User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 5:35:14 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By limaxray:
That was some weapons-grade rationalizations, there. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By limaxray:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Opinion in PA - Court says we have standing. Court then grants summary judgment to .gov. Fairly long opinion. On to the next step! http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/15d0648p.pdf That was some weapons-grade rationalizations, there. But we will nevertheless grant the Government’s motion to dismiss his complaint because (1) the Second Amendment does not protect the manufacture and possession of machine guns, and (2) Congress acted well within its established Article I Commerce Clause power to enact the machine gun bans, as we hold above. Additionally, Watson’s Due Process claim must also be dismissed because he cannot show that he had a legitimate claim of entitlement in either the machine gun or an approved application. Finally, we also grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Watson’s Equal Protection and detrimental reliance claims. That judge needs to be run out of town on a rail. I'm tired of playing nice with assholes who will lie right to my face claiming a simple English sentence means the opposite of what it says. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 5:50:08 AM EDT
[#2]
Their reasoning makes my head hurt. "Not protected because they are not common and in common usage....."
 . THEY ARE NOT COMMON BECAUSE YOU ILLEGALLY BANNED THEM!!!!      
|
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 8:15:50 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BladedRonin:
Their reasoning makes my head hurt. "Not protected because they are not common and in common usage....." . THEY ARE NOT COMMON BECAUSE YOU ILLEGALLY BANNED THEM!!!! SBRS, SBS and silencers are becoming more in common usage with no increase in crimes committed with them. What about all the in use machine guns not being used in crime? Courts make my head hurt |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 8:32:51 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
Courts make my head hurt Perhaps the pain will subside if you come to realize that "gun control" laws are not intended to prevent or reduce crime. The object of the exercise is to control the peasants. It's very difficult to govern people if they are as well armed as those who are employed to enforce the edicts of those who govern. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 8:43:32 AM EDT
[#5]
The Court's reasons for denying this seem to indicate that a case against semiautomatic rifle bans in affected states could be more effective. The "in common use" issue becomes a benefit to us and not the state.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 8:45:31 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Loremsk:
That judge needs to be run out of town on a rail. I'm tired of playing nice with assholes who will lie right to my face claiming a simple English sentence means the opposite of what it says. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Loremsk:
Originally Posted By limaxray:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Opinion in PA - Court says we have standing. Court then grants summary judgment to .gov. Fairly long opinion. On to the next step! http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/15d0648p.pdf That was some weapons-grade rationalizations, there. But we will nevertheless grant the Government’s motion to dismiss his complaint because (1) the Second Amendment does not protect the manufacture and possession of machine guns, and (2) Congress acted well within its established Article I Commerce Clause power to enact the machine gun bans, as we hold above. Additionally, Watson’s Due Process claim must also be dismissed because he cannot show that he had a legitimate claim of entitlement in either the machine gun or an approved application. Finally, we also grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Watson’s Equal Protection and detrimental reliance claims. That judge needs to be run out of town on a rail. I'm tired of playing nice with assholes who will lie right to my face claiming a simple English sentence means the opposite of what it says. it's time for the boo box |
|
|
|
KY, USA
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 8:56:31 AM EDT
[#7]
Keep your head held high, this is only the beginning. Deep down in your heart you knew they would eventually use the "We're the government and we say no" argument.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 9:47:15 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By existinz:
Keep your head held high, this is only the beginning. Deep down in your heart you knew they would eventually use the "We're the government and we say no" argument. Agree. I'm stating the obvious here. In a free society, the govt. doesn't prohibit ownership and use of items that can be used without violating others' rights. I'm definitely on a list now.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 1:38:40 PM EDT
[#9]
Those weapons are not commonly used because we violated the constitution and said you cant use them, so they can't be used.
Keep fighting the good fight Nolo! |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 2:33:46 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Perhaps the pain will subside if you come to realize that "gun control" laws are not intended to prevent or reduce crime. The object of the exercise is to control the peasants. It's very difficult to govern people if they are as well armed as those who are employed to enforce the edicts of those who govern. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
Courts make my head hurt Perhaps the pain will subside if you come to realize that "gun control" laws are not intended to prevent or reduce crime. The object of the exercise is to control the peasants. It's very difficult to govern people if they are as well armed as those who are employed to enforce the edicts of those who govern. I completely understand that. I wonder what would happen if every AR pistol owner slapped on a stock on their pistol upper in their own house at the same time. Would that set off an SBR bat signal to the ATF? Its too bad gun owners cant agree on anything or we'd have a more organized movement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 2:43:31 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
I completely understand that. I wonder what would happen if every AR pistol owner slapped on a stock on their pistol upper in their own house at the same time. Would that set off an SBR bat signal to the ATF? Its too bad gun owners cant agree on anything or we'd have a more organized movement. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
Courts make my head hurt Perhaps the pain will subside if you come to realize that "gun control" laws are not intended to prevent or reduce crime. The object of the exercise is to control the peasants. It's very difficult to govern people if they are as well armed as those who are employed to enforce the edicts of those who govern. I completely understand that. I wonder what would happen if every AR pistol owner slapped on a stock on their pistol upper in their own house at the same time. Would that set off an SBR bat signal to the ATF? Its too bad gun owners cant agree on anything or we'd have a more organized movement. The problem is we are the good guys. That's why we fighting this in the court system instead of disregarding the laws and doing whatever we want. Sometimes it is hard being the good guy. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 2:51:08 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dlm1984:
While I'd like to use that approach, it won't fly. See Wickard vs Filburn here Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dlm1984:
Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Heres some food for thought. Since the commerce clause gets abused, why not use it against "them". Since the law says you can build your own firearm, and no serial number is required UNLESS you "transfer it", a case might be arguable that one could build a machine gun from an 80% lower and NOT serialize it. Since it wasn't serialized it can't legally be sold and therefore cannot be regulated under the commerce clause. Gofundme anyone? While I'd like to use that approach, it won't fly. See Wickard vs Filburn here I respectfully and completely disagree, for 2 reasons: 1) There isn't specific law regarding the serialization, or legal ability to NOT serialize food (if used privately and not to be transferred to any other person/entity). 2) There is specific law that protects a US citizen by allowing them to manufacture their own firearms (for private use, waving the serialization necessity). Legally protected private use does not exist (for the commodities) for the purposes you listed (Wickard v. Filburn). I would say that legislation to regulate the ridiculously overreaching commerce clause is the most important need the US Citizen currently has... |
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 2:55:08 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Perhaps the pain will subside if you come to realize that "gun control" laws are not intended to prevent or reduce crime. The object of the exercise is to control the peasants. It's very difficult to govern people if they are as well armed as those who are employed to enforce the edicts of those who govern. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
Courts make my head hurt Perhaps the pain will subside if you come to realize that "gun control" laws are not intended to prevent or reduce crime. The object of the exercise is to control the peasants. It's very difficult to govern people if they are as well armed as those who are employed to enforce the edicts of those who govern. 
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 2:57:34 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
The problem is we are the good guys. That's why we fighting this in the court system instead of disregarding the laws and doing whatever we want. Sometimes it is hard being the good guy. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
Courts make my head hurt Perhaps the pain will subside if you come to realize that "gun control" laws are not intended to prevent or reduce crime. The object of the exercise is to control the peasants. It's very difficult to govern people if they are as well armed as those who are employed to enforce the edicts of those who govern. I completely understand that. I wonder what would happen if every AR pistol owner slapped on a stock on their pistol upper in their own house at the same time. Would that set off an SBR bat signal to the ATF? Its too bad gun owners cant agree on anything or we'd have a more organized movement. The problem is we are the good guys. That's why we fighting this in the court system instead of disregarding the laws and doing whatever we want. Sometimes it is hard being the good guy. FNA! You get one of these too cuz all I gotta do is hit "paste" again!
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 2:58:50 PM EDT
[#15]
Although Filburn's relatively small amount of production of more wheat than he was allotted would not affect interstate commerce itself, the cumulative actions of thousands of other farmers just like Filburn would certainly become substantial. Therefore, according to the court, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government. so by the same logic: 1 guy makes a machine gun=does not effect interstate commerce, but thousands of home made machine guns would effect interstate commerce. EXCEPT THERE IS NO INTERSTATE COMMERCE OF MACHINE GUNS SINCE THEY ARE ILLEGAL. Would the same logic have been applied to filburn's wheat if it was marijuana instead??, ie illegal at the time?? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 3:02:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: fla556guy]
[#16]
Nolo, thank you for trying, and you remain a hero to 2A proponents.
I am, however, disillusioned that the NFA will ever be allowed to even be perceived as having a weakness. The court ruled in the way the court must rule in order to maintain the NFA.....which the feds played softball defending and STILL won. I'm pretty much 100% convinced that the NFA will never go away. Which is a very sad thing. But also very true. Which brings me to my final point: Fuck the gov. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 4:09:12 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
I respectfully and completely disagree, for 2 reasons: 1) There isn't specific law regarding the serialization, or legal ability to NOT serialize food (if used privately and not to be transferred to any other person/entity). 2) There is specific law that protects a US citizen by allowing them to manufacture their own firearms (for private use, waving the serialization necessity). Legally protected private use does not exist (for the commodities) for the purposes you listed (Wickard v. Filburn). I would say that legislation to regulate the ridiculously overreaching commerce clause is the most important need the US Citizen currently has... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Originally Posted By dlm1984:
Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Heres some food for thought. Since the commerce clause gets abused, why not use it against "them". Since the law says you can build your own firearm, and no serial number is required UNLESS you "transfer it", a case might be arguable that one could build a machine gun from an 80% lower and NOT serialize it. Since it wasn't serialized it can't legally be sold and therefore cannot be regulated under the commerce clause. Gofundme anyone? While I'd like to use that approach, it won't fly. See Wickard vs Filburn here I respectfully and completely disagree, for 2 reasons: 1) There isn't specific law regarding the serialization, or legal ability to NOT serialize food (if used privately and not to be transferred to any other person/entity). 2) There is specific law that protects a US citizen by allowing them to manufacture their own firearms (for private use, waving the serialization necessity). Legally protected private use does not exist (for the commodities) for the purposes you listed (Wickard v. Filburn). I would say that legislation to regulate the ridiculously overreaching commerce clause is the most important need the US Citizen currently has... However, it's easy to add a serial number to a firearm, and they'd argue that since you're making your own firearm, you're affecting interstate commerce since you're not purchasing it. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree the feasibility of your idea, but I wholeheartedly agree that reigning in commerce clause abuses is/should be a top priority. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 4:22:32 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dlm1984:
However, it's easy to add a serial number to a firearm, and they'd argue that since you're making your own firearm, you're affecting interstate commerce since you're not purchasing it. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree the feasibility of your idea, but I wholeheartedly agree that reigning in commerce clause abuses is/should be a top priority. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dlm1984:
Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Originally Posted By dlm1984:
Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH:
Heres some food for thought. Since the commerce clause gets abused, why not use it against "them". Since the law says you can build your own firearm, and no serial number is required UNLESS you "transfer it", a case might be arguable that one could build a machine gun from an 80% lower and NOT serialize it. Since it wasn't serialized it can't legally be sold and therefore cannot be regulated under the commerce clause. Gofundme anyone? While I'd like to use that approach, it won't fly. See Wickard vs Filburn here I respectfully and completely disagree, for 2 reasons: 1) There isn't specific law regarding the serialization, or legal ability to NOT serialize food (if used privately and not to be transferred to any other person/entity). 2) There is specific law that protects a US citizen by allowing them to manufacture their own firearms (for private use, waving the serialization necessity). Legally protected private use does not exist (for the commodities) for the purposes you listed (Wickard v. Filburn). I would say that legislation to regulate the ridiculously overreaching commerce clause is the most important need the US Citizen currently has... However, it's easy to add a serial number to a firearm, and they'd argue that since you're making your own firearm, you're affecting interstate commerce since you're not purchasing it. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree the feasibility of your idea, but I wholeheartedly agree that reigning in commerce clause abuses is/should be a top priority. Yeah, but taking that to the next step, how would somebody making a non-serialized machine gun affect interstate commerce if new machine guns are illegal to purchase in other states? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 4:56:30 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Blackheart_Actual:
Ain't it fucking grand?  Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Blackheart_Actual:
Originally Posted By dillehayd:
Originally Posted By limaxray:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Opinion in PA - Court says we have standing. Court then grants summary judgment to .gov. Fairly long opinion. On to the next step! http://www.paed.uscourts.gov/documents/opinions/15d0648p.pdf That was some weapons-grade rationalizations, there. But we will nevertheless grant the Government’s motion to dismiss his complaint because (1) the Second Amendment does not protect the manufacture and possession of machine guns, and (2) Congress acted well within its established Article I Commerce Clause power to enact the machine gun bans, as we hold above. Additionally, Watson’s Due Process claim must also be dismissed because he cannot show that he had a legitimate claim of entitlement in either the machine gun or an approved application. Finally, we also grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Watson’s Equal Protection and detrimental reliance claims. They bit on the circular "they're unusual because they're banned so it's ok to ban them" BS. Amazing. Vapid. Vacuous. That's all I got. Ain't it fucking grand? Machineguns aren't "unusual" if the Government has already licensed several hundred thousand of them to private citizens. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 5:08:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: dlm1984]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tReznr:
Yeah, but taking that to the next step, how would somebody making a non-serialized machine gun affect interstate commerce if new machine guns are illegal to purchase in other states? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By tReznr:
Originally Posted By dlm1984:
SNIP Yeah, but taking that to the next step, how would somebody making a non-serialized machine gun affect interstate commerce if new machine guns are illegal to purchase in other states? Because you're not buying one that's already available, even if it's not a new one. How did the farmer affect interstate commerce if he was growing the crop for his own consumption? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 7:48:38 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dlm1984: However, it's easy to add a serial number to a firearm, and they'd argue that since you're making your own firearm, you're affecting interstate commerce since you're not purchasing it. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree the feasibility of your idea, but I wholeheartedly agree that reigning in commerce clause abuses is/should be a top priority. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By dlm1984: Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH: Originally Posted By dlm1984: Originally Posted By Freedom_Or_DEATH: Heres some food for thought. Since the commerce clause gets abused, why not use it against "them". Since the law says you can build your own firearm, and no serial number is required UNLESS you "transfer it", a case might be arguable that one could build a machine gun from an 80% lower and NOT serialize it. Since it wasn't serialized it can't legally be sold and therefore cannot be regulated under the commerce clause. Gofundme anyone? While I'd like to use that approach, it won't fly. See Wickard vs Filburn here I respectfully and completely disagree, for 2 reasons: 1) There isn't specific law regarding the serialization, or legal ability to NOT serialize food (if used privately and not to be transferred to any other person/entity). 2) There is specific law that protects a US citizen by allowing them to manufacture their own firearms (for private use, waving the serialization necessity). Legally protected private use does not exist (for the commodities) for the purposes you listed (Wickard v. Filburn). I would say that legislation to regulate the ridiculously overreaching commerce clause is the most important need the US Citizen currently has... However, it's easy to add a serial number to a firearm, and they'd argue that since you're making your own firearm, you're affecting interstate commerce since you're not purchasing it. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree the feasibility of your idea, but I wholeheartedly agree that reigning in commerce clause abuses is/should be a top priority. Economic means comes into play there. A person who wants an M16 can buy one for about $15,000. I'd love to have one, but it's a financial impossibility for me to have or spend that much money on a firearm, so I am not part of that market since I don't have such funds. How does me being able to legally build one for 5% of that cost affect the machinegun market and "commerce" of it if I am unable to re-sell it? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 8:04:28 PM EDT
[#22]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 8:15:50 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryReading. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 9:06:15 PM EDT
[#24]
The legal definition of machinegun is any gun that fires more than one projectile per trigger pull.
The military definition of machinegun is much different. While the M16 and M4 are viewed in US law as machineguns, in military use machinegun means the M-240 and similar weapons. Would there be any utility in attempting to distinguish an AR-15 with full auto capability vs a crew served belt fed machinegun? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 9:14:08 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By akodo:
The legal definition of machinegun is any gun that fires more than one projectile per trigger pull. The military definition of machinegun is much different. While the M16 and M4 are viewed in US law as machineguns, in military use machinegun means the M-240 and similar weapons. Would there be any utility in attempting to distinguish an AR-15 with full auto capability vs a crew served belt fed machinegun? Lol. You haven't read any of our reply in Hollis v Lynch have you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 9:22:07 PM EDT
[#26]
And it was this case that the judge said you had standing, but gave the ruling in favor of the govt right?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 9:24:35 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xviperx420:
And it was this case that the judge said you had standing, but gave the ruling in favor of the govt right? No oral arg in PA. Decision was from PA judge. The oral arg is from Texas. No decision yet in that case. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 9:32:01 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
No oral arg in PA. Decision was from PA judge. The oral arg is from Texas. No decision yet in that case. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By xviperx420:
And it was this case that the judge said you had standing, but gave the ruling in favor of the govt right? No oral arg in PA. Decision was from PA judge. The oral arg is from Texas. No decision yet in that case. Gotcha. Think she's going to grant discovery? She seemed curious. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 9:36:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 20andOUT]
[#29]
Thanks again for all your work on this, but I do have a question.
Keeping in mind that I am no rocket surgeon, so if you can keep any reply at a non lawyer level I would appreciate it. On page 64 when the judge states that there are no machineguns out there. Why did you choose to go the route of discussing Hollis as an upstanding citizen vs the number of legally possessed transferrable machine guns currently in circulation? Was it the importance of (in the short time you had) establishing him as someone not to be disbarred the use of arms vs. the argument of what is a dangerous and unusual weapon? Because it seems like that was a big part of the PA ruling, and it seems that the judges, like most people, assume that there really aren't machine guns available to citizens during the arguments. I know statistically there are very few but to me it cuts into the "well there are no crimes with them because they don't exist" argument. -Mike |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 10:48:19 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gtfoxy:
Some dynamic mental gymnastics & misinterpretation of Scalias Heller verbiage. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gtfoxy:
Some dynamic mental gymnastics & misinterpretation of Scalias Heller verbiage. What an interesting way to say they're raping the English language and taking the opinion's dicta out of context. 52 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, Opinion of the Court
Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. Scalia was saying that the 2A wasn't limited to machine guns, thus DC couldn't blanket ban handguns. He was EXPANDING the view and this fucknut judge uses the language to limit it. The dangerous and unusual bullshit has got to go. For the same reason popular speech doesn't need 1A protections, "acceptable firearms" or weapons would not need 2A protections. Therefore, the ONLY firearms that NEED (not have, but would need) Constitutional protections are of the sort that some bleeding pussy liberal would consider "dangerous and unusual." Only people suspected of having committed a crime NEED 4A protections. Everyone else is protected by fucking human behavior (of ignoring people that haven't done anything wrong) up until they're suspected. Everything in the Bill of Rights works that way. I hate our justice and court system. It's so corrupt, you might as well say something about "Pursuit of Happiness" and pop a copy of Die Hard into a VCR at the "Now I have a machine gun." line then sit down and let the rest of the movie play. A pro-gun judge could rule in your favor, and an anti-gun judge is going to rule in the government's favor regardless precedence, context, exec. corruption/favoritism, and statistics. Might as well get to enjoy a good movie for a bit. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 10:56:30 PM EDT
[#31]
[Soskin] "One is that trusts generally do not hold property."
Wat? Trusts hold ALL KINDS of property. Trustees may benefit from the trust's property, make use of the trust's property, and maintain or modify or dispose of the trust's property, but the trust possesses the property. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 10:58:31 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mjmjr1312:
Thanks again for all your work on this, but I do have a question. Keeping in mind that I am no rocket surgeon, so if you can keep any reply at a non lawyer level I would appreciate it. On page 64 when the judge states that there are no machineguns out there. Why did you choose to go the route of discussing Hollis as an upstanding citizen vs the number of legally possessed transferrable machine guns currently in circulation? Was it the importance of (in the short time you had) establishing him as someone not to be disbarred the use of arms vs. the argument of what is a dangerous and unusual weapon? Because it seems like that was a big part of the PA ruling, and it seems that the judges, like most people, assume that there really aren't machine guns available to citizens during the arguments. I know statistically there are very few but to me it cuts into the "well there are no crimes with them because they don't exist" argument. -Mike She didn't say that. She said not that many. "Well, there are -- presumably there aren't that many machineguns out there." And it looks like he agreed with her quickly, got sidetracked (or was avoiding that sidetrack), and must not have gotten back to it due to time. In short, the judge was correct, and it didn't need much more discussion. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 11:07:17 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jchewie1:
[Soskin] "One is that trusts generally do not hold property." Wat? Trusts hold ALL KINDS of property. Trustees may benefit from the trust's property, make use of the trust's property, and maintain or modify or dispose of the trust's property, but the trust possesses the property. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jchewie1:
[Soskin] "One is that trusts generally do not hold property." Wat? Trusts hold ALL KINDS of property. Trustees may benefit from the trust's property, make use of the trust's property, and maintain or modify or dispose of the trust's property, but the trust possesses the property. lol... Odd considering split authority and responsibility of property is pretty much why trusts exist. trust (trust)
n. 4. Law a. A legal relationship in which one party holds a title to property while another party has the entitlement to the beneficial use of that property. b. The confidence reposed in a trustee when giving the trustee legal title to property to administer for another, together with the trustee's obligation regarding that property and the beneficiary. c. The property so held. If TFD isn't uppity enough. What is TRUST?
1. An equitable or beneficial right or title to land or other property, held for the beneficiary by another person, in whom resides the legal title or ownership, recognized and enforced by courts of chancery. See Goodwin v. McMinn, 193 Pa. 046, 44 Atl. 1094, 74 Am. St. Rep. 703; Beers v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 613; Seymour v. Freer, 8 Wall. 202, 19 L. Ed. 300. An obligation arising out of a confidence reposed in the trustee or representative, who has the legal title to property conveyed to him, that he will faithfully apply the property according to the confidence reposed, or, in other words, according to the wishes of the grantor of the trust. 4 Kent Comm. 304; Willis, Trustees, 2; Beers v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 613; Thornburg v. Buck, 13 Ind. App. 446, 41 N. E. 85. An equitable obligation, either express or Implied, resting upon a person by reason of a confidence reposed in him, to apply or deal with the property for the benefit of some other person, or for the benefit of himself and another or others, according to such confidence. McCreary v. Gewinner, 103 Ga. 528, 29 S. E. 9G0. A holding of property subject to a duty of employing it or applying its proceeds ac- cording to directions given by the person from whom it was derived. Munroe v. Crouse. 59 Hun. 248, 12 N. Y. Supp. 815. Law Dictionary: What is TRUST? definition of TRUST (Black's Law Dictionary) So he's playing a game of semantics. If he goes that route, he should explain why the ATF has been transferring ownership of firearms to trusts for years if their position is going to be that trusts can't own stuff. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/25/2015 11:39:11 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey: Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey: Page 49 V. Conclusion For the reasons articulated above, we hold that Watson has standing to bring his constitutional challenges to the NFA and GCA. But we will nevertheless grant the Government’s motion to dismiss his complaint because (1) the Second Amendment does not protect the manufacture and possession of machine guns, and (2) Congress acted well within its established Article I Commerce Clause power to enact the machine gun bans, as we hold above. Additionally, Watson’s Due Process claim must also be dismissed because he cannot show that he had a legitimate claim of entitlement in either the machine gun or an approved application. Finally, we also grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Watson’s Equal Protection and detrimental reliance claims. What The Fuck ? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 12:01:38 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jchewie1:
[Soskin] "One is that trusts generally do not hold property." Wat? Trusts hold ALL KINDS of property. Trustees may benefit from the trust's property, make use of the trust's property, and maintain or modify or dispose of the trust's property, but the trust possesses the property. The trustee 'holds' the property. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 12:17:07 AM EDT
[Last Edit: TheTaxMonkey]
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic:
What The Fuck ? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic:
What The Fuck ? Here, let me help you with that: " BE THANKFUL I ALLOW YOU TO OWN A HAND GUN YOU PEON NOW GET OUT OF HERE!" - or something to that effect. That's basically what the Justice Department and, so far, mamy district courts have said (with few exceptions): Heller and McDonald have established the second amendment means you have a right to own a handgun for self-defense in the home and the government may not ban all handguns. Everything else; every other restriction the Feds or states can come with are A-O.K. Take a gander at this lovely quote from the arguments Nolo posted for us: Nonetheless, even if the Court were to consider it under Step Two -- were to consider the regulation of machineguns under Step Two, it would find that they satisfy Step Two. NRA has left open the question of what standard of review should be applied at that stage. But as we've argued, the appropriate standard here, because of the minimal burden on self-defense -- of the machinegun ban, would be to treat it as a de minimus restriction on self-defense and therefore to analyze under a rational basis standard. The machinegun is much more difficult to train with; it's much more dangerous; it doesn't have any practical use, because very few self-defense confrontations require unleashing an unlimited -- really require unleashing a large number of rounds, let alone a continuous and large number of rounds. There is not a particular reason to think that a higher level of scrutiny should be required. There is not a particular burden on self-defense inside the home here. Pages 49 - 50. Wow.... Just.... wow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 4:17:22 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Mariner82]
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Here, let me help you with that: " BE THANKFUL I ALLOW YOU TO OWN A HAND GUN YOU PEON NOW GET OUT OF HERE!" - or something to that effect. That's basically what the Justice Department and, so far, mamy district courts have said (with few exceptions): Heller and McDonald have established the second amendment means you have a right to own a handgun for self-defense in the home and the government may not ban all handguns. Everything else; every other restriction the Feds or states can come with are A-O.K. Take a gander at this lovely quote from the arguments Nolo posted for us: Pages 49 - 50. Wow.... Just.... wow. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Originally Posted By semiautomatic:
What The Fuck ? Here, let me help you with that: " BE THANKFUL I ALLOW YOU TO OWN A HAND GUN YOU PEON NOW GET OUT OF HERE!" - or something to that effect. That's basically what the Justice Department and, so far, mamy district courts have said (with few exceptions): Heller and McDonald have established the second amendment means you have a right to own a handgun for self-defense in the home and the government may not ban all handguns. Everything else; every other restriction the Feds or states can come with are A-O.K. Take a gander at this lovely quote from the arguments Nolo posted for us: Nonetheless, even if the Court were to consider it under Step Two -- were to consider the regulation of machineguns under Step Two, it would find that they satisfy Step Two. NRA has left open the question of what standard of review should be applied at that stage. But as we've argued, the appropriate standard here, because of the minimal burden on self-defense -- of the machinegun ban, would be to treat it as a de minimus restriction on self-defense and therefore to analyze under a rational basis standard. The machinegun is much more difficult to train with; it's much more dangerous; it doesn't have any practical use, because very few self-defense confrontations require unleashing an unlimited -- really require unleashing a large number of rounds, let alone a continuous and large number of rounds. There is not a particular reason to think that a higher level of scrutiny should be required. There is not a particular burden on self-defense inside the home here. Pages 49 - 50. Wow.... Just.... wow. I'd like to hear about Mr. Soskins' qualifications and expertise to testify as to the "difficulty" of training with MGs, and his extensive experience with the range of self defense situations that wouldn't ever benefit from a FA capability. He must be a real Tier 0.1 operator. 
Plus, I've never seen an infinite magazine - except in a movie or on TV. Even belt feds have a limited number of rounds per belt. Hope the judge reads the Congressional Record Nolo attached where NFA was being debated. Even those crooked politicians clearly realized that what they really wanted to do (ban) was unconstitutional, so they had to settle for the $200 tax. It wasn't any less unconstitutional in 1986. |
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 6:21:57 AM EDT
[#38]
MR. SOSKIN: Here an application would be disapproved because since the applicant did not apply at the request of or with the authority behind him of a government entity. The applicant being treated as the trustee in accordance with the Koppe letter, and not the trust, that trustee cannot be authorized that make or possess a machinegun consistent with the prohibition in the Gun Control Act.
Too bad he didn't define better the "types" of "government entities" necessary...
Time for Montanna to sign off on its residents form 1's and give it a go eh??? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 6:31:12 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
I'd like to hear about Mr. Soskins' qualifications and expertise to testify as to the "difficulty" of training with MGs, and his extensive experience with the range of self defense situations that wouldn't ever benefit from a FA capability. He must be a real Tier 0.1 operator.
Plus, I've never seen an infinite magazine - except in a movie or on TV. Even belt feds have a limited number of rounds per belt. Hope the judge reads the Congressional Record Nolo attached where NFA was being debated. Even those crooked politicians clearly realized that what they really wanted to do (ban) was unconstitutional, so they had to settle for the $200 tax. It wasn't any less unconstitutional in 1986. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Originally Posted By semiautomatic:
What The Fuck ? Here, let me help you with that: " BE THANKFUL I ALLOW YOU TO OWN A HAND GUN YOU PEON NOW GET OUT OF HERE!" - or something to that effect. That's basically what the Justice Department and, so far, mamy district courts have said (with few exceptions): Heller and McDonald have established the second amendment means you have a right to own a handgun for self-defense in the home and the government may not ban all handguns. Everything else; every other restriction the Feds or states can come with are A-O.K. Take a gander at this lovely quote from the arguments Nolo posted for us: Nonetheless, even if the Court were to consider it under Step Two -- were to consider the regulation of machineguns under Step Two, it would find that they satisfy Step Two. NRA has left open the question of what standard of review should be applied at that stage. But as we've argued, the appropriate standard here, because of the minimal burden on self-defense -- of the machinegun ban, would be to treat it as a de minimus restriction on self-defense and therefore to analyze under a rational basis standard. The machinegun is much more difficult to train with; it's much more dangerous; it doesn't have any practical use, because very few self-defense confrontations require unleashing an unlimited -- really require unleashing a large number of rounds, let alone a continuous and large number of rounds. There is not a particular reason to think that a higher level of scrutiny should be required. There is not a particular burden on self-defense inside the home here. Pages 49 - 50. Wow.... Just.... wow. I'd like to hear about Mr. Soskins' qualifications and expertise to testify as to the "difficulty" of training with MGs, and his extensive experience with the range of self defense situations that wouldn't ever benefit from a FA capability. He must be a real Tier 0.1 operator.
Plus, I've never seen an infinite magazine - except in a movie or on TV. Even belt feds have a limited number of rounds per belt. Hope the judge reads the Congressional Record Nolo attached where NFA was being debated. Even those crooked politicians clearly realized that what they really wanted to do (ban) was unconstitutional, so they had to settle for the $200 tax. It wasn't any less unconstitutional in 1986. Better yet I would like to see them document all this extensive training PD's get in order to carry F/A's... I mean if they are that hard to shoot without killing everything within eye sight, the training schedule must be impressive right? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 7:27:34 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Loremsk:
That judge needs to be run out of town on a rail. I'm tired of playing nice with assholes who will lie right to my face claiming a simple English sentence means the opposite of what it says. You never were on Law Review. He's a professional, you serf. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 7:37:52 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic:
What The Fuck ? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic:
Originally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Page 49
V. Conclusion For the reasons articulated above, we hold that Watson has standing to bring his constitutional challenges to the NFA and GCA. But we will nevertheless grant the Government’s motion to dismiss his complaint because (1) the Second Amendment does not protect the manufacture and possession of machine guns, and (2) Congress acted well within its established Article I Commerce Clause power to enact the machine gun bans, as we hold above. Additionally, Watson’s Due Process claim must also be dismissed because he cannot show that he had a legitimate claim of entitlement in either the machine gun or an approved application. Finally, we also grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Watson’s Equal Protection and detrimental reliance claims.
What The Fuck ? Something you don't really know until you get to law school: judges will sometimes basically say "lol, don't care. Not reading this shit" in opinions. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 7:54:05 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mean_sartin:
Something you don't really know until you get to law school: judges will sometimes basically say "lol, don't care. Not reading this shit" in opinions. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By semiautomatic:
Originally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Page 49
V. Conclusion For the reasons articulated above, we hold that Watson has standing to bring his constitutional challenges to the NFA and GCA. But we will nevertheless grant the Government’s motion to dismiss his complaint because (1) the Second Amendment does not protect the manufacture and possession of machine guns, and (2) Congress acted well within its established Article I Commerce Clause power to enact the machine gun bans, as we hold above. Additionally, Watson’s Due Process claim must also be dismissed because he cannot show that he had a legitimate claim of entitlement in either the machine gun or an approved application. Finally, we also grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Watson’s Equal Protection and detrimental reliance claims.
What The Fuck ? Something you don't really know until you get to law school: judges will sometimes basically say "lol, don't care. Not reading this shit" in opinions. If the Founding Fathers impeached a judge for wearing the wrong clothing in public, what do you think they would do to a judge who refused to read the documents before giving their decision? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 8:04:44 AM EDT
[#43]
Nolo, i hope Kolbe v O'Malley (now v Hogan) is on your radar. Hopefully the 4th CA will release their opinion soon. lots of state derp that semi auto is more dangerous than fully, and much argument over what is or isnt common use.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 8:07:45 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
I completely understand that. I wonder what would happen if every AR pistol owner slapped on a stock on their pistol upper in their own house at the same time. Would that set off an SBR bat signal to the ATF? Its too bad gun owners cant agree on anything or we'd have a more organized movement. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
Courts make my head hurt Perhaps the pain will subside if you come to realize that "gun control" laws are not intended to prevent or reduce crime. The object of the exercise is to control the peasants. It's very difficult to govern people if they are as well armed as those who are employed to enforce the edicts of those who govern. I completely understand that. I wonder what would happen if every AR pistol owner slapped on a stock on their pistol upper in their own house at the same time. Would that set off an SBR bat signal to the ATF? Its too bad gun owners cant agree on anything or we'd have a more organized movement. If you are aware that "gun control" laws are not intended to prevent or reduce crime, why would you make a post pointing out that NFA regulated objects are almost never used while someone commits a crime? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 8:12:28 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alphajaguars:
If the Founding Fathers impeached a judge for wearing the wrong clothing in public, what do you think they would do to a judge who refused to read the documents before giving their decision? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alphajaguars:
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By semiautomatic:
Originally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
Page 49
V. Conclusion For the reasons articulated above, we hold that Watson has standing to bring his constitutional challenges to the NFA and GCA. But we will nevertheless grant the Government’s motion to dismiss his complaint because (1) the Second Amendment does not protect the manufacture and possession of machine guns, and (2) Congress acted well within its established Article I Commerce Clause power to enact the machine gun bans, as we hold above. Additionally, Watson’s Due Process claim must also be dismissed because he cannot show that he had a legitimate claim of entitlement in either the machine gun or an approved application. Finally, we also grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Watson’s Equal Protection and detrimental reliance claims.
What The Fuck ? Something you don't really know until you get to law school: judges will sometimes basically say "lol, don't care. Not reading this shit" in opinions. If the Founding Fathers impeached a judge for wearing the wrong clothing in public, what do you think they would do to a judge who refused to read the documents before giving their decision? The judge read it, but he didn't care. I didn't mean to imply he never opened Nolo's brief. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 8:14:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: fla556guy]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mean_sartin:
The judge read it, but he didn't care. I didn't mean to imply he never opened Nolo's brief. Yep. He basically said "NOLO's argument is better than the governments and if this wasn't about guns he would have won, but I like to suck government cock, and guns are icky, so government wins." |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 8:29:52 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mean_sartin:
The judge read it, but he didn't care. I didn't mean to imply he never opened Nolo's brief. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Originally Posted By semiautomatic:
Originally Posted By TheTaxMonkey:
[quote ]Page 49 V. Conclusion For the reasons articulated above, we hold that Watson has standing to bring his constitutional challenges to the NFA and GCA. But we will nevertheless grant the Government’s motion to dismiss his complaint because (1) the Second Amendment does not protect the manufacture and possession of machine guns, and (2) Congress acted well within its established Article I Commerce Clause power to enact the machine gun bans, as we hold above. Additionally, Watson’s Due Process claim must also be dismissed because he cannot show that he had a legitimate claim of entitlement in either the machine gun or an approved application. Finally, we also grant the Government’s motion to dismiss Watson’s Equal Protection and detrimental reliance claims.[/quoten ]
What The Fuck ? Something you don't really know until you get to law school: judges will sometimes basically say "lol, don't care. Not reading this shit" in opinions. If the Founding Fathers impeached a judge for wearing the wrong clothing in public, what do you think they would do to a judge who refused to read the documents before giving their decision? The judge read it, but he didn't care. I didn't mean to imply he never opened Nolo's brief. Oh. I still say impeach him for being an obvious dumbass. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 8:36:33 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
SBRS, SBS and silencers are becoming more in common usage with no increase in crimes committed with them. What about all the in use machine guns not being used in crime? Courts make my head hurt Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
Originally Posted By BladedRonin:
Their reasoning makes my head hurt. "Not protected because they are not common and in common usage....." . THEY ARE NOT COMMON BECAUSE YOU ILLEGALLY BANNED THEM!!!! SBRS, SBS and silencers are becoming more in common usage with no increase in crimes committed with them. What about all the in use machine guns not being used in crime? Courts make my head hurt Wait til a suppressor or SBR is used in a high profile crime. We (the gov) knew the people shouldn't have been able to get their hands on these dangerous weapons all along. |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 8:38:58 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
If you are aware that "gun control" laws are not intended to prevent or reduce crime, why would you make a post pointing out that NFA regulated objects are almost never used while someone commits a crime? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
Originally Posted By POLYTHENEPAM:
Originally Posted By IHTFP08:
Courts make my head hurt Perhaps the pain will subside if you come to realize that "gun control" laws are not intended to prevent or reduce crime. The object of the exercise is to control the peasants. It's very difficult to govern people if they are as well armed as those who are employed to enforce the edicts of those who govern. I completely understand that. I wonder what would happen if every AR pistol owner slapped on a stock on their pistol upper in their own house at the same time. Would that set off an SBR bat signal to the ATF? Its too bad gun owners cant agree on anything or we'd have a more organized movement. If you are aware that "gun control" laws are not intended to prevent or reduce crime, why would you make a post pointing out that NFA regulated objects are almost never used while someone commits a crime? Because safety and reducing crime are the guise that gun control laws are pushed under. Govt. Thoughts: More gun control/regulation of guns/silencers=less crime; therefore less regulation=more crime. So when more and more NFA items are being produced and used without the corresponding increase in crime, it invalidates the argument that they need to be regulated (at least in my head). Plus I know that MY silencers and MY machine guns would not be used in a crime, so I hate being punished/regulated based on others actions. I guess I think to logically or scientifically to be a lawyer. No increase in crime= no need for regulation. |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 7/26/2015 8:54:28 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By IHTFP08:
Because safety and reducing crime are the guise that gun control laws are pushed under. Govt. Thoughts: More gun control/regulation of guns/silencers=less crime; therefore less regulation=more crime. So when more and more NFA items are being produced and used without the corresponding increase in crime, it invalidates the argument that they need to be regulated (at least in my head). Plus I know that MY silencers and MY machine guns would not be used in a crime, so I hate being punished/regulated based on others actions. I guess I think to logically or scientifically to be a lawyer. No increase in crime= no need for regulation. You said you understood that crime prevention had nothing to do with "gun control" laws. Clearly that is not the case. You have internalized the justification for such laws given by citizen disarmament advocates and government officials. I have shocking news: Politicians Lie! When a government official or an elected official states that the purpose of a proposed or existing "gun control" law is crime reduction, he or she is LYING. Pointing out that the items are not used by people while committing crimes is pointless. It will not change the opinion of those who are determined to disarm you. It will not overcome the countless hours of propaganda consumed by millions of people as entertainment. If you are to have any hope of success, you must first understand the nature of the obstacles you face, which include, but are not limited to, the real reasons these laws exist. At this point, you do not. Of course, you have plenty of company. |
|
|
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.
