User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/4/2015 11:01:39 PM EDT
[#1]
Are the guys at subguns beating off about how they predicted this yet?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2015 5:31:05 PM EDT
[#2]
|
|
|
|
NV, USA
|
Posted: 8/5/2015 6:29:46 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
#10 - Joint Motion to Stay Forfeiture in PA #10-1 Proposed Order on Stay 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. =) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/5/2015 7:05:55 PM EDT
[#4]
It's a motion.
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/5/2015 11:46:13 PM EDT
[Last Edit: jcriley]
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 9:56:41 AM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 12:26:41 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 2:04:11 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
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. 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... |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 5:23:53 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Zoomies:
I still love you. No homo. Quote HistoryOriginally 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! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 5:31:20 PM EDT
[#10]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/6/2015 7:11:25 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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... Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 10:02:28 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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... Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 3:05:56 PM EDT
[#13]
Texas dismissed Hollis case on lack of standing and some other grounds. Will file opinion shortly.
5th circuit here we come! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 3:07:12 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Texas dismissed Hollis case on lack of standing and some other grounds. Will file opinion shortly. 5th circuit here we come! You don't need to be told, but GIVE 'EM HELL!! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 3:10:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Beach]
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Texas dismissed Hollis case on lack of standing and some other grounds. Will file opinion shortly. 5th circuit here we come! WHAT? WHEN DID THIS HAPPEN? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 3:11:23 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 3:14:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Damn that sucks. Not surprising though I guess.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 3:15:46 PM EDT
[#18]
Off to Pacer....
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 3:16:10 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Texas dismissed Hollis case on lack of standing and some other grounds. Will file opinion shortly. 5th circuit here we come! Wait, WHAT!!!!!????? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 3:23:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: NoloContendere]
[#20]
#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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 3:42:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: FrankDrebin]
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 4:05:16 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 4:08:40 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Whatever you need brother, you just call me. Let's jam it in their asses sideways. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 4:40:48 PM EDT
[#24]
Holy cow, they got the part about Machine Guns being banned in Texas completely wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 5:04:50 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere: Texas dismissed Hollis case on lack of standing and some other grounds. Will file opinion shortly. 5th circuit here we come! 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 5:33:13 PM EDT
[#26]
Damnit
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 6:00:57 PM EDT
[#27]
I really can't even believe she didn't allow discovery.
Ridiculous. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 6:10:09 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By BushmanLA:
Holy cow, they got the part about Machine Guns being banned in Texas completely wrong. YOU CAUGHT THAT TOO... |
|
|
|
WA, USA
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 7:58:11 PM EDT
[#29]
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 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 8:50:02 PM EDT
[#30]
[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]
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/7/2015 11:10:08 PM EDT
[#31]
Could it be she ruled lack of standing because Hollis was the plaintiff and not the Trust?
|
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 12:27:56 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Mariner82:
Could it be she ruled lack of standing because Hollis was the plaintiff and not the Trust? Quote HistoryOriginally 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. 
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 12:56:25 AM EDT
[#33]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 1:46:42 AM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 1:57:59 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
MO, USA
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 8:09:38 AM EDT
[Last Edit: excursel]
[#36]
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
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 8:28:38 AM EDT
[#37]
It seems you LOST both cases!
You did however secure your personal income. Isnt that the most important thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 8:37:56 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases! You did however secure your personal income. Isnt that the most important thing. did you get lost trying to get to subguns? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 8:45:21 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 9:23:49 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By realhuman: It seems you LOST both cases! You did however secure your personal income. Isnt that the most important thing.  Please GTFO |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 10:08:35 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 10:55:23 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 11:03:32 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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 Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 11:12:13 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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? Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 11:20:41 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By realhuman:
The truth hurts. You get what you pay for. Internet chat room lawyer takes on ATF..................Outcome no surprise. Quote HistoryOriginally 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... 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 11:23:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: Banditman]
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By realhuman: The truth hurts. You get what you pay for. Internet chat room lawyer takes on ATF..................Outcome no surprise. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 11:32:47 AM EDT
[#47]
Don't feed the troll guys.
|
|
|
|
OK, USA
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 11:41:54 AM EDT
[Last Edit: doty_soty]
[#48]
Quote HistoryOriginally 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. Quote HistoryOriginally 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. |
|
|
AL, USA
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 12:05:21 PM EDT
[#49]
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. ...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/8/2015 2:30:35 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By realhuman:
It seems you LOST both cases! You did however secure your personal income. Isnt that the most important thing. Over the last 29 years, what have YOU done? . . . . . . Crickets.... |
|
|
|
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.
