heller Foundation, a non-profit exempt organization as described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, was founded shortly after the landmark ruling by plaintiff Dick Heller to continue to expand gun owner rights through the judicial system.

District of Columbia v. Heller became the cornerstone for gun owners nationwide to push other important wins through the federal court system. Jay Hollis, Stephen Stamboulieh, Alan Beck, and the Heller Foundation intend to build on those wins in the ongoing battle for the Second Amendment by targeting the National Firearms Act and the machine gun ban.

****

The gofundme campaign is ending now that Heller is involved. Thank you for everything, and keep an eye on the Heller Foundation website for case updates!

 

[Kaikias]

Just though I'd add that you can claim the Heller donations on you taxes, unlike the gofundme ones