Get some.

This makes me want to read the transcript SOONER.


Thanks very much Nolo, and all of the others involved. I REALLY appreciate that someone is at least trying.

do you have any examples of the pointed questions that you can share?

I don't actually post here very often, but I have followed this thread since page one and would like to thank you all for sticking your necks out.  I have, and will continue to donate.  

Keep up the good work.

Take nothing from it. She could be genuinely open and looking to be swayed or looking for counter arguments she needs to buttress an opinion against. You just can't tell from questions from the bench.

I'll be stoked if she rules as quick as 3 months from now.

Yes please.

 

Man... If I had to do something important like that I would be knee deep in Maker's by now. Much respect.


So when does something else happen?

Keep it up Nolo!...cant wait to read the transcripts

Another attendee here.  I'll try to summarize, but I have zero experience in a courtroom, so my interpretation of events is pretty sketchy.

When I got there, Nolo and the others asked who I was.  I didn't know who was who, so I wasn't quite sure how to respond; "I'm from the internet" doesn't really sound appropriate.  Told them I was from the "website", which seemed to work :-)  Everybody was dressed very professionally and made it through street-level and court-level security successfully.

It turned out to be fairly sparsely attended.  Nolo had two others with him for legal support, and the feds had two guys.  Nolo did all the talking for us, a short youngish guy spoke for DOJ.  I think it was scheduled for about an hour, but it ran for 1:45, from 13:30 to 15:15.

DISCLAIMER...
My notes are just general bullet points I jotted down.  I'm no stenographer, so it's far from complete or comprehensive.  Just trying to draw a bit of a picture for the gang here.


Judge Lynn started out by having DOJ review issues related to "standing".


DOJ:
Injury discussion
Commerce clause
Even if federal law allowed MGs, TX law does not, so this case is irrelevant
The Dakota silencer letter (trust is not a person)
Referenced the relevance of a cockfighting case!
NFA safe harbor

Nolo:
During introduction, Judge asked Nolo to pronounce his name 2-3 times
Fed definition of MG differs from TX definition; more than one shot per trigger pull vs more than two.  Therefore a fed decision is not directly transferrable to state (?)
Maddox letter (Dakota letter)
Explained the specific situation of ATF approving the Hollis Form 1, and other Forms 1s as well, but ATF has no authorized process or authority for disapproval, so this is a "due process" issue
In response to a question, tried to explain the ATF's Form 1 approval process to the Judge, which isn't really publicly documented, but requires supervisory approval in addition to examiner approval.  A mistake doesn't just happen by one person's accidental mark on the form approval, it was vetted and approved.


Judge acknowledged that she is not all that familiar with NFA/2A issues


DOJ:
Surprised at difference between fed and TX definition of MG
Claimed that a trust is still a person, regardless of any letter stating otherwise
Played down the importance of ATF reversing their decision after an erroneous approval


Then it got into more general 2A issue discussions.


DOJ:
References Heller and the Supreme Court decision, and nothing in the Heller decision prevents banning of MGs
Claims ATF doesn't have authority to approve Form 1 MGs due to existing law
MGs are "dangerous and unusual" and therefore not protected by 2A
MGs not commonly used for protection
MGs commonly adapted for criminal use
MGs outside the scope of 2A
And other standardized .gov arguments against MGs
Discussed relevance of scrutiny levels, i.e., intermediate, strict scrutiny

Nolo:
Explained that based on prior Form 1 approvals that ATF does in fact have authority to approve MGs, e.g., Stemple M60s that were approved post-86.  Judge looked at copy of approved Form 1 for one of the Stemple M60s, and asked about the date, which had been redacted.  Nolo offered to provide details of this case at a later date to help provide relevance.
Disputed DOJ assertion than MGs are commonly used for criminal use, extremely small percentage compared to handguns
Requested the court to define "dangerous and unusual", since term is thrown around loosely, but other courts have not defined it
Addressed various DOJ anti-MG rhetoric

DOJ:
Tried to reenforce their earlier claims that relevant details of Miller and Heller ruling do intersect


And that was it.  No decision from the Judge, she just disappeared through the little door behind her bench.

Another case that was scheduled to start at 15:00 had quite a few other people coming into the courtroom starting about 14:45, so Judge Lynn was kind enough to let our case continue for a bit longer, with all the attorneys trying to be brief at the end.

I expected yelling and banging on tables during the hearing, but everybody was very congenial and just stated their points.  Both legal teams chatted with each other outside the courtroom afterwards.  Then our group, the legal team and observers, visited for a bit outside by the courthouse.  Very interesting afternoon.  I thought Nolo represented our side very well.  Kicking myself for not buying some beers for Nolo afterwards.

Thanks for the summary.  This is good to see.

Two suits. The one that did the talking reminded me of the nerdy inventor from the Simpsons with the nasally voice.

 

Thank you. Did anyone from DOJ side show up to observe (individuals)?

well done!

 

No. Soskins presented the .gov side.

 

Definitely appreciated!

Awesome summary. Thank you.

Thanks for the update, I'm glad to finally see the wheels turning. And to see something relevant to the case vs the 87 pages of stupidity, back and forth arguments about what HK will do and what someone's definition of "is" is.

Great summary, thank you.

Any kind of read on the judge concerning the date redaction?

If it was pre-86 I suspect the date would have been quite legible.

This times a million!

Nice job. Thanks for the summary. I'm still baffled by the circular logic of not common, BC we banned them, so the ban is ok since no one has them and no one is affected.
If they werent banned they would be commonly used for protection

FAP

I am hoping that the letter of intent from one of the Fed agencies looking to purchase M4 pattern select fire weapons for agents' "personal protection" gets into the record.

Thanks for the summary.

Is it your opinion/gut feeling she is setting you up for success?  Laying the appropriate foundation ....

I'm no expert, but it doesn't seem appropriate for an attorney to make a qualitative comment on a judge's presumed opinion. That seems like the sort of thing that has no positive and a large potential negative.

If history is any teacher, Nolo is going to leave that question be.

He's said several times that until a decision is struck, it's anyone's guess.

Isn't evidence provided by briefs already considered on record?

Nolo and team, thanks again for giving  this a shot. Also thanks to those that went in support today and represented the firearms community.

Good job with that request NOLO! Thanks for all you are doing!

The fact that she didn't just throw the case out today is a very small victory in itself.  I look forward to seeing what comes out of this.

 

I've been trying to buy him beer for 3 years now.  Finally got him to take A beer at CW4.

ETA: He's not stuck up just humble.

What's the next milestone?

cool

Humble. Humble has two meanings: it means "not proud" and and it also means "near the ground." That's Nolo all over.  
 

This IS the next milestone. Now we wait and see.

Hopefully we'll hear something on the PA case...soon?

oh.  someone was making a big stink earlier that this was simply about dismissing/not dismissing the case

Thanks for the summery Maroonfeather, everyone just chill out and let things work because there's nothing that Nolo can say at this point that hasn't already been said. Thanks again for taking this on Nolo and again my gratitude goes out to the plaintiffs as well!

They were correct.

Accept the fact that small victories are big when one considers the context of this fight.

The government wanted the judge to dismiss the case. The judge didn't do so. That is in our favor.

Small victories.

The odds of us winning are still tiny, but they are enormous compared to any other case I can recall in the past 20 years that opposed 922(o) or the NFA at large.

The case is rock solid from the viewpoint of the facts.  I hope the people deciding this case have the courage and forthrightness to rule in our favor.

Depending on which aspects of the argument you wish to measure, we've waited between 29 and 81 years....

May the next blogger or so called gun rights advocate that claims these cases are being brought at the wrong time or we are pushing for too much too fast choke on their own bile. We've waited for decades. Anyone who thinks it isn't the right time to demand our rights probably thinks the 1960s were too soon for African Americans to demand their rights, or that women's suffrage should still be on the distant horizon rather than an indisputable reality.

Too many second amendment supporters have died waiting.

ah, I see.

Since it was not dismissed it is now something she researches, compares, whatever and then rules on.

I was thinking jury trial and stuff lol

Previously hasn't the ATF claimed these are protected tax documents?

If the Judge mentioned that she was not familiar with NFA stuff, do you think she would research some of the statements from today herself or wait for other hearings and filings to gather facts from the official court documents?

If she researches herself, there is a very good chance she could wind up reading this thread. I suggest everyone be on their best behavior.