User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 3:23:07 PM EDT
[Last Edit: UtahShotgunner]
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Are you an attorney? Do you practice in federal court where the judges are typically primed to make dispositve, case-ending rulings on motions to dismiss? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Originally Posted By SamuelAdams1776:
No way a judge will just toss 80 years of federal law on the spot. Sigh... no she won't. For the last time, people READ for God's sake... THIS IS A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS!!! That is it! Nothing more! She''s either going to say, "Case dismissed" or she's going to allow the case to move forward. Are you an attorney? Do you practice in federal court where the judges are typically primed to make dispositve, case-ending rulings on motions to dismiss? Frank, We get it. Don't be a Drebbie Downer. EDIT: Edited page ownage on first day in court. Good luck Nolo and thank you for standing up, Hollis Trust. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 3:26:31 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Let's not get into a purse swinging match here. You will have your answer as to what the judge decides soon. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By Hard_Rock:
Originally Posted By SamuelAdams1776:
No way a judge will just toss 80 years of federal law on the spot. Sigh... no she won't. For the last time, people READ for God's sake... THIS IS A HEARING ON THE MOTION TO DISMISS!!! That is it! Nothing more! She''s either going to say, "Case dismissed" or she's going to allow the case to move forward. Are you an attorney? Do you practice in federal court where the judges are typically primed to make dispositve, case-ending rulings on motions to dismiss? This isn't purse swinging. This is about curbing false expectations of what Nolo is likely to achieve today and to recognize that the path may have to be through the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. Part of what irritates me in this thread is the number of ignorant people who somehow think this is an easy case that Nolo can't lose. Talk about a no win situation for the guy. If he wins here it was no big deal. If he loses here it was either he didn't do something right or "the fix was in." All of that discounts the fact that these are exceedingly high level and complex legal issues. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 3:46:41 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Undefined:
Summary of the dress code and code of conduct for tomorrow: If you don't look like and dress like the millionaire with a super model girlfriend and an 18 car garage full of Bentley's and Aston Martins, you're doing it wrong. Be the Republican* the left hates most - successful, independent, self made, and indebted to no man. 
|
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 3:46:58 PM EDT
[#4]
I am not an attorney, but to add to Frank, even if the court comes out in Nolo's favor at the completion of the entire case it will most likely be on the narrowest grounds possible. The court is not going to make a sweeping change to gun regulations just because this case was brought before it.
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 3:51:47 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MImoose: I am not an attorney, but to add to Frank, even if the court comes out in Nolo's favor at the completion of the entire case it will most likely be on the narrowest grounds possible. The court is not going to make a sweeping change to gun regulations just because this case was brought before it. Actually it's pretty simple... if Nolo wins this case, the Hughes Amendment will be deemed unconstitutional. Afterward, civilians will be able to purchase post-86 machineguns unless and until such time that the government manages to pass a law that forbids it. I don't know why people are getting the idea that this is going to cause "sweeping changes" or allow a free-for-all on machineguns. They'll still be subject to the NFA and state/local laws... not to mention the manufacturers will have to be willing to sell to civilians in the first place. |
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 3:54:47 PM EDT
[#6]
That was my point exactly.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 3:55:29 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Actually it's pretty simple... if Nolo wins this case, the Hughes Amendment will be deemed unconstitutional. Afterward, civilians will be able to purchase post-86 machineguns unless and until such time that the government manages to pass a law that forbids it. I don't know why people are getting the idea that this is going to cause "sweeping changes" or allow a free-for-all on machineguns. They'll still be subject to the NFA and state/local laws... not to mention the manufacturers will have to be willing to sell to civilians in the first place. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By MImoose: I am not an attorney, but to add to Frank, even if the court comes out in Nolo's favor at the completion of the entire case it will most likely be on the narrowest grounds possible. The court is not going to make a sweeping change to gun regulations just because this case was brought before it. Actually it's pretty simple... if Nolo wins this case, the Hughes Amendment will be deemed unconstitutional. Afterward, civilians will be able to purchase post-86 machineguns unless and until such time that the government manages to pass a law that forbids it. I don't know why people are getting the idea that this is going to cause "sweeping changes" or allow a free-for-all on machineguns. They'll still be subject to the NFA and state/local laws... not to mention the manufacturers will have to be willing to sell to civilians in the first place. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 3:56:43 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MImoose: That was my point exactly. Gotcha. You lost me on the "narrowest grounds possible" statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 3:56:58 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Actually it's pretty simple... if Nolo wins this case, the Hughes Amendment will be deemed unconstitutional. Afterward, civilians will be able to purchase post-86 machineguns unless and until such time that the government manages to pass a law that forbids it. I don't know why people are getting the idea that this is going to cause "sweeping changes" or allow a free-for-all on machineguns. They'll still be subject to the NFA and state/local laws... not to mention the manufacturers will have to be willing to sell to civilians in the first place. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By MImoose: I am not an attorney, but to add to Frank, even if the court comes out in Nolo's favor at the completion of the entire case it will most likely be on the narrowest grounds possible. The court is not going to make a sweeping change to gun regulations just because this case was brought before it. Actually it's pretty simple... if Nolo wins this case, the Hughes Amendment will be deemed unconstitutional. Afterward, civilians will be able to purchase post-86 machineguns unless and until such time that the government manages to pass a law that forbids it. I don't know why people are getting the idea that this is going to cause "sweeping changes" or allow a free-for-all on machineguns. They'll still be subject to the NFA and state/local laws... not to mention the manufacturers will have to be willing to sell to civilians in the first place. That is a non-issue. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 3:58:23 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee:
Not necessarily. There could be an even narrower pro 2A decision where the judge rules that the letter of the law says trusts can have post 86 MG's but nobody else can. Or even narrower; Hollis gets a post 86 MG because there is no legal authority for ATF to revoke an approved tax stamp, but as long as they don't make the "mistake" again the barn door stays shut. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 3:59:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Cypher214]
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee: Not necessarily. There could be an even narrower pro 2A decision where the judge rules that the letter of the law says trusts can have post 86 MG's but nobody else can. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By TescoVee: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By MImoose: I am not an attorney, but to add to Frank, even if the court comes out in Nolo's favor at the completion of the entire case it will most likely be on the narrowest grounds possible. The court is not going to make a sweeping change to gun regulations just because this case was brought before it. Actually it's pretty simple... if Nolo wins this case, the Hughes Amendment will be deemed unconstitutional. Afterward, civilians will be able to purchase post-86 machineguns unless and until such time that the government manages to pass a law that forbids it. I don't know why people are getting the idea that this is going to cause "sweeping changes" or allow a free-for-all on machineguns. They'll still be subject to the NFA and state/local laws... not to mention the manufacturers will have to be willing to sell to civilians in the first place. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 3:59:41 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic: That is a non-issue. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By MImoose: I am not an attorney, but to add to Frank, even if the court comes out in Nolo's favor at the completion of the entire case it will most likely be on the narrowest grounds possible. The court is not going to make a sweeping change to gun regulations just because this case was brought before it. Actually it's pretty simple... if Nolo wins this case, the Hughes Amendment will be deemed unconstitutional. Afterward, civilians will be able to purchase post-86 machineguns unless and until such time that the government manages to pass a law that forbids it. I don't know why people are getting the idea that this is going to cause "sweeping changes" or allow a free-for-all on machineguns. They'll still be subject to the NFA and state/local laws... not to mention the manufacturers will have to be willing to sell to civilians in the first place. That is a non-issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:02:06 PM EDT
[#13]
Hk is not the only manufacturer and there's always form 1's anyway.
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:04:08 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CleverNickname: Hk is not the only manufacturer and there's always form 1's anyway. I'm fully aware that most manufacturers SHOULD be fine with selling MG's to civilians but I was specifically responding to the "it's a non-issue" statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:06:08 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: That's very doubtful. Sure this case involves a trust, but the overall determination will regard the constitutionality of the Huges Amendment. I can't imagine any judge saying "well this is unconstitutional but it only applies to trusts..." Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By TescoVee: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By MImoose: I am not an attorney, but to add to Frank, even if the court comes out in Nolo's favor at the completion of the entire case it will most likely be on the narrowest grounds possible. The court is not going to make a sweeping change to gun regulations just because this case was brought before it. Actually it's pretty simple... if Nolo wins this case, the Hughes Amendment will be deemed unconstitutional. Afterward, civilians will be able to purchase post-86 machineguns unless and until such time that the government manages to pass a law that forbids it. I don't know why people are getting the idea that this is going to cause "sweeping changes" or allow a free-for-all on machineguns. They'll still be subject to the NFA and state/local laws... not to mention the manufacturers will have to be willing to sell to civilians in the first place. Isn't avoiding an outcome like that the reason for strict scrutiny? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:08:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214:
That's very doubtful. Sure this case involves a trust, but the overall determination will regard the constitutionality of the Huges Amendment. I can't imagine any judge saying "well this is unconstitutional but it only applies to trusts..." Read the documents. ... by arbitrarily “disapproving” an already approved Form 1, Defendants’ actions violate Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right to due process and is an unjust taking ... Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief ... prohibiting Defendants from unjustly taking property without Due Process.
The court could rule very narrowly on the "unjust taking" plea for relief, let Hollis keep his approved tax stamp, and completely dodge all the other substantial issues raised. |
|
|
|
MI, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:10:16 PM EDT
[#17]
I think what Tesco is saying is that the ruling would not be made on constitutional grounds at all, which is actually preferred by courts.
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:12:16 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic: Isn't avoiding an outcome like that the reason for strict scrutiny? Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By TescoVee: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By MImoose: I am not an attorney, but to add to Frank, even if the court comes out in Nolo's favor at the completion of the entire case it will most likely be on the narrowest grounds possible. The court is not going to make a sweeping change to gun regulations just because this case was brought before it. Actually it's pretty simple... if Nolo wins this case, the Hughes Amendment will be deemed unconstitutional. Afterward, civilians will be able to purchase post-86 machineguns unless and until such time that the government manages to pass a law that forbids it. I don't know why people are getting the idea that this is going to cause "sweeping changes" or allow a free-for-all on machineguns. They'll still be subject to the NFA and state/local laws... not to mention the manufacturers will have to be willing to sell to civilians in the first place. Isn't avoiding an outcome like that the reason for strict scrutiny? It would be like the Heller case ending with "Ok, Dick Heller can have a handgun but it doesn't apply to anyone else!" |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:14:17 PM EDT
[#19]
Updates?
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:14:39 PM EDT
[Last Edit: semiautomatic]
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: I'm fully aware that most manufacturers SHOULD be fine with selling MG's to civilians but I was specifically responding to the "it's a non-issue" statement. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Hk is not the only manufacturer and there's always form 1's anyway. I'm fully aware that most manufacturers SHOULD be fine with selling MG's to civilians but I was specifically responding to the "it's a non-issue" statement. I don't care about HK's decisions. This is about civilians having the ability to legally purchase post 1986 machine guns. All I'm saying is that every company that wishes to sell to the civilian market will legally be able to do so. ETA: I believe that supply and demand will win their hearts. $$$$ |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:15:30 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Monoz: Read the documents. ... by arbitrarily "disapproving” an already approved Form 1, Defendants’ actions violate Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right to due process and is an unjust taking ... Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief ... prohibiting Defendants from unjustly taking property without Due Process. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Monoz: Originally Posted By Cypher214: That's very doubtful. Sure this case involves a trust, but the overall determination will regard the constitutionality of the Huges Amendment. I can't imagine any judge saying "well this is unconstitutional but it only applies to trusts..." Read the documents. ... by arbitrarily "disapproving” an already approved Form 1, Defendants’ actions violate Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right to due process and is an unjust taking ... Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief ... prohibiting Defendants from unjustly taking property without Due Process. The court could rule very narrowly on the "unjust taking" plea for relief, let Hollis keep his approved tax stamp, and completely dodge all the other substantial issues raised. Really, anything is possible but the scenario is unlikely as they would be adding more ammunition for a future case against the ATF approving post-86 machineguns for some but not for all. We're all just speculating at this point so maybe we should just wait and see what happens.  |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:16:48 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic: I don't care about HK's decisions. This is about civilians having the ability to legally purchase post 1986 machine guns. All I'm saying is that every company that wishes to sell to the civilian market will legally be able to do so. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Hk is not the only manufacturer and there's always form 1's anyway. I'm fully aware that most manufacturers SHOULD be fine with selling MG's to civilians but I was specifically responding to the "it's a non-issue" statement. I don't care about HK's decisions. This is about civilians having the ability to legally purchase post 1986 machine guns. All I'm saying is that every company that wishes to sell to the civilian market will legally be able to do so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:17:48 PM EDT
[Last Edit: Monoz]
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214:
It would be like the Heller case ending with "Ok, Dick Heller can have a handgun but it doesn't apply to anyone else!" Heller was a carefully selected defendant to advance the cause of the 2A. He very well represented any law-abiding DC citizen who wanted a basic handgun for self-defense in the home. Heller was selected so there was little room for a narrow ruling, but instead to drill directly to the 2A issue. One especially clever thing about picking a DC resident as defendant is it sidestepped the whole incorporation issue. Hollis is in the special circumstance of having an approved tax stamp revoked. Precedent could be established here that only applies to people in the same circumstance, would be a "win" for Hollis as plaintiff but do very little to advance the overall cause. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:18:31 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: I was merely mentioning potential hurdles for the "I can't wait to buy this gun and that gun!" crowd, nothing more. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By semiautomatic: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By CleverNickname: Hk is not the only manufacturer and there's always form 1's anyway. I'm fully aware that most manufacturers SHOULD be fine with selling MG's to civilians but I was specifically responding to the "it's a non-issue" statement. I don't care about HK's decisions. This is about civilians having the ability to legally purchase post 1986 machine guns. All I'm saying is that every company that wishes to sell to the civilian market will legally be able to do so. Gotcha. I can see some manufacturers needing to warm up to the idea. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:21:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Monoz:
Heller was a carefully selected defendant to advance the cause of the 2A. He very well represented a law-abiding citizen who wanted a basic handgun for self-defense. Heller was selected so there was little room for a narrow ruling, but instead to drill directly to the 2A issue. Hollis is in the special circumstance of having an approved tax stamp revoked. Precedent could be established here that only applies to people in the same circumstance, would be a "win" for Hollis as plaintiff but do very little to advance the overall cause. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Monoz:
Originally Posted By Cypher214:
It would be like the Heller case ending with "Ok, Dick Heller can have a handgun but it doesn't apply to anyone else!" Heller was a carefully selected defendant to advance the cause of the 2A. He very well represented a law-abiding citizen who wanted a basic handgun for self-defense. Heller was selected so there was little room for a narrow ruling, but instead to drill directly to the 2A issue. Hollis is in the special circumstance of having an approved tax stamp revoked. Precedent could be established here that only applies to people in the same circumstance, would be a "win" for Hollis as plaintiff but do very little to advance the overall cause. If that's the case, I will throw a Form 1 MG at them once every 3 months for the rest of my life until one "sticks". 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:22:07 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic:
That is a non-issue. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By semiautomatic:
Originally Posted By Cypher214:
Originally Posted By MImoose:
I am not an attorney, but to add to Frank, even if the court comes out in Nolo's favor at the completion of the entire case it will most likely be on the narrowest grounds possible. The court is not going to make a sweeping change to gun regulations just because this case was brought before it. Actually it's pretty simple... if Nolo wins this case, the Hughes Amendment will be deemed unconstitutional. Afterward, civilians will be able to purchase post-86 machineguns unless and until such time that the government manages to pass a law that forbids it. I don't know why people are getting the idea that this is going to cause "sweeping changes" or allow a free-for-all on machineguns. They'll still be subject to the NFA and state/local laws... not to mention the manufacturers will have to be willing to sell to civilians in the first place. That is a non-issue. +1 And HK has more problems related to German law that our law on that IIRC. FN is making Semi-Auto SAWs for pete's sake... You don't think they would love to sell a civilian legal Minimi here? I bet they would. I bet SIG would sell us some toys. And I know that the plethora of manufacturers around the US would be happy to make you a machinegun if it was legal. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:28:03 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214:
I wouldn't be able to walk or talk with that sticker on me... too much puking. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214:
Originally Posted By xviperx420:
Originally Posted By Cypher214:
Originally Posted By SamuelAdams1776:
No way a judge will just toss 80 years of federal law on the spot. That's not what today is about... This is simply a decision by the judge to allow the case to proceed or not. I really wish I had a suit that still fits. I live 15 minutes from the courthouse. Show up naked with a Hillary for Prez sticker on your chest and start screaming about AR670-1s murdering 87 clipazines per children I wouldn't be able to walk or talk with that sticker on me... too much puking. 
|
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:28:53 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By notso: +1 And HK has more problems related to German law that our law on that IIRC. FN is making Semi-Auto SAWs for pete's sake... You don't think they would love to sell a civilian legal Minimi here? I bet they would. I bet SIG would sell us some toys. And I know that the plethora of manufacturers around the US would be happy to make you a machinegun if it was legal. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By notso: Originally Posted By semiautomatic: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By MImoose: I am not an attorney, but to add to Frank, even if the court comes out in Nolo's favor at the completion of the entire case it will most likely be on the narrowest grounds possible. The court is not going to make a sweeping change to gun regulations just because this case was brought before it. Actually it's pretty simple... if Nolo wins this case, the Hughes Amendment will be deemed unconstitutional. Afterward, civilians will be able to purchase post-86 machineguns unless and until such time that the government manages to pass a law that forbids it. I don't know why people are getting the idea that this is going to cause "sweeping changes" or allow a free-for-all on machineguns. They'll still be subject to the NFA and state/local laws... not to mention the manufacturers will have to be willing to sell to civilians in the first place. That is a non-issue. +1 And HK has more problems related to German law that our law on that IIRC. FN is making Semi-Auto SAWs for pete's sake... You don't think they would love to sell a civilian legal Minimi here? I bet they would. I bet SIG would sell us some toys. And I know that the plethora of manufacturers around the US would be happy to make you a machinegun if it was legal. In a few weeks, you can add me to the list of willing manufacturers.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:34:06 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By notso: +1 And HK has more problems related to German law that our law on that IIRC. FN is making Semi-Auto SAWs for pete's sake... You don't think they would love to sell a civilian legal Minimi here? I bet they would. I bet SIG would sell us some toys. And I know that the plethora of manufacturers around the US would be happy to make you a machinegun if it was legal. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By notso: Originally Posted By semiautomatic: Originally Posted By Cypher214: Originally Posted By MImoose: I am not an attorney, but to add to Frank, even if the court comes out in Nolo's favor at the completion of the entire case it will most likely be on the narrowest grounds possible. The court is not going to make a sweeping change to gun regulations just because this case was brought before it. Actually it's pretty simple... if Nolo wins this case, the Hughes Amendment will be deemed unconstitutional. Afterward, civilians will be able to purchase post-86 machineguns unless and until such time that the government manages to pass a law that forbids it. I don't know why people are getting the idea that this is going to cause "sweeping changes" or allow a free-for-all on machineguns. They'll still be subject to the NFA and state/local laws... not to mention the manufacturers will have to be willing to sell to civilians in the first place. That is a non-issue. +1 And HK has more problems related to German law that our law on that IIRC. FN is making Semi-Auto SAWs for pete's sake... You don't think they would love to sell a civilian legal Minimi here? I bet they would. I bet SIG would sell us some toys. And I know that the plethora of manufacturers around the US would be happy to make you a machinegun if it was legal. Sig MPX  |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:37:34 PM EDT
[#30]
I see a difference between a realist with knowledge and experience (Frank) trying to add context and caution and others, elsewhere who see this case as nothing but fire and brimstone for the 2A.
Alan Gura gave a speech to the CATO institute and said something that really stuck with me. Starting about 1:07 "Other courts, however, are profoundly hostile to the concept of the 2nd amendment. They believe that Heller is not so much legitimate opinion that must be followed as much as it is an obstacle; a puzzle to be solved, something to be bypassed or defeated. We do know from the outcome of the McDonald case that three of the present justices on the Supreme Court, if given the chance, would vote to overrule Heller and shut down, I suppose, this type of debate; this event into the future. … 1:52 …Now I didn’t always feel this way. When Heller was decided I went on record and believed that even if the court where to become more hostile to the second amendment, they wouldn’t flat-out overrule Heller. They would find creative ways to limit it or give it a narrow reading, and otherwise make the right ever less meaningful. But I think I’ve changed my mind on that. It’s fairly obvious, not just from the McDonald descent but also looking at the attitude of the lower courts that elections here matter; they matter greatly and a small makeup in the Supreme Court could definitely influence this and put the second amendment out of business." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2waXRSf--TE I have long dispensed with the naive notion that merely having facts and reason on your side is enough to always overcome the obstacles you encounter. With that being said I am cautiously optimistic. Thank you Nolo, co-counsel, Mr. Hollis, Mr. Watson, the Heller foundation, and all those working tirelessly in the background to make this happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:51:40 PM EDT
[#31]
Just leaving. Good show, nothing that was not in all of the briefs. No way to tell which way it will go. Nolo kicked butt and made us proud! It was good to meet everyone.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:54:08 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AJSully421:
Just leaving. Good show, nothing that was not in all of the briefs. No way to tell which way it will go. Nolo kicked butt and made us proud! It was good to meet everyone. You mean she didn't rule right there on the spot.
|
|
|
|
VA, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 4:54:09 PM EDT
[#33]
HK is restricted by both US import law as well as the German constitution in regards to "weapons of war". The German constitution is one that we largely drafted for them after WWII. This was originally the reason that the USC and SL8 pin holes were in different places than the UMP and G36. Supposedly it was why the civvy 416 was going to have pin holes that were different. It's really hard to keep up.
If the ban was lifted and the legal framework was cleared, they'd sell to us just like they do to their pistols which aren't covered. They're a business and they want that money! Looking forward to the update today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 5:03:05 PM EDT
[#34]
Someone who was there post details!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 5:04:07 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Superq7:
Someone who was there post details! Three posts above yours. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 5:12:23 PM EDT
[#36]
I'm curious how many suits showed up for the other side and if they looked like the bunch of idiots they are?
good work today Nolo!
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 5:13:04 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214:
In a few weeks, you can add me to the list of willing manufacturers.
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Cypher214:
Originally Posted By notso:
Originally Posted By semiautomatic:
Originally Posted By Cypher214:
Originally Posted By MImoose:
I am not an attorney, but to add to Frank, even if the court comes out in Nolo's favor at the completion of the entire case it will most likely be on the narrowest grounds possible. The court is not going to make a sweeping change to gun regulations just because this case was brought before it. Actually it's pretty simple... if Nolo wins this case, the Hughes Amendment will be deemed unconstitutional. Afterward, civilians will be able to purchase post-86 machineguns unless and until such time that the government manages to pass a law that forbids it. I don't know why people are getting the idea that this is going to cause "sweeping changes" or allow a free-for-all on machineguns. They'll still be subject to the NFA and state/local laws... not to mention the manufacturers will have to be willing to sell to civilians in the first place. That is a non-issue. +1 And HK has more problems related to German law that our law on that IIRC. FN is making Semi-Auto SAWs for pete's sake... You don't think they would love to sell a civilian legal Minimi here? I bet they would. I bet SIG would sell us some toys. And I know that the plethora of manufacturers around the US would be happy to make you a machinegun if it was legal. In a few weeks, you can add me to the list of willing manufacturers.
Yep. Im on the list too. I'd love to share the FA goodness with everyone. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 5:13:30 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin: You mean she didn't rule right there on the spot. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By FrankDrebin: Originally Posted By AJSully421: Just leaving. Good show, nothing that was not in all of the briefs. No way to tell which way it will go. Nolo kicked butt and made us proud! It was good to meet everyone. You mean she didn't rule right there on the spot. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 5:19:13 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By MImoose: I think what Tesco is saying is that the ruling would not be made on constitutional grounds at all, which is actually preferred by courts. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 5:22:02 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dilbert_556:
Wait and see is a hell of a lot better than "motion to dismiss granted, go home".
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Dilbert_556:
Originally Posted By FrankDrebin:
Originally Posted By AJSully421:
Just leaving. Good show, nothing that was not in all of the briefs. No way to tell which way it will go. Nolo kicked butt and made us proud! It was good to meet everyone. You mean she didn't rule right there on the spot.
Yep. And if the DOJ couldn't come up with anything better than what was in their briefs, I can't see how any honest judge could dismiss this case. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 5:25:43 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AJSully421:
Just leaving. Good show, nothing that was not in all of the briefs. No way to tell which way it will go. Nolo kicked butt and made us proud! It was good to meet everyone. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 5:59:42 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M4Madness:
Three posts above yours. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By M4Madness:
Originally Posted By Superq7:
Someone who was there post details! Three posts above yours. I was hoping for more. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 6:06:38 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Superq7: I was hoping for more. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Superq7: Originally Posted By M4Madness: Originally Posted By Superq7: Someone who was there post details! Three posts above yours. I was hoping for more. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 6:11:30 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryOriginally Posted By GTwannabe: Originally Posted By AJSully421: Just leaving. Good show, nothing that was not in all of the briefs. No way to tell which way it will go. Nolo kicked butt and made us proud! It was good to meet everyone. http://i.imgur.com/lTr3YY6.gif Quite appropriate! |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 6:14:38 PM EDT
[#45]
Argument from 1:30 to 3:14 or so. She was very interested in standing. She let gov go first to address standing then I replied. Then he rebutted. Then we got into the merits. As for a transcript, who knows when that will be available. No timeframe on decision and no decision from the bench. The court was very interested though and judge Lynn asked pointed questions to both the gov and of me.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 6:17:56 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Argument from 1:30 to 3:14 or so. She was very interested in standing. She let gov go first to address standing then I replied. Then he rebutted. Then we got into the merits. As for a transcript, who knows when that will be available. No timeframe on decision and no decision from the bench. The court was very interested though and judge Lynn asked pointed questions to both the gov and of me. That's great to hear honestly. I was afraid she might have been closed minded but this sounds like good news! Thanks again, Nolo and Mr. Hollis. |
|
|
|
OH, USA
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 6:19:31 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Argument from 1:30 to 3:14 or so. She was very interested in standing. She let gov go first to address standing then I replied. Then he rebutted. Then we got into the merits. As for a transcript, who knows when that will be available. No timeframe on decision and no decision from the bench. The court was very interested though and judge Lynn asked pointed questions to both the gov and of me. Some judges are readable depending on past experiences. Granted I have no idea what your experience with her in court is. I assuming not much due to federal court and cases being in different location. One might assume favor depending on points or pointed hostile questions pertaining to matters. Can't take the human out conversation. Hate to ask what your opinion of the hearing was, but getting a high hope and then kicked in the teeth might be worse. So many questions, maybe Nolo pleading the 5th might be best? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 6:21:46 PM EDT
[#48]
Thanks to everyone fighting for all of us even the libtards. Nolo you kick ass and please keep us updated
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 6:27:44 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By NoloContendere:
Argument from 1:30 to 3:14 or so. She was very interested in standing. She let gov go first to address standing then I replied. Then he rebutted. Then we got into the merits. As for a transcript, who knows when that will be available. No timeframe on decision and no decision from the bench. The court was very interested though and judge Lynn asked pointed questions to both the gov and of me. Could that be construed as a good thing, meaning she didn't just toss it right away? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/23/2015 6:37:41 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By JPD158:
I'm curious how many suits showed up for the other side and if they looked like the bunch of idiots they are? good work today Nolo!Both gov attorneys showed up. All our counsel showed up too. |
|
|
|
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.
