NFA Lawsuit filed

[Trent]

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...it-filed-allow-registration-new-machine-guns/

Filed yesterday in Dallas, the lawsuit of Hollis v. Holder is suing the U.S. Department of Justice to allow legal entities such as trusts and corporations to legally register new machine guns. As you probably know, machine guns are regulated under the National Firearms Act, and in most states (as well as on the federal level) possession of an item regulated under that act is a felony unless it is properly registered. However, starting in 1986 the U.S. Government declared that they would no longer approve new registration applications for machine guns — they “closed” the registry. The newly filed lawsuit is seeking to change that.

More at the link....

(Mods; not sure whether to put this under Legal or NFA... so I put it under NFA)

 

[lilguy]

Won't happen, that's a bridge too far.

Took 42 years from the time I got my FOID card until l could carry legally. New civilians machine guns in Illinois, I don't think so.

 

[Tirod]

This is a Federal Suit to open the can of worms that was created when the registery was closed.

I don't know that it questions the actual legitimacy of the voice vote, that would be sufficient to turn over IMHO by any clear thinking judge (who would like to take a well deserved stab at Congress.)

The BATF just does what it's told and it's going to be interesting who would be directed to change things.

 

[Trent]

The closed registry was already declared unconstitutional in the 7th circuit, once upon a time.

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/court/fed/us_v_rock_island.htm

In sum, since enactment of 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), the Secretary has refused to accept any tax payments to make or transfer a machinegun made after May 19, 1986, to approve any such making or transfer, or to register any such machinegun. As applied to machineguns made and possessed after May 19, 1986, the registration and other requirements of the National Firearms Act, Chapter 53 of the Internal Revenue Code, no longer serve any revenue purpose, and are impliedly repealed or are unconstitutional. Accordingly, Counts 1(a) and (b), 2, and 3 of the superseding indictment are DISMISSED.

So at least they have some case law in another circuit to cite.

 

[Armymutt]

This then brings up the so what? Unless you are making your own guns for your trust - there are very few people with the capability to build a MG - the average trust still won't have them. Won't they pretty much be post-86 sample equivalents? You could probably build an AK, Uzi, and Sten, but unless you have the plans for an auto sear, most people won't be making MP5s, M-16s, etc. The average NFA owner isn't a builder, from what I've seen. If the antis are smart, they'd let this one go undefended, the status quo wouldn't change by much, and it would allow them to look good to the uninformed pro-gun voter.

After reading the filing, it looks like they are trying to get 922.o thrown out completely, which should allow the transfer of post-86 machine guns.

 

[fanchisimo]

It seems like it would be an easy step to buy an 80% lower with the right jig to make the extra holes in the receiver for the auto seer. I just can't imagine that finding the necessary specs for an auto seer is difficult. Or do it with a lightning link or some other means. What I'm saying is that once there is a legal way, that knowledge is shared and if since it's not a federal felony I see methods for creating your own MG much easier to find.

 

[Aaron Baker]

Armymutt,

Many AR15s are one extra hole (simple to drill with a jig) and a couple fire control group parts (can be legally bought) away from being full auto.

Aaron

 

[strambo]

The "so what" is if the case is successful, a year after the market stampede, I'll file the paperwork for my stamp and put a DIAS into my SBR for $50.

I doubt it would result in a ton of new NFA item owners, just current NFA owners filing mucho stamps for FA weapons/conversion parts and the bottom will fall out the FA market to much crying and nashing of teeth for the collectors.

If the registry is re-opened the market will respond to demand and (eventually) you could get a post '86 FA firearm the same as you can buy a suppressor or factory SBR now.

Edit: provided they are a trust or corporation, I have a trust already.

 

[alexander45]

Any ding dong with highschool metal shop class a welder, hack saw, and a dremel could throw together a open bolt smg in a day out of scrap tubing

 

[Trent]

Yeah, opening the NFA is one of the *few* things that'd get me to move to another state, besides IL.

Cheap machineguns?

Ohhhh yeah.

 

[zoom6zoom]

Needs to be attacked from the "hey, I'm trying to give the government tax money and they won't take it" angle.

 

[AlexanderA]

Right now, there's a "war" going on regarding this lawsuit between AR15.com and Subguns.com, complete with name-calling, innuendoes as to motivations, etc. One side says the proponents of the suit are frivolous, money-grubbing, ambulance-chasing lawyers, and the other side says that those opposed to the suit are greedy, rich MG collectors that don't want the value of their holdings to go down.

I think what's really going on is that a lot of people's hopes have overwhelmed their sense of reality. The chances of the lawsuit succeeding are minimal, and there are substantial downside risks.

 

[Trent]

That's what lead 7th circuit to rule the way they did in that Rock Island vs. case I linked above, zoom.

 

[lilguy]

So, if they are successful, I can go in to a title 2 dealer and order a new sub machine gun and apply for my stamp? It'll be that simple?

 

[Trent]

Not in IL. You'd be able to do so as a trust in another state, though. You just couldn't bring it HERE.

E.g. you could form a trust in Indiana, buy it and take possession of it in Indiana, KEEP it in Indiana... but never bring it home to IL.

 

[AlexanderA]

The lawsuit involves a trust making a new machine gun using Form 1, not a transfer of an existing gun using Form 4. In other words, if the suit were to succeed, you still could not buy a post-May 19, 1986, gun.

And the trust could make it, if the suit succeeded, but you as a trustee still could not possess it.

This whole thing is a big tempest in a teapot. Doesn't mean squat.

 

[Trent]

Well, not exactly, Alexander. The lawsuit involves making OR possessing a new machinegun.

Link here to the actual complaint:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/245057730/Hollis-v-Holder-Complaint

They're asking that 922(o) be tossed out in it's entirety as unconstitutional...

*or* (alternatively) a ruling that 922(o) "does not prohibit an unincorporated trust from manufacturing or possessing a machinegun manufactured after May 19, 1986"

922(o) was already ruled unconstitutional in one Federal appellate court, so there's some case law to cite (which they did cite, in their complaint). The big issue there is the NFA was passed as a TAX measure. And once the Government stopped accepting new entries? The entire basis for the NFA crumbled; it's one thing to TAX an activity; it's entirely another to say you can't do an activity unless you pay a tax, then stop accepting said tax!

Specifically the lawsuit asks for:

Wherefore
, Plaintiff respectfully prays that judgment be entered in his favor and against Defendants as follows:

1. A declaration that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and 26 U.S.C. § 5801
et seq. are unconstitutional;

2. A declaration that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq. cannot be applied against Plaintiff individually or as Trustee of the Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis Revocable Living Trust;

3. A declaration that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq. cannot be applied against any current or future trustees or current or future beneficiaries of the Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis Revocable Living Trust;

4. A declaration that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq. violate the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution;

5. A declaration that the Defendants’ actions in attempting to unilaterally revoke an issued tax stamp are void and without authority;

6. An order permanently enjoining Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, servants and all other persons acting in concert or participation with them who receive actual notice of the injunction, from enforcing 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) and 26 U.S.C. § 5801
et seq. and their accompanying regulations, against Plaintiff individually and as Trustee of the Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis Revocable Living Trust or any current or future trustees and beneficiaries of said Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis Revocable Living Trust;

7. In the alternative, a declaration that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) does not prohibit unincorporated trusts from manufacturing or possessing machineguns and an accompanying order requiring the Defendants to approve Plaintiff’s Form 1 applications and/or an order prohibiting the Defendants from denying the validity of or revoking or disapproving Plaintiff’s approved and issued taxstamp # RM34755.

8.Costs of suit;

9. Attorneys’ Fees and Costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412; and

10. Any other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

Some emphasis added.

The plaintiff is trying to get his "approved then dis-approved" Form 1 rectified but also asking the court to declare 922(o) *void* while they are at it, and to ask for an injunction to prevent the ATF from enforcing 922(o) for unincorporated trusts.

 

[Ryanxia]

While I know this has a snowballs chance, I'm watching and hopefully we show our support of it. You never know.

Besides, even a temporary glimmer of hope that I could (or rather my trust) could manufacturer and possess new MGs makes me feel good.

 

[strambo]

7. In the alternative, a declaration that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) does not prohibit unincorporated trusts from manufacturing or possessing machineguns and an accompanying order requiring the Defendants to approve Plaintiff’s Form 1 applications and/or an order prohibiting the Defendants from denying the validity of or revoking or disapproving Plaintiff’s approved and issued taxstamp # RM34755.

This one seems possible. The court wouldn't be ruling any law unconstitutional, just a ruling that it doesn't apply to trusts/corporations and the ATF has to approve the forms. Huge impact for gun collectors in the know, minimal impact for everyone else and probably minimal negative political fallout since it is a pretty obscure section of gun law. It isn't like criminals are going to form a trust to apply for a tax stamp to get a new manufacture machine gun! (Any more than they are forming trusts now to get stamps for suppressors and SBRs...)

 

[Trent]

The thing is, though, the court has a duty to examine the constitutional issues and determine if they apply. If they do, they have a duty to act on it.

The "multi-branch" approach offered by the plaintiff is simply a way of improving their odds. On one end of the spectrum, you have what should be done; on the other, you have the minimum that'll satisfy the plaintiffs complaint.

As the anti-gun media has so blatantly exclaimed every chance they get, our NORMAL guns are "instruments of mass destruction capable of firing 8,000 clips per minute!"

(lol)

The advantage of full auto vs. semi-auto in an actual fight is minimal. Full auto is actually worse, in many regards, particularly for those who aren't trained in the use of it. They're not going to hit a damn thing they intend on hitting, and they'll run out of ammo fast.

So from a public safety standing, well, it's better for everyone.

(See, this is why I'm not a lawyer, my arguments are all off base)

 

[bikemutt]

The advantage of full auto vs. semi-auto in an actual fight is minimal. Full auto is actually worse, in many regards, particularly for those who aren't trained in the use of it. They're not going to hit a damn thing they intend on hitting, and they'll run out of ammo fast.

Very true, I shot a few machineguns in Vegas, they climb fast and hard to the right, lol.

 

[Trent]

I've shot (in no particular order)

M-16 (no video)
AK-47 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li5EcyksD2I)
Krinkov (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC8wXGg1SmQ)
BAR (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOKIUO6Cx9I)
H&K G3 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xC7Wokz36I)
M249 SAW (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ZpHmaoBtDI)
Russian PKM (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGvxYGcOfAY)
M60 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sK4UtpxfnEQ)
1919 (no video, "Dave" didn't hit the record button...)
H&K 53 (no video, too many jams)
Glock 18 (no video, too many jams; and not from recoil; was using a shoulder stock. The owner needed to swap out the damn main spring.)

The AK47 was the easiest to control of the shoulder fired rifles.

G3 was a beast, but I got tougher ab muscles. (Look at others full auto videos for comparison.. most people can't handle it.)

M249 was very controllable thanks to the power-to-weight ratio being in your favor. The high rate of cyclic fire though, man, it'll move ya.

As a High Power shooter (including F-class), I'll take semi-auto over full auto to a gun fight any day of the week. I *know* my first round is going to hit. And I know my second round is going to hit... and my third.. and my fourth.. and my twentieth will also hit.

Machineguns have their place, don't get me wrong - if employed properly they are area-denial and movement-denial weapons.

But in a stand-up, highly mobile, small unit gunfight?

Meh. Just a waste of good ammo.

That being said, I don't like the Powers that Be telling me that I can't be trusted to own one.

Especially not when I've passed FBI explosives background checks before.

Machineguns are scary only to the uninformed.

There's a lot worse things out there that people can get their hands on.

 

[strambo]

Actual machine guns (belt fed and capable of a high sustained rate of fire) are indispensible in small unit combat. At the individual level, no, FA isn't needed and is rarely used in the military. I've probably used the burst feature less than a dozen times in my entire infantry career.

OTOH, a highly trained individual with something like a suppressed FA 300 BLK would be an advantage in CQB, but not a very big advantage over fast semi-auto fire esp. with a great trigger like a Geissele.

 

[Ryanxia]

Let's keep our perspective in all this. Just because it's not optimal in combat doesn't make it grounds to prevent citizens from owning it. You wouldn't support banning lever action 30-30's because 'you're not gonna use it on the battlefield anyway'.

 

[Trent]

OTOH, a highly trained individual with something like a suppressed FA 300 BLK would be an advantage in CQB, but not a very big advantage over fast semi-auto fire esp. with a great trigger like a Geissele.

Machineguns are all about denial in a unit fight. Denial of an exit for an enemy. Denial of movement to cover. Denial of an area (enfilade).

Yeah there's also something to be said about bringing "little" guns to a gunfight against big guns where full auto would have a place. Submachineguns have a role still as well. But never on their own! They eat through ammo too fast to be useful solo.

Keeping within the context of the question "are these more dangerous to society?"

The point is relatively moot; outside of unit engagements, no, they're not more dangerous.

Case in point? The Hollywood gunfight. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

18 non fatal injuries, 2 fatal injuries (the two shooters)

"Spray 'n Pray" makes bad guys a lot less dangerous, than say.. the beltway snipers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks

10 fatal, 3 non fatal, single rounds fired.

Or Charles Whitman.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman


From a public safety standpoint, there's a lot of things out there far more dangerous than machine-guns.

But there's a lot of ignorance about them as well which makes people assume they are "scary"...