Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Page / 224
Link Posted: 8/4/2015 11:01:39 PM EDT
Are the guys at subguns beating off about how they predicted this yet?
Link Posted: 8/5/2015 5:31:05 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/5/2015 6:29:46 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
View Quote


I don't see signatures or dates, is this "official" or are you waiting on the judge to sign and date so to speak?

Too bad the ATF already has it, sure would be nice if he could have kept possession until the matter was concluded. =)
Link Posted: 8/5/2015 7:05:55 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/5/2015 11:46:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/5/2015 11:51:07 PM EDT by jcriley]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Are the guys at subguns beating off about how they predicted this yet?
View Quote


Surprisingly....no. That, or there was some gloating but it was quickly deleted. The mods over there are in denial that this lawsuit even exists, like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand, they believe that ignoring it will make it go away. Or maybe it's as simple as them having an agenda, protecting the MG owning elitists who place the value of their collections above that of the freedom of others to own them. Think about it, the first REAL challenge to Hughes, and the NFA in general in the last several decades, but if Subguns "NFA board" were you're only source of information, you'd never even know about it. And on the rare occasion when it was being talked about, based on the comments, you'd think that they were being made by paid mouthpieces for Brady and the VPC. I wouldn't even be surprised if someone from over there files an amicus brief in support of the ATF and the FEDS position.
Link Posted: 8/6/2015 9:56:41 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jcriley:


Surprisingly....no. That, or there was some gloating but it was quickly deleted. The mods over there are in denial that this lawsuit even exists, like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand, they believe that ignoring it will make it go away. Or maybe it's as simple as them having an agenda, protecting the MG owning elitists who place the value of their collections above that of the freedom of others to own them. Think about it, the first REAL challenge to Hughes, and the NFA in general in the last several decades, but if Subguns "NFA board" were you're only source of information, you'd never even know about it. And on the rare occasion when it was being talked about, based on the comments, you'd think that they were being made by paid mouthpieces for Brady and the VPC. I wouldn't even be surprised if someone from over there files an amicus brief in support of the ATF and the FEDS position.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jcriley:
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Are the guys at subguns beating off about how they predicted this yet?


Surprisingly....no. That, or there was some gloating but it was quickly deleted. The mods over there are in denial that this lawsuit even exists, like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand, they believe that ignoring it will make it go away. Or maybe it's as simple as them having an agenda, protecting the MG owning elitists who place the value of their collections above that of the freedom of others to own them. Think about it, the first REAL challenge to Hughes, and the NFA in general in the last several decades, but if Subguns "NFA board" were you're only source of information, you'd never even know about it. And on the rare occasion when it was being talked about, based on the comments, you'd think that they were being made by paid mouthpieces for Brady and the VPC. I wouldn't even be surprised if someone from over there files an amicus brief in support of the ATF and the FEDS position.


Possibly another reason that this is not appearing there is that in the decision, the judge states the 2A does not protect "machine guns". Therefore, at any time those investments could bet worth nothing. That has been the .gov position all along, and the fear of the subguns crowd.
Link Posted: 8/6/2015 12:26:41 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks:


Possibly another reason that this is not appearing there is that in the decision, the judge states the 2A does not protect "machine guns". Therefore, at any time those investments could bet worth nothing. That has been the .gov position all along, and the fear of the subguns crowd.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks:
Originally Posted By jcriley:
Originally Posted By mean_sartin:
Are the guys at subguns beating off about how they predicted this yet?


Surprisingly....no. That, or there was some gloating but it was quickly deleted. The mods over there are in denial that this lawsuit even exists, like ostriches with their heads buried in the sand, they believe that ignoring it will make it go away. Or maybe it's as simple as them having an agenda, protecting the MG owning elitists who place the value of their collections above that of the freedom of others to own them. Think about it, the first REAL challenge to Hughes, and the NFA in general in the last several decades, but if Subguns "NFA board" were you're only source of information, you'd never even know about it. And on the rare occasion when it was being talked about, based on the comments, you'd think that they were being made by paid mouthpieces for Brady and the VPC. I wouldn't even be surprised if someone from over there files an amicus brief in support of the ATF and the FEDS position.


Possibly another reason that this is not appearing there is that in the decision, the judge states the 2A does not protect "machine guns". Therefore, at any time those investments could bet worth nothing. That has been the .gov position all along, and the fear of the subguns crowd.

Funny, I don't see the "except for machine guns" in the 2A. Maybe I don't have the complete text that is revealed only to DoJ and judges.
Link Posted: 8/6/2015 2:04:11 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/6/2015 5:23:53 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Zoomies:

I still love you. No homo.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Zoomies:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Originally Posted By cpl_fisher:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
3rd Circuit Court of Appeals application sent today.

when are you going to post the appeal? I just saw the notice.


That's just how this works. I filed the notice. Court sets briefing schedule. We file. They file. We file.

There is no brief yet.

I still love you. No homo.


Back off, Trick. I'm havin' Nolo's Baby!
Link Posted: 8/6/2015 5:31:20 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/6/2015 7:11:25 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual:


IMO, (anti) Judges who declare as much do so at their peril. It would seem that full auto and select-fire weapons (arguably Destructive Devices too) are the most protected, at least according to a plain reading of Miller, while manually operated sporting arms the least...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
<snip>
Funny, I don't see the "except for machine guns" in the 2A. Maybe I don't have the complete text that is revealed only to DoJ and judges.


IMO, (anti) Judges who declare as much do so at their peril. It would seem that full auto and select-fire weapons (arguably Destructive Devices too) are the most protected, at least according to a plain reading of Miller, while manually operated sporting arms the least...

lol. What peril? Unless people start hanging them from lamp posts, they have a lifetime appointment to even District courts. Sure they may not get a promotion to Circuit or SCOTUS, but I'm pretty sure those don't come with a pay raise - or at least not much of one.
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 10:02:28 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual:


IMO, (anti) Judges who declare as much do so at their peril. It would seem that full auto and select-fire weapons (arguably Destructive Devices too) are the most protected, at least according to a plain reading of Miller, while manually operated sporting arms the least...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:

Funny, I don't see the "except for machine guns" in the 2A. Maybe I don't have the complete text that is revealed only to DoJ and judges.


IMO, (anti) Judges who declare as much do so at their peril. It would seem that full auto and select-fire weapons (arguably Destructive Devices too) are the most protected, at least according to a plain reading of Miller, while manually operated sporting arms the least...


That language in the decision directly contradicts Miller. What is generally forgotten about Miller is that it is a remand to the district court for trial, which never happened because Miller was dead. The NFA was never put to the test in a court of law regarding its Constitutionality - or at least potentially until now. The NFA has just been presumed to be constitutional.
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 3:05:56 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 3:07:12 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Texas dismissed Hollis case on lack of standing and some other grounds. Will file opinion shortly.

5th circuit here we come!
View Quote

You don't need to be told, but GIVE 'EM HELL!!
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 3:10:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2015 3:28:40 PM EDT by Beach]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Texas dismissed Hollis case on lack of standing and some other grounds. Will file opinion shortly.

5th circuit here we come!
View Quote


WHAT? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN?

Link Posted: 8/7/2015 3:11:23 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Texas dismissed Hollis case on lack of standing and some other grounds. Will file opinion shortly.

5th circuit here we come!
View Quote


Whatever you need brother, you just call me. Let's jam it in their asses sideways.
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 3:14:08 PM EDT
Damn that sucks. Not surprising though I guess.
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 3:15:46 PM EDT
Off to Pacer....
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 3:16:10 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Texas dismissed Hollis case on lack of standing and some other grounds. Will file opinion shortly.

5th circuit here we come!
View Quote

Wait, WHAT!!!!!?????
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 3:23:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2015 3:24:39 PM EDT by NoloContendere]
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 3:42:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/7/2015 3:57:39 PM EDT by FrankDrebin]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
#45 Memorandum Opinion and Order

As we will appeal this decision, please refrain from making any derogatory comments about the Judge or opposing counsel. There is no need for that here.
View Quote


Well your strategy (which I believe was deliberate) of getting contemporaneous rulings worked very well. Now hopefully the 3rd Circuit and 5th Circuit will come out with conflicting opinions at roughly the same time.
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 4:05:16 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks:


That language in the decision directly contradicts Miller. What is generally forgotten about Miller is that it is a remand to the district court for trial, which never happened because Miller was dead. The NFA was never put to the test in a court of law regarding its Constitutionality - or at least potentially until now. The NFA has just been presumed to be constitutional.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By HenryKnoxFineBooks:
Originally Posted By AJ_Dual:
Originally Posted By Mariner82:

Funny, I don't see the "except for machine guns" in the 2A. Maybe I don't have the complete text that is revealed only to DoJ and judges.


IMO, (anti) Judges who declare as much do so at their peril. It would seem that full auto and select-fire weapons (arguably Destructive Devices too) are the most protected, at least according to a plain reading of Miller, while manually operated sporting arms the least...


That language in the decision directly contradicts Miller. What is generally forgotten about Miller is that it is a remand to the district court for trial, which never happened because Miller was dead. The NFA was never put to the test in a court of law regarding its Constitutionality - or at least potentially until now. The NFA has just been presumed to be constitutional.



I've always though it would be interesting to analogize the 2nd to the 1st. If I can't have a machine gun then modern printing presses could be outlawed as well. Or speech done via computer is not protected only speech in the town square. The concept of free speech and the right to bear arms should not be dependent upon how those rights were able to be exercised when the BOR was written but upon the methods currently available, assuming the government hasn't created an artificial shortage.

As far as dangerous and unusual, we don't ban words just because the words themselves might be dangerous but we do ban using them in a way that can cause dangerous situations to arise. Scream bomb in your living room no one cares, scream bomb in the airport at a TSA checkpoint and free speech won't be a defense. The same should be true of firearms, feel free to own and use them however you choose as long as they are used responsibly.

This argument the government can ban firearms because they have a history of banning firearms is such bullshit. If that were good legal reasoning we'd still have segregated schools and abortion would still be illegal.




Link Posted: 8/7/2015 4:08:40 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:


Whatever you need brother, you just call me. Let's jam it in their asses sideways.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Texas dismissed Hollis case on lack of standing and some other grounds. Will file opinion shortly.

5th circuit here we come!


Whatever you need brother, you just call me. Let's jam it in their asses sideways.

Then break it off for good measure.
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 4:40:48 PM EDT
Holy cow, they got the part about Machine Guns being banned in Texas completely wrong.


Link Posted: 8/7/2015 5:04:50 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By NoloContendere:
Texas dismissed Hollis case on lack of standing and some other grounds. Will file opinion shortly.

5th circuit here we come!
View Quote

That is crazy given how well you presented it.

These are some trying times for sure. I cannot think of it every being more so in
this Country that I love so much.
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 5:33:13 PM EDT
Damnit
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 6:00:57 PM EDT
I really can't even believe she didn't allow discovery.

Ridiculous.
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 6:10:09 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By BushmanLA:
Holy cow, they got the part about Machine Guns being banned in Texas completely wrong.



View Quote

YOU CAUGHT THAT TOO...
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 7:58:11 PM EDT
Not totally surprised given the judge in Hollis:
1. Klintoon appointee during the AWB years
2. Did not dissent in Fyock v Sunnyvale when she sat on that panel, where the panel's opinion was that a ban on > 10 round mags does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
Onwards and upwards
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 8:50:02 PM EDT
[tinfoil hat] There are a lot of decisions and actions, much of it bad news for us, coming quickly. Are there forces in the .gov discussing this and pulling strings behind the curtains? [/tinfoil hat]
Link Posted: 8/7/2015 11:10:08 PM EDT
Could it be she ruled lack of standing because Hollis was the plaintiff and not the Trust?
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 12:27:56 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
Could it be she ruled lack of standing because Hollis was the plaintiff and not the Trust?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Mariner82:
Could it be she ruled lack of standing because Hollis was the plaintiff and not the Trust?



See pages 38 - 40



...
VIII. “Person” under the GCA
Alternatively, Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) does not
prohibit unincorporated trusts from manufacturing or possessing machine guns.
Section 922(o) provides that:

(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer
or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to--
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United
States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or
political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully
possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Section 921(a)(1) provides that:
(a) As used in this chapter—
(1) The term “person” and the term “whoever” include any individual, corporation,
company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.
18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(1). Accordingly, the issue before the Court is whether the Hollis Trust is a
“person” under the the GCA. Hollis relies on the plain language of the GCA, which, unlike the
definition of “person” in the Internal Revenue Code that applies to the NFA, does not include
“trust” as a “person.”

The Hollis Trust was created and exists under the laws of the State of Texas. Dkt. No. 1
¶ 4. “The general rule in Texas (and elsewhere) has long been that ‘the term ‘trust’ refers not to
a separate legal entity but rather to the fiduciary relationship governing the trustee with respect
to the trust property.’” In re Guetersloh, 326 S.W.3d 737, 739 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2010, no
pet.) (quoting Huie v. DeShazo, 922 S.W.2d 920, 926 (Tex. 1996) (emphasis in original)); see
also Ditta v. Conte, 298 S.W.3d 187, 191 (Tex. 2009) (“A trust is not a legal entity.”). For
example, “suits against a trust must be brought against the trustee.” Id. (citing Werner v.
Colwell, 909 S.W.2d 866, 870 (Tex. 1995)).


However, and importantly for the purposes of the Hollis Trust, “[t]he trustee is vested
with legal title and right of possession of the trust property but holds it for the benefit of the
beneficiaries, who are vested with equitable title to the trust property.” Faulkner v. Bost, 137
S.W.3d 254, 258–59 (Tex. App.—Tyler 2004, no pet.). Accordingly, as the trustee of the Hollis
Trust, only Hollis could “transfer or possess a machinegun,” as is prohibited under § 922(o). As
an individual human being, Hollis is a “person” within the meaning of § 922(a)(1), and he is
subject to the prohibitions of § 922(o), which prevent him from possessing or transferring a
machine gun. See United States v. King, 735 F.3d 1098, 1104 (9th Cir. 2013) (“King, as an
individual human being, is therefore a ‘person’ within the meaning of § 922(a)(1)(A).”).

Accordingly, the Court finds that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) prohibited Hollis, individually, and as
trustee of the Hollis Trust, from possessing a machine gun, and Plaintiff’s alternative request for
declaratory and injunctive relief to the contrary is dismissed for failure to state a claim
.


Link Posted: 8/8/2015 12:56:25 AM EDT
Just file a suit class action against the USA for 922(o) being unconstitutional. I think this trust thing is going to end up falling on its face unless we get a judge whom actually reads your case entry.
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 1:46:42 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By excursel:
Just file a suit class action against the USA for 922(o) being unconstitutional. I think this trust thing is going to end up falling on its face unless we get a judge whom actually reads your case entry.
View Quote


If you are angling to go after the MG ban as unconstitutional on second amendment ground, this aspect was addressed in both of these decisions. In both cases the written decisions go on for pages about how dangerous and unusual weapons are not protected and machineguns are decidedly dangerous and unusual and are therefore most certainly not protected on 2nd amendment grounds.

Ultimately concluding in Watson on page ~33 and Hollis on pages ~27 & ~28 (with many preceding pages leading up to this final reasoning) that machineguns have no second amendment protection.

Obviously there are going to be appeals and maybe there will be more luck farther up the totem pole. Unfortunately both district courts at this level didn't seem very swayed by this aspect/argument.

Link Posted: 8/8/2015 1:57:59 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jbntex:


Registration began in 1934 and closed in 1986 so that is 52 years worth of time.

There were maybe ~200,000 transferable machineguns in the registry in May of 86. Divide that by 52 and you end up with ~4000 per year on average being registered.

The reality is that probably 10% of that 200,000 total were registered in the final weeks leading up to the ban as thousands of conversion sears were registered, so you are probably looking at more of an average of 3500 registered per year if there were 180,000 in say January 1986. Throw out the huge number of 1968 amnesty registrations and your actual yearly average mean probably drops even further into the 3000 range.

Overall machineguns registrations and transfers were pretty rare given there are a couple million firearms made and imported each year . Say on average 3000 machineguns registered per year vs. 3 Million normal guns manufactured would work out to be one tenth of one percent.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By jbntex:
Originally Posted By Conju:
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
Do we have info on how frequently MGs were added to the registry or transferred from one person to another before the ban went into effect?



I'll let someone else chime in, but all the C3 dealers I have spoken with had told me that it was very uncommon to sell a MG


Registration began in 1934 and closed in 1986 so that is 52 years worth of time.

There were maybe ~200,000 transferable machineguns in the registry in May of 86. Divide that by 52 and you end up with ~4000 per year on average being registered.

The reality is that probably 10% of that 200,000 total were registered in the final weeks leading up to the ban as thousands of conversion sears were registered, so you are probably looking at more of an average of 3500 registered per year if there were 180,000 in say January 1986. Throw out the huge number of 1968 amnesty registrations and your actual yearly average mean probably drops even further into the 3000 range.

Overall machineguns registrations and transfers were pretty rare given there are a couple million firearms made and imported each year . Say on average 3000 machineguns registered per year vs. 3 Million normal guns manufactured would work out to be one tenth of one percent.

My understanding is that prior to the 1960s, getting caught with an unregistered MG usually got you a "Go pay for damned taxes on this!". There are LOTS out there like that.
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 8:09:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2015 8:10:27 AM EDT by excursel]
It seems to me this will just be another case like others before the case is so wide that the courts will just curtail around any constitutionally of where they all came up with this dangerous and unusual garbage and continue to never even look at that just push it off as because we can and will and there is nothing you turds can do about it. I say we would be better off with telling the courts to stick it up their ass and as the founders said the people are the ultimate decision through nullification. Not the courts
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 8:28:38 AM EDT
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.

Link Posted: 8/8/2015 8:37:56 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.

View Quote

did you get lost trying to get to subguns?
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 8:45:21 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.

View Quote

if you think it's over, you're simple

even if it was over and he did lose, it's still better than not having attempted and cowering in a dark corner like a scared child
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 9:23:49 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.

View Quote


Please GTFO
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 10:08:35 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SimonPhoto:
My understanding is that prior to the 1960s, getting caught with an unregistered MG usually got you a "Go pay for damned taxes on this!". There are LOTS out there like that.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By SimonPhoto:
Originally Posted By jbntex:
Originally Posted By Conju:
Originally Posted By Chris0013:
Do we have info on how frequently MGs were added to the registry or transferred from one person to another before the ban went into effect?



I'll let someone else chime in, but all the C3 dealers I have spoken with had told me that it was very uncommon to sell a MG


Registration began in 1934 and closed in 1986 so that is 52 years worth of time.

There were maybe ~200,000 transferable machineguns in the registry in May of 86. Divide that by 52 and you end up with ~4000 per year on average being registered.

The reality is that probably 10% of that 200,000 total were registered in the final weeks leading up to the ban as thousands of conversion sears were registered, so you are probably looking at more of an average of 3500 registered per year if there were 180,000 in say January 1986. Throw out the huge number of 1968 amnesty registrations and your actual yearly average mean probably drops even further into the 3000 range.

Overall machineguns registrations and transfers were pretty rare given there are a couple million firearms made and imported each year . Say on average 3000 machineguns registered per year vs. 3 Million normal guns manufactured would work out to be one tenth of one percent.

My understanding is that prior to the 1960s, getting caught with an unregistered MG usually got you a "Go pay for damned taxes on this!". There are LOTS out there like that.


And any scenarios where the owner was afforded to opportunity to pay the tax and registered the gun in the NFRTR in order to make it legal (and avoid prosecution and/or forfeiture) would be included in the 200,000 number above.
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 10:55:23 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.

View Quote


Do you work for free? How many hours do you think it took Nolo to put together the case, brief this issues, and prepare for oral argument?
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 11:03:32 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MaxTheRabbit:

if you think it's over, you're simple

even if it was over and he did lose, it's still better than not having attempted and cowering in a dark corner like a scared child
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By MaxTheRabbit:
Originally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.


if you think it's over, you're simple

even if it was over and he did lose, it's still better than not having attempted and cowering in a dark corner like a scared child



This x10000000

F*** all of the p****** that are scared to stand up to .gov when their rights are trampled. And especially f*** the ones that willfully go along with it for their own gain.

Nolo and crew are taking on a long odds shot to try and do this the "right" way. I say long odds because we all know the score with .gov today. When he takes this all the way up and .gov still twists the Constitution to rule for this their way, then we'll make some hard decisions at that time. Until then, Mr. realhuman, sit back and appreciate the two plaintiffs standing up for you (whether that be common citizen, machine gun investor or DOJ employee), along with Nolo & Co. If you can't do that, then go be a douchbag somewhere else.
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 11:12:13 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:


Do you work for free? How many hours do you think it took Nolo to put together the case, brief this issues, and prepare for oral argument?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.



Do you work for free? How many hours do you think it took Nolo to put together the case, brief this issues, and prepare for oral argument?


The truth hurts. You get what you pay for. Internet chat room lawyer takes on ATF..................Outcome no surprise.

Link Posted: 8/8/2015 11:20:41 AM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By realhuman:


The truth hurts. You get what you pay for. Internet chat room lawyer takes on ATF..................Outcome no surprise.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By realhuman:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.



Do you work for free? How many hours do you think it took Nolo to put together the case, brief this issues, and prepare for oral argument?


The truth hurts. You get what you pay for. Internet chat room lawyer takes on ATF..................Outcome no surprise.


I remember being told of a similar story once...

Link Posted: 8/8/2015 11:23:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2015 11:24:42 AM EDT by Banditman]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By realhuman:


The truth hurts. You get what you pay for. Internet chat room lawyer takes on ATF..................Outcome no surprise.

View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By realhuman:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.



Do you work for free? How many hours do you think it took Nolo to put together the case, brief this issues, and prepare for oral argument?


The truth hurts. You get what you pay for. Internet chat room lawyer takes on ATF..................Outcome no surprise.


Please leave because you have no clue about what you are talking about,
are not contributing to the conversation in the least and I believe you are
violating the COC for personal attacks.

You are also too cheap to pony up for a membership.
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 11:32:47 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 11:41:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/8/2015 11:43:41 AM EDT by doty_soty]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Banditman:

Please leave because you have no clue about what you are talking about,
are not contributing to the conversation in the least and I believe you are
violating the COC for personal attacks.

You are also too cheap to pony up for a membership.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Banditman:
Originally Posted By realhuman:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.



Do you work for free? How many hours do you think it took Nolo to put together the case, brief this issues, and prepare for oral argument?


The truth hurts. You get what you pay for. Internet chat room lawyer takes on ATF..................Outcome no surprise.


Please leave because you have no clue about what you are talking about,
are not contributing to the conversation in the least and I believe you are
violating the COC for personal attacks.

You are also too cheap to pony up for a membership.

I'd think attacking him for being a non-paying member is also a frowned upon practice. But what would I know, I'm just another non-paying plebe lol. I certainly support nolo, and anyone who fights for my rights to enjoy my hobby to the fullest. You never know, this appeal could yield fruit yet. I'd certainly love to add a few autos to my SBRs and suppressors.
Link Posted: 8/8/2015 12:05:21 PM EDT
I WILL NOT COMPLY. ........


Im off to pay the little weird guy at the pawn shop $100 for my little U shaped "upper/lower gap tighten device" he made me.

The justice system has made a joke of the laws, why bother playing their skewed game, build on brothers. ......




Link Posted: 8/8/2015 2:30:35 PM EDT
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases!

You did however secure your personal income.

Isnt that the most important thing.

View Quote


Over the last 29 years, what have YOU done?
.
.
.
.
.
.
Crickets....
Page / 224
Top Top