User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 9:22:40 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MattEbert87:
If there was a way to gain standing at this point, I live in Eastern Kentucky District which is highly conservative, favorable ruling would be easy. Appeal it to the 6th District in Cincinnati which is conservative. Are there any locations where Patrol Officers are issued fully automatic weapons as patrol rifles? If the rifle is in their possession and not the LE's possession during off duty hours it could be construed in the same manner as described in the letter from the ATF. That would apply standing since his status as LEO allows him access to automatic weapons without being in an official capacity but the ATF won't allow an agent of a Trust with approval to possess an NFA item in the same manner. Yes, my agency has full auto G36 rifles used by some officers, they get to keep them till they leave the SWAT team or retire. |
|
|
|
FIN
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 9:42:25 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Intermediate scrutiny.... is that the legal term for "just the tip"? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By FlyingGorilla:
"At most the court should apply IINTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY" Translation: "Dear God, please Judge pull our nuts out of this fire by not applying strict scrutiny to this case." Intermediate scrutiny.... is that the legal term for "just the tip"? Whats the fastest way to get a judge to do something? Why, its to tell them to not do it. 
If that judge is even 1/1000th of a ego filled doodle as any i have dealt with he will now apply strict scrutiny just to spite them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 9:51:42 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Not the sharpest knife in the rust pile by far. Or is he...he may be in full agreement with us and he's now presented the best argument .gov can, while opening up other issues, with the hope things pan out our way while still keeping the boss happy. Wes |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 10:06:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: wmjlar15]
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Intermediate scrutiny.... is that the legal term for "just the tip"? Sig material. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 10:15:22 PM EDT
[#5]
The very end was the most interesting to me. Where they deny the need for discovery in relation to what previous errors and omissions may have taken place. Seems they want to keep the door fully closed on their shenanigannery.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 10:38:56 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Not the sharpest knife in the rust pile by far. sometimes there isn't much to do if you have a shitty hand to play |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 10:57:50 PM EDT
[#7]
Wow, it appears as though things are coming along nicely with this suit. FED GOV seems to be running around like chickens with their head cut off. Curiously enough, the NFA FUDDS and ATF apologists have been very quiet. It's not coming out to be the slam-dunk failure as they hoped it'd be, and they're scared. Fuck em'. Go Nolo! To you nay-sayers out there, my offer still stands......I'll bring along some hot sauce for ya' to make it easier to eat this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 11:08:24 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Intermediate scrutiny.... is that the legal term for "just the tip"? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By FlyingGorilla:
"At most the court should apply IINTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY" Translation: "Dear God, please Judge pull our nuts out of this fire by not applying strict scrutiny to this case." Intermediate scrutiny.... is that the legal term for "just the tip"? Pretty much. It's practically rational basis anyways. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 11:18:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Finnbear]
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By yakrat101:
The very end was the most interesting to me. Where they deny the need for discovery in relation to what previous errors and omissions may have taken place. Seems they want to keep the door fully closed on their shenanigannery. Needs more 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 11:20:35 PM EDT
[#10]
 Read the defence stance on dismissal in relation to the 2nd amendment. Seems they are still parading Hellers corpse on marionette strings. To the BATFE, I noticed that was a short section, guess there is hardly any meat left on them bones. Your defence is a skeleton that needs to go back in the ditch where you found him.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2015 11:36:46 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang:
Or is he...he may be in full agreement with us and he's now presented the best argument .gov can, while opening up other issues, with the hope things pan out our way while still keeping the boss happy. Wes Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Wangstang:
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Not the sharpest knife in the rust pile by far. Or is he...he may be in full agreement with us and he's now presented the best argument .gov can, while opening up other issues, with the hope things pan out our way while still keeping the boss happy. Wes Good point.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 12:48:34 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Good point. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Not the sharpest knife in the rust pile by far. Or is he...he may be in full agreement with us and he's now presented the best argument .gov can, while opening up other issues, with the hope things pan out our way while still keeping the boss happy. Wes Good point. So many fronts for DoJ... Now they are also busy fighting the anti-amnesty ruling. That has to be taking up some midnight oil. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 12:51:30 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gtfoxy:
So many fronts for DoJ... Now they are also busy fighting the anti-amnesty ruling. That has to be taking up some midnight oil.
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By gtfoxy:
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Originally Posted By Wangstang:
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Not the sharpest knife in the rust pile by far. Or is he...he may be in full agreement with us and he's now presented the best argument .gov can, while opening up other issues, with the hope things pan out our way while still keeping the boss happy. Wes Good point. So many fronts for DoJ... Now they are also busy fighting the anti-amnesty ruling. That has to be taking up some midnight oil.
We're paying for plenty of attorneys and paralegals at DOJ who do nothing except screw the citizens. Too much to do? Hire more! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 1:03:55 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MattEbert87:
Are there any locations where Patrol Officers are issued fully automatic weapons as patrol rifles? If the rifle is in their possession and not the LE's possession during off duty hours it could be construed in the same manner as described in the letter from the ATF. That would apply standing since his status as LEO allows him access to automatic weapons without being in an official capacity but the ATF won't allow an agent of a Trust with approval to possess an NFA item in the same manner. The Federal government has supplied over 90 thousand full auto rifles to local law enforcement agencies just since 2006. (link) |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 1:25:45 AM EDT
[Last Edit: buck19delta]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MattEbert87:
If there was a way to gain standing at this point, I live in Eastern Kentucky District which is highly conservative, favorable ruling would be easy. Appeal it to the 6th District in Cincinnati which is conservative. Are there any locations where Patrol Officers are issued fully automatic weapons as patrol rifles? If the rifle is in their possession and not the LE's possession during off duty hours it could be construed in the same manner as described in the letter from the ATF. That would apply standing since his status as LEO allows him access to automatic weapons without being in an official capacity but the ATF won't allow an agent of a Trust with approval to possess an NFA item in the same manner. the local sherriff dept here issues full auto m4 carbines, which are carried in the weapon rack in the front of the patrol car. . the common use for civilians thing is bullshit.... full auto has been SEVERLY restricted since the $200 tax was added in 1934 or so. back then $200 was a shitload of cash, equal to the cost of a thompson id say. that would have made it too expensive for most people by itsself. i can guarantee you if you did a poll of gun owners, online etc, simply asking, " if you could buy a full auto, for the same price as a semi auto... would you buy a full auto? probably 50-80% would say yes i bet. they are not in common use by civilians, due to gov rules and regs and restrictions...... they ARE totally in very common use with the gov, military, and security forces and the entire world, which when added to the ussc ruling over sawed off shotguns in the 1930's... should DEFINATELY mean full auto is 100% covered by the 2nd amendment.... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 1:56:36 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By home_alone1: Yes, my agency has full auto G36 rifles used by some officers, they get to keep them till they leave the SWAT team or retire. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By home_alone1: Originally Posted By MattEbert87: If there was a way to gain standing at this point, I live in Eastern Kentucky District which is highly conservative, favorable ruling would be easy. Appeal it to the 6th District in Cincinnati which is conservative. Are there any locations where Patrol Officers are issued fully automatic weapons as patrol rifles? If the rifle is in their possession and not the LE's possession during off duty hours it could be construed in the same manner as described in the letter from the ATF. That would apply standing since his status as LEO allows him access to automatic weapons without being in an official capacity but the ATF won't allow an agent of a Trust with approval to possess an NFA item in the same manner. Yes, my agency has full auto G36 rifles used by some officers, they get to keep them till they leave the SWAT team or retire. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 2:10:07 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Intermediate scrutiny.... is that the legal term for "just the tip"? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By FlyingGorilla:
"At most the court should apply IINTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY" Translation: "Dear God, please Judge pull our nuts out of this fire by not applying strict scrutiny to this case." Intermediate scrutiny.... is that the legal term for "just the tip"? Would you say the ATF would be venturing into a zone of danger? 
|
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 2:19:48 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
You suuuuuuuuure about that? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By movingalong:
Stuff from the FOIA won't be here anytime soon, the DoJ will will not turn things over without more court action (and costs for the requester). There's little/no downside for them to stonewall and block and delay. Anything Nolo can use he already has
Like that letter about the oops, we approved something, go ahead and keep it, but we won't allow further transfers except to SOTs w/demo letters or gov agencies. You suuuuuuuuure about that? Well, I'm pretty sure, because I don't think you can expect your FOIA to come back within the time frame needed for the cases. I'm thinking this is another "tease" so I'll just shut up and wait. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 2:26:58 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Bubbatheredneck]
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MattEbert87: If there was a way to gain standing at this point, I live in Eastern Kentucky District which is highly conservative, favorable ruling would be easy. Appeal it to the 6th District in Cincinnati which is conservative. Are there any locations where Patrol Officers are issued fully automatic weapons as patrol rifles? If the rifle is in their possession and not the LE's possession during off duty hours it could be construed in the same manner as described in the letter from the ATF. That would apply standing since his status as LEO allows him access to automatic weapons without being in an official capacity but the ATF won't allow an agent of a Trust with approval to possess an NFA item in the same manner. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 2:50:42 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saladman:
Would you say the ATF would be venturing into a zone of danger? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Saladman:
Originally Posted By Undefined:
Originally Posted By FlyingGorilla:
"At most the court should apply IINTERMEDIATE SCRUTINY" Translation: "Dear God, please Judge pull our nuts out of this fire by not applying strict scrutiny to this case." Intermediate scrutiny.... is that the legal term for "just the tip"? Would you say the ATF would be venturing into a zone of danger? Well, let's just say that their attorney had better be Mr. Kenny Loggins, Esq.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 4:25:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Zoomies]
[#21]
Wow, never seen this before. Sorta puts things in perspective, doesn't it? Look at that per capita...
I'll edit if this is a COC violation. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 4:53:45 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
#27 Defendants' Reply to Plaintiff's Response in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss/MSJ I read the first 15 pages and it sounds like the BATFE trying to frantically grasp at straws in hopes that they end up with half-hearted defense. Even their defense destroys their own defense... Nothing is rooted in sound logic or definitive precedence. I'll read the rest of it tomorrow, when I have more time. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 5:05:57 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762:
The Federal government has supplied over 90 thousand full auto rifles to local law enforcement agencies just since 2006. (link) Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Gamma762:
Originally Posted By MattEbert87:
Are there any locations where Patrol Officers are issued fully automatic weapons as patrol rifles? If the rifle is in their possession and not the LE's possession during off duty hours it could be construed in the same manner as described in the letter from the ATF. That would apply standing since his status as LEO allows him access to automatic weapons without being in an official capacity but the ATF won't allow an agent of a Trust with approval to possess an NFA item in the same manner. The Federal government has supplied over 90 thousand full auto rifles to local law enforcement agencies just since 2006. (link) And a number of those stay in take-home squads. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 5:33:11 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fivepointoh:
Look up the Scott Peterson case in Illinois how he got out of being charged with an SBR in Illinois. Yes that Scott Peterson...the one that killed all his wives. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By fivepointoh:
Originally Posted By home_alone1:
Originally Posted By MattEbert87:
If there was a way to gain standing at this point, I live in Eastern Kentucky District which is highly conservative, favorable ruling would be easy. Appeal it to the 6th District in Cincinnati which is conservative. Are there any locations where Patrol Officers are issued fully automatic weapons as patrol rifles? If the rifle is in their possession and not the LE's possession during off duty hours it could be construed in the same manner as described in the letter from the ATF. That would apply standing since his status as LEO allows him access to automatic weapons without being in an official capacity but the ATF won't allow an agent of a Trust with approval to possess an NFA item in the same manner. Yes, my agency has full auto G36 rifles used by some officers, they get to keep them till they leave the SWAT team or retire. You mean Drew Peterson?? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 5:55:09 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By movingalong:
Well, I'm pretty sure, because I don't think you can expect your FOIA to come back within the time frame needed for the cases. I'm thinking this is another "tease" so I'll just shut up and wait. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By movingalong:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By movingalong:
Stuff from the FOIA won't be here anytime soon, the DoJ will will not turn things over without more court action (and costs for the requester). There's little/no downside for them to stonewall and block and delay. Anything Nolo can use he already has
Like that letter about the oops, we approved something, go ahead and keep it, but we won't allow further transfers except to SOTs w/demo letters or gov agencies. You suuuuuuuuure about that? Well, I'm pretty sure, because I don't think you can expect your FOIA to come back within the time frame needed for the cases. I'm thinking this is another "tease" so I'll just shut up and wait. Just move along, nothing to see here. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 6:54:05 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By movingalong:
Well, I'm pretty sure, because I don't think you can expect your FOIA to come back within the time frame needed for the cases. I'm thinking this is another "tease" so I'll just shut up and wait. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By movingalong:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By movingalong:
Stuff from the FOIA won't be here anytime soon, the DoJ will will not turn things over without more court action (and costs for the requester). There's little/no downside for them to stonewall and block and delay. Anything Nolo can use he already has
Like that letter about the oops, we approved something, go ahead and keep it, but we won't allow further transfers except to SOTs w/demo letters or gov agencies. You suuuuuuuuure about that? Well, I'm pretty sure, because I don't think you can expect your FOIA to come back within the time frame needed for the cases. I'm thinking this is another "tease" so I'll just shut up and wait. Just because I haven't used it doesn't mean I don't have it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 8:30:35 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Just because I haven't used it doesn't mean I don't have it. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By movingalong:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By movingalong:
Stuff from the FOIA won't be here anytime soon, the DoJ will will not turn things over without more court action (and costs for the requester). There's little/no downside for them to stonewall and block and delay. Anything Nolo can use he already has
Like that letter about the oops, we approved something, go ahead and keep it, but we won't allow further transfers except to SOTs w/demo letters or gov agencies. You suuuuuuuuure about that? Well, I'm pretty sure, because I don't think you can expect your FOIA to come back within the time frame needed for the cases. I'm thinking this is another "tease" so I'll just shut up and wait. Just because I haven't used it doesn't mean I don't have it. So how are you going to get discovery or authenticate and make admissible the evidence you do have? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 8:36:02 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
So how are you going to get discovery or authenticate and make admissible the evidence you do have? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By movingalong:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By movingalong:
Stuff from the FOIA won't be here anytime soon, the DoJ will will not turn things over without more court action (and costs for the requester). There's little/no downside for them to stonewall and block and delay. Anything Nolo can use he already has
Like that letter about the oops, we approved something, go ahead and keep it, but we won't allow further transfers except to SOTs w/demo letters or gov agencies. You suuuuuuuuure about that? Well, I'm pretty sure, because I don't think you can expect your FOIA to come back within the time frame needed for the cases. I'm thinking this is another "tease" so I'll just shut up and wait. Just because I haven't used it doesn't mean I don't have it. So how are you going to get discovery or authenticate and make admissible the evidence you do have? 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 8:46:54 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Just because I haven't used it doesn't mean I don't have it. So how are you going to get discovery or authenticate and make admissible the evidence you do have? Your cryptic responses about having game changer evidence (let's not deny that is the impression you have left) and this response are telling.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 8:58:01 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Your cryptic responses about having game changer evidence (let's not deny that is the impression you have left) and this response are telling.
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Just because I haven't used it doesn't mean I don't have it. So how are you going to get discovery or authenticate and make admissible the evidence you do have? Your cryptic responses about having game changer evidence (let's not deny that is the impression you have left) and this response are telling.
the is because i'm not about to post those documents here and i'm not about to post my strategy for you and the DOJ to read. maybe you'd like to me to post up my .pst file in a searchable database as well?
|
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 9:06:15 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: the is because i'm not about to post those documents here and i'm not about to post my strategy for you and the DOJ to read. maybe you'd like to me to post up my .pst file in a searchable database as well?Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By FrankDrebin: Originally Posted By NoloContendere: Originally Posted By FrankDrebin: Originally Posted By NoloContendere: Just because I haven't used it doesn't mean I don't have it. So how are you going to get discovery or authenticate and make admissible the evidence you do have? Your cryptic responses about having game changer evidence (let's not deny that is the impression you have left) and this response are telling. the is because i'm not about to post those documents here and i'm not about to post my strategy for you and the DOJ to read. maybe you'd like to me to post up my .pst file in a searchable database as well? i like nolo more everyday. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 9:07:47 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
the is because i'm not about to post those documents here and i'm not about to post my strategy for you and the DOJ to read. maybe you'd like to me to post up my .pst file in a searchable database as well?Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Just because I haven't used it doesn't mean I don't have it. So how are you going to get discovery or authenticate and make admissible the evidence you do have? Your cryptic responses about having game changer evidence (let's not deny that is the impression you have left) and this response are telling.
the is because i'm not about to post those documents here and i'm not about to post my strategy for you and the DOJ to read. maybe you'd like to me to post up my .pst file in a searchable database as well?You should carefully read what I asked. I didn't ask what you had or even to see it. I asked how you were you going to get discovery - which is going to be discretionary on the part of the judge - or make whatever evidence you do have admissible. None of which requires you to reveal this "game changer" evidence. Nor does a generic answer reveal your strategy. I will say that I have met very few lawyers who didn't lead with game changing evidence as part of a strategy. I hope it works for you. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 9:09:28 AM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
You should carefully read what I asked. I didn't ask what you had or even to see it. I asked how you were you going to get discovery - which is going to be discretionary on the part of the judge - or make whatever evidence you do have admissible. None of which requires you to reveal this "game changer" evidence. Nor does a generic answer reveal your strategy. I will say that I have met very few lawyers who didn't lead with game changing evidence as part of a strategy. I hope it works for you. if you read the TX response, the discovery situation is laid out there. who said we're done? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 9:55:20 AM EDT
[#34]
Seems to me that the plaintiff needs to legally own a machine gun to prove some of this as bullshit?
Can he legally own one in his homestate? If so, I'll chip in a couple hundred... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 10:09:28 AM EDT
[Last Edit: cybian]
[#35]
NoloContendere: Giving Arfcom freedom boners since a long time ago.
|
|
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 10:14:43 AM EDT
[#36]
[
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
if you read the TX response, the discovery situation is laid out there. who said we're done? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
You should carefully read what I asked. I didn't ask what you had or even to see it. I asked how you were you going to get discovery - which is going to be discretionary on the part of the judge - or make whatever evidence you do have admissible. None of which requires you to reveal this "game changer" evidence. Nor does a generic answer reveal your strategy. I will say that I have met very few lawyers who didn't lead with game changing evidence as part of a strategy. I hope it works for you. if you read the TX response, the discovery situation is laid out there. who said we're done? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 10:30:12 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CYB29:
NoloContendere: Giving Arfcom freedom boners since 10/30/2014. You didn't follow the F&F thread, did you?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 10:33:25 AM EDT
[#38]
It seems like the number of people farting in the spacesuit and saying this will never work, and its just a waste of time, and its just going to have ATF clamp down harder, etc. has significantly dropped off in the last 15-20 pages. Keep up the good work, Nolo.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 11:04:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: danpass]
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By yakrat101:
The very end was the most interesting to me. Where they deny the need for discovery in relation to what previous errors and omissions may have taken place. Seems they want to keep the door fully closed on their shenanigannery. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By yakrat101:
The very end was the most interesting to me. Where they deny the need for discovery in relation to what previous errors and omissions may have taken place. Seems they want to keep the door fully closed on their shenanigannery. http://www.examiner.com/article/why-atf-folded-friesen-case They took the loss on purpose. Probation, loss of a gun and a $25 fine? And a misdemeanor instead of multiple felonies? Why would ATF settle for that when they apparently had him slam-dunked for serious time at Club Fed?
Mike Vanderboegh at Sipsey Street Irregulars has some insights: The one thing the ATF cannot afford to look like is ineffectual, foolish and downright stupid. Yet that's exactly the fate that they deliberately tempted in this case and got caught. Why? Because in the end this was about protecting their secret documents. These documents, no matter what spin they put on them, are in the final analysis just rules, regulations, policies and testing procedures that ought to be in the public domain. They refuse to release tham because then they couldn't change the rules to suit themselves in whatever particular case they're running... The sheer beauty of this case is that, while they'll lose anyway, they cannot turn turtle like they did in the case above (which is meaningless to them). Poetry
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 11:09:48 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zoomies: Wow, never seen this before. Sorta puts things in perspective, doesn't it? Look at that per capita... I'll edit if this is a COC violation. http://i.imgur.com/AxEuLuKl.png |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 11:13:28 AM EDT
[#41]
NOLO, I appreciate all your hard work on this and look forward to how it is argued. I just hope we don't end up with a turn coat judge like CJ Roberts, who declares something obviously unconstitutional to be ok.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 11:15:40 AM EDT
[#42]
"For 80 years we heavily taxed machine guns and required citizens to jump through hoops to obtain them, we outright banned new entries into the market 29 years ago.
Obviously machine guns are not in regular use." It sure is hard to keep a straight face when you boil down a lot of their arguments to a simple premise. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 11:18:17 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Your cryptic responses about having game changer evidence (let's not deny that is the impression you have left) and this response are telling.
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Just because I haven't used it doesn't mean I don't have it. So how are you going to get discovery or authenticate and make admissible the evidence you do have? Your cryptic responses about having game changer evidence (let's not deny that is the impression you have left) and this response are telling.
If you read his last submission and looked carefully at the Appendix that accompanied his last submission and saw the name Len Savage on there, and knew who Len is, you wouldn't be asking these questions. The ATF thinks they're a mighty battleship in the ocean. Len is the catagory 5 hurricane that is coming in on their asses and will sink them once again. Nolo and Len are a team to be feared and reckoned with in the legal sense. If Nolo says he has game changing evidence, with Len involved, I have absolutely no doubt that he does. I almost pity the ATF... almost. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 11:21:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: cybian]
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alphajaguars:
You didn't follow the F&F thread, did you? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By alphajaguars:
Originally Posted By CYB29:
NoloContendere: Giving Arfcom freedom boners since 10/30/2014. You didn't follow the F&F thread, did you? Not as much as I should have. ETA fixed it then.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 11:30:35 AM EDT
[#45]
I am far too stupid to understand anything in these responses but it did seem as if the Feds were talking around their selves. I will say give em hell NOLO.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 11:36:47 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CYB29:
Not as much as I should have. ETA fixed it then. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CYB29:
Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
Originally Posted By CYB29:
NoloContendere: Giving Arfcom freedom boners since 10/30/2014. You didn't follow the F&F thread, did you? Not as much as I should have. ETA fixed it then. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 11:37:15 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By buck19delta:
the local sherriff dept here issues full auto m4 carbines, which are carried in the weapon rack in the front of the patrol car. . the common use for civilians thing is bullshit.... full auto has been SEVERLY restricted since the $200 tax was added in 1934 or so. back then $200 was a shitload of cash, equal to the cost of a thompson id say. that would have made it too expensive for most people by itsself. i can guarantee you if you did a poll of gun owners, online etc, simply asking, " if you could buy a full auto, for the same price as a semi auto... would you buy a full auto? probably 50-80% would say yes i bet. they are not in common use by civilians, due to gov rules and regs and restrictions...... they ARE totally in very common use with the gov, military, and security forces and the entire world, which when added to the ussc ruling over sawed off shotguns in the 1930's... should DEFINATELY mean full auto is 100% covered by the 2nd amendment.... Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By buck19delta:
Originally Posted By MattEbert87:
If there was a way to gain standing at this point, I live in Eastern Kentucky District which is highly conservative, favorable ruling would be easy. Appeal it to the 6th District in Cincinnati which is conservative. Are there any locations where Patrol Officers are issued fully automatic weapons as patrol rifles? If the rifle is in their possession and not the LE's possession during off duty hours it could be construed in the same manner as described in the letter from the ATF. That would apply standing since his status as LEO allows him access to automatic weapons without being in an official capacity but the ATF won't allow an agent of a Trust with approval to possess an NFA item in the same manner. the local sherriff dept here issues full auto m4 carbines, which are carried in the weapon rack in the front of the patrol car. . the common use for civilians thing is bullshit.... full auto has been SEVERLY restricted since the $200 tax was added in 1934 or so. back then $200 was a shitload of cash, equal to the cost of a thompson id say. that would have made it too expensive for most people by itsself. i can guarantee you if you did a poll of gun owners, online etc, simply asking, " if you could buy a full auto, for the same price as a semi auto... would you buy a full auto? probably 50-80% would say yes i bet. they are not in common use by civilians, due to gov rules and regs and restrictions...... they ARE totally in very common use with the gov, military, and security forces and the entire world, which when added to the ussc ruling over sawed off shotguns in the 1930's... should DEFINATELY mean full auto is 100% covered by the 2nd amendment.... I really don't believe the "common use" metric is strong enough to stand up to modern jurist prudence. It moves to easily into other man-portable systems which would, I think, be "startling" (Heller) to a federal judge. The concept that the 2nd protects, among other things, weapons a common citizen might employ in militia duty (2ndA) and in personal defense (Heller) seems much stronger in the Constitutional and case law contexts. There's a clear fit there for select fire weapons; everything from grease guns to M60/240/249 would seem to be clearly protected. Those could easily be tied back to the "common use" argument, but "common use" alone won't provide for the narrowly tailored decisions SCOTUS, and by extension circuit courts, appear to prefer. Crew served gear might be a sticking point. In a case that revolved solely on "common use", I can easily see that metric being thrown out all together. Thankfully, this isn't such a case. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 11:41:29 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xmission:
Seems to me that the plaintiff needs to legally own a machine gun to prove some of this as bullshit? Can he legally own one in his homestate? If so, I'll chip in a couple hundred... If BATFE doesn't refuse to collect the tax, the MG is legal in TX per TX law. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 11:44:46 AM EDT
[Last Edit: mikeyk101]
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cdemarse:
You mean Drew Peterson?? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By cdemarse:
Originally Posted By fivepointoh:
Originally Posted By home_alone1:
Originally Posted By MattEbert87:
If there was a way to gain standing at this point, I live in Eastern Kentucky District which is highly conservative, favorable ruling would be easy. Appeal it to the 6th District in Cincinnati which is conservative. Are there any locations where Patrol Officers are issued fully automatic weapons as patrol rifles? If the rifle is in their possession and not the LE's possession during off duty hours it could be construed in the same manner as described in the letter from the ATF. That would apply standing since his status as LEO allows him access to automatic weapons without being in an official capacity but the ATF won't allow an agent of a Trust with approval to possess an NFA item in the same manner. Yes, my agency has full auto G36 rifles used by some officers, they get to keep them till they leave the SWAT team or retire. You mean Drew Peterson?? I know this is off topic but... He really didn't get out of being charged with an SBR. He shouldn't have been charged in the first place. I am in no way a fan of his or trying to defend him. His arrogance brought all the heat on himself. The prosecutor was looking for anything and everything to possibly charge him with. This was the only thing that they were able to first possibly go after him with. He was actually charged with having a rifle that was 3/8" too short. I think it was some creative measuring. The photos of the seized rifle showed it without a flash hider or muzzle device that would have been on it. This was after the rifle had been in the possession of the state for some time. It had been used as a service weapon but was now just a personally owned weapon. There was a lot of talk that the state went out of their way to unpin and/or remove the weld from the flash hider to get the barrel under legal size. The argument was enough to get the charges dismissed. ETA: Inacurate info |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2015 11:51:01 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By bad2006z71:
I am far too stupid to understand anything in these responses but it did seem as if the Feds were talking around their selves. I will say give em hell NOLO. Basically the defense is based on the following claims (A) the 2A does not apply to automatic weapons (B) In any case Congress can regulate interstate commerce, and even if the NFA was not passed based on that, it now applies because now Congress has more power in this area (C) Even if somehow there was some right to own an automatic weapon, they are scary dangerous and should be banned anyway A number of pre and a couple of post Heller judges have accepted one or more of those arguments in the past, so it is not a complete slam dunk, but that reasoning is hard to maintain with Miller, Heller, and a couple of other recent cases. The DoJ is left with the 2A protects handguns for the use in self defense as its position. This case is going to bring us into the realm of the militia clause - and that is going to get interesting. |
|
|
|
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.
