User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 3:28:18 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Number0neGun: So he gets to keep the machine gun? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Number0neGun: Originally Posted By d16man:  So he gets to keep the machine gun? |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 3:29:01 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Number0neGun:
So he gets to keep the machine gun? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Number0neGun:
Originally Posted By d16man:
So he gets to keep the machine gun? The BATFE is keeping it for "safe keeping". Nolo when will you release your repose to these agents of jackassery who sit on the court? Where do we go next? What is your next move? |
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 3:54:13 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By E-Mag:
I dont speak legalese and i did not stay in a holiday inn last night but I think that says they cant destroy it Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By E-Mag:
Originally Posted By Number0neGun:
Originally Posted By d16man:
So he gets to keep the machine gun? This. I guess it's like evidence. |
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 4:05:41 AM EDT
[#4]
How do I donate money to this cause?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 4:08:20 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By benb:
How do I donate money to this cause? http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 10:50:04 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By johnnypantz:
and he may have friends willing to help him out of a muddy situation... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By johnnypantz:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By NorthBridge:
Nolo, I really hope you have put some thought into your security. I'm not trying to be all tin-foil up in here but I think you know what I'm saying. Meh. I have lots of life insurance. I don't really care. and he may have friends willing to help him out of a muddy situation... 
|
|
|
|
NE, USA
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 12:19:09 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPD158:
Donation sent. The argument they presented was basically you must be a criminal to want one because we said so. Shit pissed me off. Oh, and then the are rare, so you can't have one. Rare because we banned them. There are a few fallacies- but that one stuck out to me the most. |
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 12:29:37 PM EDT
[#8]
Hey NOLO...any luck getting that list of "Privileged" individuals ALLOWED to build post ban machine guns?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 12:41:56 PM EDT
[#9]
How nice of a mill and drill job did he do on the lower?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 12:57:26 PM EDT
[#10]
In the event that the case goes in favor of our being allowed to make a new MG, I hope someone offers to buy and preserve this historical MG that allows our freedom to be returned. I'll put a small sum of money up toward its preservation if that happens.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 1:07:19 PM EDT
[#11]
Bump for Freedom
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 3:06:42 PM EDT
[#12]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 4:03:42 PM EDT
[#13]
Bumpage
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 7:01:05 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ziegenbock:
+87, Nolo, can you share the full testimony when you have time? Hardy had it, but said it was burred. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By ziegenbock:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
Originally Posted By Lohe:
In this regard, Nolo is there anything we can do to help with research or anything else besides the go fund me and sitting on the side lines cheering. 
+1. I figure going against DoJ's legions of lawyers, paralegals, and admin support, you need all the help you can get! +87, Nolo, can you share the full testimony when you have time? Hardy had it, but said it was burred. Not a bad idea. I'm close enough to DC that if you need someone to spend a day or two at the National Archives looking for something, I'd be more than happy to make the trip. I'm not a paralegal by any means, but I can damned sure read and understand. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 9:35:52 PM EDT
[#15]
Nolo, when will the next event/major date be?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:30:36 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Nolo, when will the next event/major date be? Response in PA due 1/30. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/27/2015 11:41:22 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Response in PA due 1/30. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Nolo, when will the next event/major date be? Response in PA due 1/30. NOLO, you are the man..The opposite of Sal Goodmen. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:05:29 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Response in PA due 1/30. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Nolo, when will the next event/major date be? Response in PA due 1/30. Then what will happen? What are the odds this goes even higher? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:19:40 AM EDT
[Last Edit: FrankDrebin]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Then what will happen? What are the odds this goes even higher? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Nolo, when will the next event/major date be? Response in PA due 1/30. Then what will happen? What are the odds this goes even higher? There is little chance it won't go higher. Appeals from the United States District Court are not discretionary appeals. Either side can appeal to the Court of Appeals in that Circuit and the Court of Appeals will hear the matter. From there a petition for certiorari lies to SCOTUS. Almost all cases are discretionary at that stage and they take an exceptionally limited amount of cases -- approximately 2% of the paid civil cases. Supreme Court Rule 10 governs and not even an incorrect application of the law by a lower court is sufficient to warrant a grant. There must be something more like an actual and entrenched split among Courts or something of overwhelming national importance. Lightning must strike in order to get a case heard there. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:25:17 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
There is little chance it won't go higher. Appeals from the United States District Court are not discretionary appeals. Either side can appeal to the Court of Appeals in that Circuit and the Court of Appeals will hear the matter. From there a petition for certiorari lies to SCOTUS. Almost all cases are discretionary at that stage and they take an exceptionally limited amount of cases -- approximately 2% of the paid civil cases. Supreme Court Rule 10 governs and not even an incorrect application of the law by a lower court is sufficient to warrant a grant. There must be something more like an actual and entrenched split among Courts or something of overwhelming national importance. Lightning must strike in order to get a case heard there. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Nolo, when will the next event/major date be? Response in PA due 1/30. Then what will happen? What are the odds this goes even higher? There is little chance it won't go higher. Appeals from the United States District Court are not discretionary appeals. Either side can appeal to the Court of Appeals in that Circuit and the Court of Appeals will hear the matter. From there a petition for certiorari lies to SCOTUS. Almost all cases are discretionary at that stage and they take an exceptionally limited amount of cases -- approximately 2% of the paid civil cases. Supreme Court Rule 10 governs and not even an incorrect application of the law by a lower court is sufficient to warrant a grant. There must be something more like an actual and entrenched split among Courts or something of overwhelming national importance. Lightning must strike in order to get a case heard there. So what are the chances it makes it that far? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:26:47 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
So what are the chances it makes it that far? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CPT_CAVEMAN:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Nolo, when will the next event/major date be? Response in PA due 1/30. Then what will happen? What are the odds this goes even higher? There is little chance it won't go higher. Appeals from the United States District Court are not discretionary appeals. Either side can appeal to the Court of Appeals in that Circuit and the Court of Appeals will hear the matter. From there a petition for certiorari lies to SCOTUS. Almost all cases are discretionary at that stage and they take an exceptionally limited amount of cases -- approximately 2% of the paid civil cases. Supreme Court Rule 10 governs and not even an incorrect application of the law by a lower court is sufficient to warrant a grant. There must be something more like an actual and entrenched split among Courts or something of overwhelming national importance. Lightning must strike in order to get a case heard there. So what are the chances it makes it that far? 2%. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:30:15 AM EDT
[#22]
[dumbanddumber] so you're telling me there's a chance? [/dumbanddumber]
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 2:19:59 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
There is little chance it won't go higher. Appeals from the United States District Court are not discretionary appeals. Either side can appeal to the Court of Appeals in that Circuit and the Court of Appeals will hear the matter. From there a petition for certiorari lies to SCOTUS. Almost all cases are discretionary at that stage and they take an exceptionally limited amount of cases -- approximately 2% of the paid civil cases. Supreme Court Rule 10 governs and not even an incorrect application of the law by a lower court is sufficient to warrant a grant. There must be something more like an actual and entrenched split among Courts or something of overwhelming national importance. Lightning must strike in order to get a case heard there. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Nolo, when will the next event/major date be? Response in PA due 1/30. Then what will happen? What are the odds this goes even higher? There is little chance it won't go higher. Appeals from the United States District Court are not discretionary appeals. Either side can appeal to the Court of Appeals in that Circuit and the Court of Appeals will hear the matter. From there a petition for certiorari lies to SCOTUS. Almost all cases are discretionary at that stage and they take an exceptionally limited amount of cases -- approximately 2% of the paid civil cases. Supreme Court Rule 10 governs and not even an incorrect application of the law by a lower court is sufficient to warrant a grant. There must be something more like an actual and entrenched split among Courts or something of overwhelming national importance. Lightning must strike in order to get a case heard there. Is their anything we can do to increase our chances? |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 2:22:19 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
2%. Why can`t we just bribe someone... |
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 2:28:51 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Beach:
Hey NOLO...any luck getting that list of "Privileged" individuals ALLOWED to build post ban machine guns? This is what I'm wanting to see. |
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 4:28:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: SlayerofFudds]
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Glocker1986:
This is what I'm wanting to see. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Glocker1986:
Originally Posted By Beach:
Hey NOLO...any luck getting that list of "Privileged" individuals ALLOWED to build post ban machine guns? This is what I'm wanting to see. When did Charlie Wilson Bring his AK74 into this nation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 5:23:00 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Why can`t we just bribe someone... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
2%. Why can`t we just bribe someone... Because we don't conspire to commit felonies here. 
|
|
|
|
WI, USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 5:32:19 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kpel308:
Because we don't conspire to commit felonies here. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By kpel308:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
2%. Why can`t we just bribe someone... Because we don't conspire to commit felonies here. By bribe what he really meant to say was campaign contribution... 
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 6:39:00 AM EDT
[#29]
Maybe PSA will contribute for all of the great press they're getting for free. ??
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 7:17:39 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SonicRaT:
By bribe what he really meant to say was campaign contribution... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SonicRaT:
Originally Posted By kpel308:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
2%. Why can`t we just bribe someone... Because we don't conspire to commit felonies here. By bribe what he really meant to say was campaign contribution... High Five! |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 8:59:58 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Is their anything we can do to increase our chances? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Nolo, when will the next event/major date be? Response in PA due 1/30. Then what will happen? What are the odds this goes even higher? There is little chance it won't go higher. Appeals from the United States District Court are not discretionary appeals. Either side can appeal to the Court of Appeals in that Circuit and the Court of Appeals will hear the matter. From there a petition for certiorari lies to SCOTUS. Almost all cases are discretionary at that stage and they take an exceptionally limited amount of cases -- approximately 2% of the paid civil cases. Supreme Court Rule 10 governs and not even an incorrect application of the law by a lower court is sufficient to warrant a grant. There must be something more like an actual and entrenched split among Courts or something of overwhelming national importance. Lightning must strike in order to get a case heard there. Is their anything we can do to increase our chances? Win at one of the Court of Appeals. The government's petition for certiorari (meaning they were the loser at the lower court) would make it substantially likely SCOTUS would take the case for a variety of reasons. The principle reason is that the decision would be a change in the status quo and potentially have national impact despite the geographical boundaries of the Circuit Court of Appeals. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 10:05:50 AM EDT
[#32]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:41:29 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
There is little chance it won't go higher. Appeals from the United States District Court are not discretionary appeals. Either side can appeal to the Court of Appeals in that Circuit and the Court of Appeals will hear the matter. From there a petition for certiorari lies to SCOTUS. Almost all cases are discretionary at that stage and they take an exceptionally limited amount of cases -- approximately 2% of the paid civil cases. Supreme Court Rule 10 governs and not even an incorrect application of the law by a lower court is sufficient to warrant a grant. There must be something more like an actual and entrenched split among Courts or something of overwhelming national importance. Lightning must strike in order to get a case heard there. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Nolo, when will the next event/major date be? Response in PA due 1/30. Then what will happen? What are the odds this goes even higher? There is little chance it won't go higher. Appeals from the United States District Court are not discretionary appeals. Either side can appeal to the Court of Appeals in that Circuit and the Court of Appeals will hear the matter. From there a petition for certiorari lies to SCOTUS. Almost all cases are discretionary at that stage and they take an exceptionally limited amount of cases -- approximately 2% of the paid civil cases. Supreme Court Rule 10 governs and not even an incorrect application of the law by a lower court is sufficient to warrant a grant. There must be something more like an actual and entrenched split among Courts or something of overwhelming national importance. Lightning must strike in order to get a case heard there. Correct me if I'm wrong here.... But wasn't there a case in Illinois where Machine Guns are technically legal on the federal level, but illegal at the state level, and SCOTUS refused to hear it? Would that case produce sufficient conflict with a favorable outcome to Hollis or Watson to pass this smell test. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 11:47:31 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
How nice of a mill and drill job did he do on the lower? If he had one of the FN made PSA SC lowers, then it was all ready except for the 3rd hole....If he used a DIAS. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:06:57 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryCorrect me if I'm wrong here....
But wasn't there a case in Illinois where Machine Guns are technically legal on the federal level, but illegal at the state level, and SCOTUS refused to hear it? Would that case produce sufficient conflict with a favorable outcome to Hollis or Watson to pass this smell test. The government didn't appeal because of IL state law already kept people from getting into the NFA game. That would not be the case here so the government would pretty much have to appeal, hopefully we win and they actually do hear it. Honestly I'd be happy just getting Hughes declared unconstitutional but it's be nice to dump the whole NFA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:19:44 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51:
Correct me if I'm wrong here.... But wasn't there a case in Illinois where Machine Guns are technically legal on the federal level, but illegal at the state level, and SCOTUS refused to hear it? Would that case produce sufficient conflict with a favorable outcome to Hollis or Watson to pass this smell test. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By orpheus762x51:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Nolo, when will the next event/major date be? Response in PA due 1/30. Then what will happen? What are the odds this goes even higher? There is little chance it won't go higher. Appeals from the United States District Court are not discretionary appeals. Either side can appeal to the Court of Appeals in that Circuit and the Court of Appeals will hear the matter. From there a petition for certiorari lies to SCOTUS. Almost all cases are discretionary at that stage and they take an exceptionally limited amount of cases -- approximately 2% of the paid civil cases. Supreme Court Rule 10 governs and not even an incorrect application of the law by a lower court is sufficient to warrant a grant. There must be something more like an actual and entrenched split among Courts or something of overwhelming national importance. Lightning must strike in order to get a case heard there. Correct me if I'm wrong here.... But wasn't there a case in Illinois where Machine Guns are technically legal on the federal level, but illegal at the state level, and SCOTUS refused to hear it? Would that case produce sufficient conflict with a favorable outcome to Hollis or Watson to pass this smell test. I'm not sure about the case you are referring to, but two points. First, a conflict between courts alone is often not even enough. The conflict typically has to be a wide split and entrenched split. One state court (or even several) differing from a federal court of appeals (or even several) is not necessarily sufficient to warrant review. SCOTUS will often decline review in hopes that the lower courts begin to resolve the conflict or some legislative act resolves the conflict. And not all conflicts are the same. Holding up an older case as an example of a conflict is not typically persuasive. SCOTUS will very often deny a petition for certiorari on an issue and then years later grant a similar case because the issue has matured (or perhaps there is a clearer record below). Second, the issue you describe in that case (State law bar, but Federal law permits) is not really what the current cases are about. For sure the DOJ is raising a quasi-similar issue based upon a standing defense, but I suspect that argument goes down in flames given the savings provisions under both Texas and Pennsylvania laws. The real issue in the current case is the Constitutionality of the NFA, IMHO. I want to drive home the point. Review by SCOTUS is exceedingly difficult. Don't count on it happening. Witness the myriad of post-Heller/McDonald petitions about the right to carry than have been denied review. Those were very natural extensions of the precedent set by Heller/McDonald and SCOTUS refused to step in an reverse horrible decisions by a number of federal Court of Appeals. We CANNOT count on the Courts to do the right thing. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:20:53 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SK468:
The government didn't appeal because of IL state law already kept people from getting into the NFA game. That would not be the case here so the government would pretty much have to appeal, hopefully we win and they actually do hear it. Honestly I'd be happy just getting Hughes declared unconstitutional but it's be nice to dump the whole NFA. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SK468:
Correct me if I'm wrong here....
But wasn't there a case in Illinois where Machine Guns are technically legal on the federal level, but illegal at the state level, and SCOTUS refused to hear it? Would that case produce sufficient conflict with a favorable outcome to Hollis or Watson to pass this smell test. The government didn't appeal because of IL state law already kept people from getting into the NFA game. That would not be the case here so the government would pretty much have to appeal, hopefully we win and they actually do hear it. Honestly I'd be happy just getting Hughes declared unconstitutional but it's be nice to dump the whole NFA. Agreed. Getting Hughes taken out is the name of the game here. Having the whole NFA gutted would be 24-carat-gold-and-bourbon-infused icing on the cake 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:25:43 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
I'm not sure about the case you are referring to, but two points. First, a conflict between courts alone is often not even enough. The conflict typically has to be a wide split and entrenched split. One state court (or even several) differing from a federal court of appeals (or even several) is not necessarily sufficient to warrant review. SCOTUS will often decline review in hopes that the lower courts begin to resolve the conflict or some legislative act resolves the conflict. And not all conflicts are the same. Holding up an older case as an example of a conflict is not typically persuasive. SCOTUS will very often deny a petition for certiorari on an issue and then years later grant a similar case because the issue has matured (or perhaps there is a clearer record below). Second, the issue you describe in that case (State law bar, but Federal law permits) is not really what the current cases are about. For sure the DOJ is raising a quasi-similar issue based upon a standing defense, but I suspect that argument goes down in flames given the savings provisions under both Texas and Pennsylvania laws. The real issue in the current case is the Constitutionality of the NFA, IMHO. I want to drive home the point. Review by SCOTUS is exceedingly difficult. Don't count on it happening. Witness the myriad of post-Heller/McDonald petitions about the right to carry than have been denied review. Those were very natural extensions of the precedent set by Heller/McDonald and SCOTUS refused to step in an reverse horrible decisions by a number of federal Court of Appeals. We CANNOT count on the Courts to do the right thing. Point taken. So, if our efforts are not successful, what other options are open to us short of a heads-down charge through Congress with a bill to repeal Hughes? |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:26:23 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryI'm not sure about the case you are referring to, but two points.
First, a conflict between courts alone is often not even enough. The conflict typically has to be a wide split and entrenched split. One state court (or even several) differing from a federal court of appeals (or even several) is not necessarily sufficient to warrant review. SCOTUS will often decline review in hopes that the lower courts begin to resolve the conflict or some legislative act resolves the conflict. And not all conflicts are the same. Holding up an older case as an example of a conflict is not typically persuasive. SCOTUS will very often deny a petition for certiorari on an issue and then years later grant a similar case because the issue has matured (or perhaps there is a clearer record below). Second, the issue you describe in that case (State law bar, but Federal law permits) is not really what the current cases are about. For sure the DOJ is raising a quasi-similar issue based upon a standing defense, but I suspect that argument goes down in flames given the savings provisions under both Texas and Pennsylvania laws. The real issue in the current case is the Constitutionality of the NFA, IMHO. I want to drive home the point. Review by SCOTUS is exceedingly difficult. Don't count on it happening. Witness the myriad of post-Heller/McDonald petitions about the right to carry than have been denied review. Those were very natural extensions of the precedent set by Heller/McDonald and SCOTUS refused to step in an reverse horrible decisions by a number of federal Court of Appeals. We CANNOT count on the Courts to do the right thing. US vs Rock Island Armory Frank, I'm just hoping that we win and either force their hand to hear it or that they pass and it stays declared unconstitutional. I have my reservations as you obviously do but I still have hope we will prevail. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:28:22 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By d16man: If he had one of the FN made PSA SC lowers, then it was all ready except for the 3rd hole....If he used a DIAS. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By d16man: Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR: How nice of a mill and drill job did he do on the lower? If he had one of the FN made PSA SC lowers, then it was all ready except for the 3rd hole....If he used a DIAS. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:31:40 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryPoint taken.
So, if our efforts are not successful, what other options are open to us short of a heads-down charge through Congress with a bill to repeal Hughes? We'd have to depend on the legislature to overturn it, being as that Hughes has been law for almost 29 years now and the NFA has been around for over 80 years that shows me that this route will never happen. This is basically the last real chance in my opinion but I am just a dumb truck driver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:41:46 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SK468:
We'd have to depend on the legislature to overturn it, being as that Hughes has been law for almost 29 years now and the NFA has been around for over 80 years that shows me that this route will never happen. This is basically the last real chance in my opinion but I am just a dumb truck driver. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SK468:
Point taken.
So, if our efforts are not successful, what other options are open to us short of a heads-down charge through Congress with a bill to repeal Hughes? We'd have to depend on the legislature to overturn it, being as that Hughes has been law for almost 29 years now and the NFA has been around for over 80 years that shows me that this route will never happen. This is basically the last real chance in my opinion but I am just a dumb truck driver. I hear you, and I agree for the most part, but stranger things have happened in American politics. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:43:25 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SK468:
We'd have to depend on the legislature to overturn it, being as that Hughes has been law for almost 29 years now and the NFA has been around for over 80 years that shows me that this route will never happen. This is basically the last real chance in my opinion but I am just a dumb truck driver. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SK468:
Point taken.
So, if our efforts are not successful, what other options are open to us short of a heads-down charge through Congress with a bill to repeal Hughes? We'd have to depend on the legislature to overturn it, being as that Hughes has been law for almost 29 years now and the NFA has been around for over 80 years that shows me that this route will never happen. This is basically the last real chance in my opinion but I am just a dumb truck driver. You're not just a "dumb truck driver." I think you've judged the playing field quite well. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 12:58:12 PM EDT
[#44]
Thanks Frank, stranger things have happened and there is a major groundswell of defensive minded shooters that are interested in select fire now so I guess "never say never" but I'm just being realistic. I didn't foresee that most of the nation would be "shall issue" on concealed carry either but now even my home state of Michigan has made really good progress (shall issue since 2001) retaking lost ground on our 2'nd amendment rights. Any way you look at it once I'm back to work (laid off for winter) I'll be donating as much as I can to the cause because I truly believe in it in my bones.
|
|
|
IN, USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:44:17 PM EDT
[#45]
Could someone provide a summary for the layman as to what is going on, and what the next steps are? Im not very good with the legalese.
|
|
|
PA, USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:50:34 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Using a DIAS would be building a separate machinegun. I'm pretty sure the lower got a hole drilled through it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By d16man:
Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
How nice of a mill and drill job did he do on the lower? If he had one of the FN made PSA SC lowers, then it was all ready except for the 3rd hole....If he used a DIAS. She got the 3rd hole and shed some aluminum. If she had been recoated it would have looked as if it came from the factory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 1:56:26 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheRealPaGunner: She got the 3rd hole and shed some aluminum. If she had been recoated it would have looked as if it came from the factory. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheRealPaGunner: Originally Posted By jaqufrost: Originally Posted By d16man: Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR: How nice of a mill and drill job did he do on the lower? If he had one of the FN made PSA SC lowers, then it was all ready except for the 3rd hole....If he used a DIAS. She got the 3rd hole and shed some aluminum. If she had been recoated it would have looked as if it came from the factory. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 2:02:07 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Still wish someone should up...I mean no one did and still pisses me off. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By SlayerofFudds:
I meant for US vs Miller. It wasn't as competitive back then. SCOTUS takes maybe 75 cases a year now. Back in the 1930s they took significantly more. It has not become a specialty bar. Still wish someone should up...I mean no one did and still pisses me off. Miller had been murdered, and his attorney had been appointed assistant US Attorney, so there was no one to appear for Miller and thus the DoJ knew it was an easy win. |
|
|
|
SC, USA
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 2:06:57 PM EDT
[#49]
Long time lurker but with this going on I had to join in. Anyway were you ever in an argument with your parents and their response was "because i said so"? Thats what this feels like, its BS, the government works for us after all and they're out of control IMHO. Thanks to all those involved in this case for making an effort to restore one of many personal freedoms we've lost in America, its about time someone reminded the government of its place in a democracy. Go get em
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/28/2015 2:14:38 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheRealPaGunner:
She got the 3rd hole and shed some aluminum. If she had been recoated it would have looked as if it came from the factory. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TheRealPaGunner:
Originally Posted By jaqufrost:
Originally Posted By d16man:
Originally Posted By EagleArmsHBAR:
How nice of a mill and drill job did he do on the lower? If he had one of the FN made PSA SC lowers, then it was all ready except for the 3rd hole....If he used a DIAS. She got the 3rd hole and shed some aluminum. If she had been recoated it would have looked as if it came from the factory. Awesome. I bet that was fun. 
|
|
|
|
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.
