Link to thread on ARFCOM where you can find the most current brief, from Hollis arguing in our favor.
I can't wait to see how the government squirms it's way out of the current brief. It's pretty air tight.
>As Amicus aptly pointed out, “The idea is laughable that, if someone showed up at Lexington and Concord with an M-16, his commanders would have turned him away, saying ‘Take it home, that’s far too effective a weapon to use against the Redcoats.’”
I can't wait for machine guns, /k/
jesus that was glorious, it's like a document intended to troll the shit out of obongo
only problem is that the way everything's been framed, any ruling will either be "lol well fuck you guys win" or "eat dick nigga".
Who wants to place a wager on which one the govt is gonna go with?
Mfw .gov btfo with this brief.
I want to believe....
Mark my words, this is how it'll go down:
>the whole bundy thing up in Oregon right now
>media will be "pushed" to give it more exposure
>all of a sudden police are shot at from someone from the militia
>all hell breaks loose
>media begins demonizing anything gun related
>all gun right related things in court are rejected due to political climate
While I think their argument is pretty airtight, it doesn't really matter: they're up against the government, and the law is (in a practical sense) whatever the government decides it is.
I don't think they will win because the government simply will not let them, even if it means being illegal, unconstitutional shitstains (as though they aren't already).
This, unfortunately. One day they rewrite Obamacare on the fly, saying oh, we can judge the intent of the legislation better than the people who wrote it. Three days later they say pic related.
The rule of law is pretty much a dead letter these days.
Again with the gay marriage?
Maybe you need to look into seeing a therapist or something. You're very angry and obsessive about something that doesn't affect you, and your fixation on and attempts to shoehorn an argument about it regardless of context suggests you have some deep-rooted issues that maybe you need to talk through with someone before you give yourself a heart condition.
Anyways, to the actual topic at hand: That brief was fucking fantastic. Hopefully this gets the consideration it merits.
>a greeter position at Walmart was suggested due to Obama's extensive experience at shaking hands
>as well as his special smile
>his special smile
>a greeter position at Walmart
T O P K E K
Phil, much as I dislike homosexual unions too, there isn't a leg for the government to stand on in regards to banning it. Unless they abolish the whole idea of legal unions of course.
They manipulated the rules to the point where they decided that a trust isnt a person, but the ban on autos specifies only people cant make them, with no mention of trusts.
Essentially, they tried to screw us out of something else and opened up this can of worms.
A. Mr. Hollis Has Standing To Bring His Second Amendment Claim
Appellees claim that “regardless of the outcome of this suit, therefore, [Hollis’]
asserted injury would not be redressed.” App. Br. p. 12. This is false. Texas does not
independently ban machineguns, and but for the federal machinegun ban, Hollis would
be allowed to possess machineguns registered with the BATFE. As demonstrated in
Hollis’ Opening Brief, Hollis has standing to bring his challenges to the offending
statutes. However, if this Court were to state that machineguns were protected by the
Second Amendment, it is clear that any prohibition on manufacture or possession by
Texas law fails, no matter if they are a party or not. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct.
2584, 2606 (2015) (finding a right to same-sex marriage and that states must recognize
lawful marriages performed in other states). Obergefell is fatal to the government’s
contention that Texas must be a party or that a pronouncement from this Court that
the Second Amendment protects machineguns would not have an effect on state law.
This is simply incorrect. But as stated in Hollis’ Opening Brief, Hollis attempted to
negate this issue by requesting at least two times to amend.
However, as briefed more fully in the Opening Brief, even if this Court finds that
Hollis does not have standing to pursue his claim against the NFA, it still should find
that Hollis has standing to pursue the remainder of his claims against the GCA’s
complete ban on post-1986 machineguns.
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 5 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
II. AMENDMENT OF THE COMPLAINT WOULD NOT BE
Appellees then turn to the amendment request by Hollis and state that it would be
futile to allow Hollis to amend his Complaint. App. Br. 35. This is false. Amendment
of the Complaint would have satisfied all standing issues the District Court with which
it took issue. For instance, if Texas would have been added as a party, and Texas law
brought into the picture, the government’s argument on redressability would be moot.
Alternatively, if Hollis were allowed to amend and voluntarily dismiss his challenge to
the National Firearms Act, then Texas’ safe harbor would still exist and a favorable
ruling from the District Court would redress his injury. Amendment is not futile, and
Appellees’ stating that it would does not make it so. Hollis respectfully requests that at
a minimum, the case be remanded to the District Court with instructions to allow Hollis
to amend his Complaint.
III. DISCOVERY IS NOT FUTILE AND WOULD PROVE HOLLIS’
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAIM
Discovery is also not futile in this case as it would prove Hollis’ contention that the
BATFE has allowed post-May 19, 1986 machineguns to be transferred to nongovernmental
entities. Hollis complied with the required affidavit setting forth a
plausible basis for believing that the BATFE has approved and allowed post-May 19,
1986 machineguns to non-governmental entities, and also attached a letter, from the
BATFE to Hollis’ response to the government’s Motion to Dismiss. ROA.433. Hollis
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 6 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
could prove through discovery, if allowed, that the BATFE is violating his Equal
Protection right, however, the lower court did not allow this discovery, and without it,
Hollis is unable to prove what the BATFE denies has ever happened. Namely, whether
any post-May 19, 1986 machineguns have been transferred to non-governmental
In Silveira v. Lockyer, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002), as amended (Jan. 27, 2003), the
Ninth Circuit struck down an exemption to California’s assault weapons ban that
applied to retired law enforcement officers. Similarly, discovery here would allow Hollis
to prove that the BATFE has allowed others (perhaps even ex-BATFE agents) to
possess post-May 19, 1986 machineguns. At the very least, this disparate treatment of
Hollis would require a rational basis review. If this Court finds that possession of a
machinegun implicates the Second Amendment, which District of Columbia v. Heller, 554
U.S. 570 (2008) seems to indicate, then it would require a higher means-end scrutiny
application. Regardless of the level of scrutiny applied, under Silveira, the disparate
treatment of private citizens would fail Equal Protection review.
On this Rule 12 dismissal1
, Hollis proffers to this Court (and the lower court) that
the BATFE has allowed private citizens to possess post-May 19, 1986 machineguns and
1 This Court reviews “a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo, ‘accepting all
well-pleaded facts as true and viewing those facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.’” Priester
v. JP Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 708 F.3d 667, 672 (5th Cir. 2013) cert. denied sub nom. Priester v.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 134 S. Ct. 196 (2013) (quoting Bustos v. Martini Club Inc., 599 F.3d 458,
461 (5th Cir.2010)).
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 7 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
that he has actual knowledge of at least three Form 1 approvals of post-May 19, 1986
machineguns, and a reasonable belief of others. ROA.367. But without discovery, these
facts cannot be proven. See also Opening Brief, pp. 50, 51. The lower court largely
ignored the factual information provided in Hollis’ Response to the Appellees’ Motion
to Dismiss because it was not attached to the Complaint. Accordingly, if amendment
was granted, this information would be attached to the Complaint and thus, would be
considered by the court. Likewise, demanding that a plaintiff such as Hollis to come to
court with every scrap of imaginable information and requiring it be attached to his
complaint would obviate any need for discovery in any case.
IV. THE SECOND AMENDMENT APPLIES, PRIMA FACIE, TO
Appellees advise that states “have long restricted other weapons deemed dangerous
and uncommon.” Appellee Br. p.18. See also Fn. 4. While this Court is not bound
by a Wisconsin Court of Appeals case, the following is instructive. In State v. Herrmann,
2015AP53-CR, 2015 WL 7432597 (Wis. App. Nov. 24, 2015), Herrmann was convicted
of keeping an automatic knife (a switchblade) in his home for self-defense. Wisconsin
bans possession of automatic knives. Wisconsin argued the same as the state always
argues: protecting the public. Yet in Herrmann, just as the Appellees here, the state cited:
no evidence to establish that [attacks with switchblades] actually exists to
any significant degree. Again, the State has the burden to establish that §
941.24(1) satisfies intermediate scrutiny, and it must do so by showing the
existence of real, not merely conjectural, harm. See Turner Broad. Sys., 512
U.S. at 664.
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 8 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
>complete ban on post-1986 machineguns
That's not true, posties are legal to own. They just cannot be transferred or made by unlicensed persons.
Unless he is referring to the several thousand dollar price tag that amounts to a defacto ban.
Appellees confuse what the Supreme Court stated in Heller’s interpretation of United
States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939). That the Gun Control Act (and the machinegun
ban) was not at issue in the 1939 Miller case does not change that the Supreme Court in
Heller stated set forth here for full context
We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider
eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's
phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those
weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading
of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's
restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be
unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think
that Miller 's “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in
tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia]
service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied
by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at
179, 59 S.Ct. 816. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men
bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like selfdefense.
“In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons
used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were
one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98
(1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American
Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in
which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose
announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the
Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically
possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as shortbarreled
D.C. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25 (2008). Clearly, in 2008, the Supreme Court
could have commented on the Gun Control Act, yet chose not to. That Miller predated
the Gun Control Act has no bearing on the Supreme Court’s commenting solely on the
National Firearms Act and that a reading of Miller to protect “only those weapons useful
in warfare” would be “startling” does not equate to a pronouncement from the Supreme
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 10 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
Court that machineguns are not protected arms. Quite the opposite, Heller directly held
that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute
bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” Id. at
582. M-16s are bearable arms. Appellees concede that the prefatory clause of the
Second Amendment “suggests one purpose underlying the Second Amendment,” and
the Supreme Court was correct when it held that the prefatory clause “does not suggest
that preserving the militia was the only reason Americans valued the ancient right…”
Id. at 599. (underlining added). App. Brief. p. 20. As Amicus aptly pointed out, “The
idea is laughable that, if someone showed up at Lexington and Concord with an M-16,
his commanders would have turned him away, saying ‘Take it home, that’s far too
effective a weapon to use against the Redcoats.’” Amicus of GOA, pp. 11-12.
Appellees likewise quote to Senator Ted Kennedy, quoted in 132 Cong. Rec.
9,602 (1986) when he stated, “The only thing that has changed about the machinegun
situation since the 1968 act … is that machine guns [sic] have become a far more serious
law enforcement problem.” App. Br. 5. But in 1984 at a hearing before Congress,
then-Director Stephen E. Higgins testified about the NFA and lawfully registered
machineguns specifically. Director Higgins stated,
These weapons are held by collectors and others; only rarely do they figure
in violent crime. In this connection, the question of why an individual
would want to possess a machinegun or, more often, a silencer, is often
raised. We would suggest that ATF’s interest is not in determining why a
law-abiding individual wishes to possess a certain firearm or device, but
rather in ensuring that such objects are not criminally misused. The
regulatory scheme for dealing in or legally possessing NFA weapons and
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 11 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
silencers is straightforward and provides safeguards which are adequate,
in normal circumstance, to ensure that the firearms remain in the hands
of law abiding individuals.
Armor Piercing Ammunition and the Criminal Misuse of and Availability of Machineguns
and Silencers: Hearings on H.R. 641 and Related bills Before the Committee on the Judiciary, 98th
Congress, 1st Sess. 132 (1984). ROA.439-440. (underlining added). Director Higgins
testified that “registered machineguns which are involved in crimes are so minimal so
as not to be considered a law enforcement problem.” Id. One of these individuals is
not telling the truth. Either machineguns are a scourge upon law enforcement, or
lawfully registered machineguns, owned presumptively by law-abiding citizens, are not
a law enforcement problem.2
Director Higgins’ testimony makes far more sense as
criminals are not going to go through the onerous National Firearms Act registration
scheme, pay the tax, wait six to nine months for approval, and then and only then,
commit their crimes. Senator Kennedy may have intended his comment narrower in
scope, as only applying to non-registered machineguns, but nonetheless, Director
Higgins’ testimony is dispositive of the law-abiding citizens’ possession of
machineguns, i.e., that it is NOT a law enforcement problem. But the Supreme Court
Senator Kennedy’s ipse dixit aside, if the Appellees’ position mirrors the Senator’s, then it can easily
be proven with hard data and facts and the Appellees should be required to prove their contention.
However, any machineguns lost from failed sting operations, including to the extent any that were
involved in Fast and Furious, should be excluded from any dataset.
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 12 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
>While this Court is not bound by a Wisconsin Court of Appeals case, the following is instructive.
>We would suggest that ATF’s interest is
And right there is where the Supreme Court decides they can't be bothered hearing the case.
Was fun to follow this, though.
has already rejected the notion that banning arms for the law-abiding is justified to
prevent unlawful use by criminals. Heller at 636.
Appellees state, “Indeed, ‘a machine gun’s destructive capacity makes it highly useful
for protecting commerce in contraband such as narcotics.’” U.S. v. Kirk, 105 F.3d 997,
1004 (5th Cir. 1997) (Higginbotham, J., concurring). App. Br. p. 28. Do cases speaking
of criminal misuse of tools apply to Hollis? Should Congress ban cars that exceed
seventy miles per hour because the majority of states limit speed on the interstates to
seventy miles per hour and that perhaps, some of those cars are also utilized in
transporting contraband such as narcotics? Rhetorical questions aside, the burden is
on the government to demonstrate law-abiding citizens’ misuse of machineguns. They
In fact, Appellees concede they do NOT address law-abiding ownership of
machineguns. THIS case is about Hollis, a law-abiding citizen, who applied for, and
received, permission to make a machinegun from the agency tasked with enforcing the
firearms laws. THIS case is not about protecting narcotics commerce or any other
criminal misuse of a machinegun. But as stated supra, Appellees’ argument is foreclosed
by Heller. Heller at 636. Appellees’ attempt to shift the burden to Hollis to “dispute
that a machine gun [sic] would be significantly more dangerous than a handgun if used
in a crime, or that more criminals would choose to use machine guns [sic] were they
readily available” is not the way this works. App. Br. p. 28. Hollis has no duty to prove
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 13 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
the governments’ contention. Hollis is not a prohibited person, and the Second
Amendment applies, prima facie, to his M-16.
As discussed in Hollis’ Brief, the term “person” is defined in the GCA to mean “any
individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock
company.” See 18 U.S.C. § 921. The term “person” does not include an
unincorporated trust. Appellees argue that Hollis’ interpretation of the statute “would
render the Act meaningless by allowing anyone to avoid its prohibitions by establishing
an unincorporated trust.” App. Br. 33. Congress writes the laws. If Congress wanted
to preclude “unincorporated trusts” from owning machineguns, even post-May 19,
1986 machineguns, they would have included the term “trust” in the definition of
“person.” Congress did not. This ties in with Hollis’ allegations that the BATFE has
allowed transfers of post-May 19, 1986 machineguns. However, since the district court
denied the Rule 56(d) relief, Hollis is unable to conclusively prove that this has
happened, even though Hollis submitted an affidavit in support of his Rule 56(d) relief.
ROA.367. This relief ties in to Hollis’ Equal Protection claim, and without this
discovery, Hollis is precluded from proving what is essential to his Equal Protection
While Hollis does not concede that a felon could own firearms as a Trustee of an
unincorporated trust, as Appellees allege,
the law banning felons from owning firearms
3 See App. Br. p. 33.
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 14 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
did not come into existence until 1968. In 1968, Congress included in both the
Omnibus Crime Control Act and the Gun Control Act of 1968, Pub. L. No. 90-618,
Title I, § 101, 82 Stat. 1213, statutory provisionslimiting firearms access by persons with
“criminal background[s],” S. Rep. No. 90-1097, at 28 (1968). These provisions include
18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1), which provides that “[it] shall be unlawful for any person . . . who
has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term
exceeding one year . . . to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or
transported in interstate or foreign commerce.” This statute post-dated the National
Firearms Act, which was adopted in 1934, thirty-four years before the Gun Control
Act’s felon dispossession statute. If 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) is poorly written, it is not the
job of the agency to rewrite it how it sees fit. The Supreme Court has plainly stated
“that an agency may not rewrite clear statutory terms to suit its own sense of how the
statute should operate.” Util. Air Reg. Group v. E.P.A., 134 S. Ct. 2427, 2446 (2014).
The government’s fear-mongering about felons does nothing for its position on
machineguns as this case is not about a felon in possession as Hollis is a law-abiding
citizen and not precluded from firearm ownership.
Interestingly, Appellees allege that machineguns “are not well suited for any private
lawful purpose” and that “[machineguns] are no more useful for self-defense than are
nonautomatic guns in all but a tiny fraction of civilian uses.” App. Br. P. 27. It is
peculiar because the government stated in a prior request for proposal that, “DHS and
its components have a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm suitable
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 15 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is
Select-fire simply means that the firearm can function as either semiautomatic
or fully automatic. The Appellees cannot claim machineguns are not valid
for personal defense for civilians and then extol their virtues for their own personnel.
It is not a logical conclusion.
Appellees state that Hollis “waived” his argument regarding the statutory argument
on trusts. App. Br. p. 29. This is simply not true. Hollis mentioned the statutory trust
argument on the following pages of his brief: pp. 5, 6, 7, 11, 34, 35. Further, this entire
case stemmed from the Appellees’ approval of Hollis’ Form 1 to make a machinegun
and then subsequent unlawful revocation. Appellees’ claim of waiver is simply not
applicable. Appellees’ citation to U.S. v. Cervantes, 706 F.3d 603, 609 n.1 (5th Cir. 2013)
does not suggest a claim of waiver in this case, as that footnote states, in part, “[h]aving
failed to present substantive argumentation on point, it is deemed waived.” As Hollis
further briefed on page 34 of his Opening Brief, “the plain language [of 18 U.S.C. §
922(o)] excludes ‘unincorporated trust’ from the definition, this court (and the BATFE)
should not read into the statute what is not there.” (case citations omitted). Waiver this
b=core&_cview=0 (underlining added) (last accessed December 27, 2015).
Case: 15-10803 Document: 00513322563 Page: 16 Date Filed: 12/28/2015
Hollis’ Equal Protection argument is subsumed in his Second Amendment argument
as the District Court’s analysis of Hollis’ Second Amendment claim “was required for
the court to reach its holding for Hollis’ Equal Protection claim.” Opening Brief, p. 19.
As such, there has been no waiver of Hollis’ Equal Protection claim. Additionally, as
stated supra, Hollis’ contention that he be allowed Rule 56(d) discovery was essential to
his Equal Protection claim and he was not afforded that relief in the lower court.
Hollis asks this Court to uphold the Second Amendment and find that the Second
Amendment protects his ownership of an M-16. The Fifth Circuit, in United States v.
Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 536 U.S. 907 (2002), announced a
position different from all other Courts of Appeal by scrutinizing text, history, and
tradition of our nation when it found the Second Amendment conferred an individual
right to keep and bear arms. There is no question that Hollis’ M-16 is the quintessential
military and militia rifle of its time, and thus, is protected under the Second
We dont know, thats why he's filing for discovery.
Yea, too bad he got fucked over by his own agency during Waco and resigned despite being lied to about the whole situation
So if this information is not available, then how come they are saying this happened if they don't know?
FOIA won't work, since the BATFE is somehow not an "agency"
There was an incident where a amnufacturer who (ostensibly) misunderstood the regs sold several post-86 M60 belt feds to private citizens.
Due to being incompetent fuckwits, the ATF didn't notice until after they had been sold, paperwork was filed, and the customers were in possession.
They are allowing the customers to keep them, however they are non-transferable and the families will have to surrender them when they die.
first hand accounts, stories etc. There is a belief ex BATF and other govt agents were allowed new MGs post 86. I feel the govt's fighting this, is a signal he's onto some legit shit. Even if this is false, the case may proceed.
This is a multipronged attack
The Hughes Amendment had an interesting side effect. If you read Chapter 18, 922 (o) it is not a ban per say but demands Government approval for the manufacture and sale of a machine gun after May 19,1986, the date of enactment. There have been rumors floating around for years that certain politicians have been registering machineguns and selling them.
Recently, evidence of this came to light when the BATFE screwed up and confiscated an MG that was listed as a transferable that had been sold to a donor of a political person who once he received the firearm, stopped donating. The gun in question wasn't even in production in the 1980's. It was first produced in the mid 1990's.
This problem crosses party lines, and even both sides of the gun control debate. In 2005, a BATFE employee let it slip that one of the top gun control advocates currently in Congress procured a machine gun and got BATFE to register it on a form 1 as a transferable. Why? Well, the gun was obtained for about $700. This elected official sold the gun for $18,500 with much of the money going into a severely depleted campaign fund. How do we know about this? Well, this elected official sold the gun and gave a file with the gun that contained the original sale price and a copy of the original form 1 dated to August of 2004. The owner was concerned and contacted BATFE.
The firearm was a Colt M16A2 made in 1993.
An M60 belt fed machine gun sold for $1200 or so in 1985. Today, that same gun will get $25,000. If a politician can buy an MG or acquire one for a few hundred, it's a hell of a way to fund a campaign at a 1000% profit or more per item.
In 1989, BATFE published a comment where they stated that there were 130,000 registered transferable machine guns in the NFRTR. In a recent edition of Small Arms Review, the BATFE are quoted commenting that there are over 185,000 transferable MG's in the registry.
Pic related. It's suspected there were somewhere around 200 of these M60's all done the same way. But this is the only known letter and it's redacted so it doesn't actually count according to the government.
>In 1989, BATFE published a comment where they stated that there were 130,000 registered transferable machine guns in the NFRTR. In a recent edition of Small Arms Review, the BATFE are quoted commenting that there are over 185,000 transferable MG's in the registry.
That figure includes transferables, pre-86 samples, and post-86 samples.
The increase in the total number of MG's in civilian hands (police are civilians) coincides with the DoD passing out old M16A2's to any bumfuck sheriffs department that has enough LEO letterhead to file a request.
>the DoD passing out old M16A2's to any bumfuck sheriffs department that has enough LEO letterhead to file a request.
>tfw when want to procure a full fun or two for the dept
>tfw when antigun chief would pitch a bitch fit about it and get us protesters
All I want is the brrrt once a year, is that so much to ask?
Here's an example:
You go buy a Mac, when the dealer fills out the Form 4 to move it to your possession, you tell the dealer you want to list the model as M4, caliber as 5.56x45, the barrel length as 16" and the overall length as 40" and see what the ATF says when he submits the Form 4.If your Form 4 comes back approved, you tell him you want him to take a semiauto M4 off the rack, drill the autosear hole, weld the Mac's serial number over the M4's serial number and let you walk out the door with it.
The dealers exploited the paperwork jumble that is the NFA registry to conduct their scam and enrich themselves, while removing a large number of Macs from the registry
This exactly. Although typically it was done with very expensive guns such as M60's or MG42's.
It was also a fairly easy scam to avoid if you did your homework and grilled the seller a little, i.e asked for a picture of the serial number. It mostly worked on greedy idiots who thought they were getting a transferable M60 for $15,000 and didn't stop to think about deals that are too good to be true.
Bureaucracy. Paperwork, legalities and loopholes.
FOIA was never intended to be open disclosure with the citizenry on government dealings, just the little tidbits they wanted getting out or could stand to lose.
So they're just being fags and saying nope were special. How the fuck are they going to sit there and say theres a difference between an agency and a bureau. They have agents, agencies have agents therefore theyre an agency.
Damn i would make a great lawyer
wait so they take a semi-auto gun, nig-rig on a serial number from a registered full auto Mac / other cheap gun, then scam people into paying for a fake "registered full auto" ?
They take a semi-auto AR, nig rig a FA setup into the lower, slap on the MAC serial, dump the mac and make a neat and tidy profit. If the ATF doesn't wise up, and we all know the ATF is only around to do raids, steal shoe strings and shoot dogs.
>It seems legitimate and reasonable to me
Still too 'provocative' for our chief. DHS is offering to pay for us to get active shooter training and he won't let us.
You'd make a horrible lawyer. If you actually check federal law you will find differing legal definitions as to what constitutes a federal agency and what constitutes a federal bureau.
Well Hollis did exactly that and the ATF approved it.
That's what started this whole thing. It basically proves the ATF doesn't read Form 1's either considering their reaction when they realized what they did.
>ATF states that trusts aren't people
>some guy points out that the ban on machine guns only applies to people, and applies for a machine gun tax stamp for his trust
>ATF realizes they just let one of the proles own a machine gun
>ATF demands the tax stamp back
short version from hollis's lawyers:
>if gays can marry in e.g. mass, e.g. texas must recognize that union as valid and lawful. This in effect precludes any federal ban on homosexual marriage.
>If e.g. texas states that individuals can lawfully own machineguns and silencers, e.g. mass must recognize that ownership as lawful and valid.
Scalia's being an autistic retard here - the line of reasoning he's using is the same reasoning used to defend slavery and segregation.
I've bullshitted enough to recognize when somebody else does it.
I hope Scalia gets raped by a big homo
sounds like something you should be for.
If this appeal is successful the internet is going to be flooded with threads of dumbshits trying to figure out how to time DIAS's.
As someone who used to own one I'll just say that I'm glad I sold it and got a registered receiver instead.
Such jigs already exist for C2's.
What all the DIAS kids don't realize is that AR's made in the last 30 years require machining to accept a DIAS (or regular autosear for that matter).
yeah, it will definitely be a "window of opportunity".
There are a couple of questions up in the air over this case. If the case is successful a trust can Form 1 weapons, however other language in the NFA restricts transfer given May '86. So who knows if they'll be transferable.
This becomes more important if 41P comes into effect as even in "gun friendly" states some CLEO's won't sign off on NFA at all, let alone MGs. hence why trusts were popularized in the first place. Hell my CLEO is a regional leader in the Oathkeeper movement, backed by the Tea party, and has progun shit on his campaign signs. Fucker won't sign off on anything NFA that's not a can.
>doing anything in a timely manner
Unless terrorists flew around over Jew York dropping Form 1s and NRA bumper stickers before crashing into the Statue of Liberty I doubt if such a bill would even make it out of subcommittee
The lawyer thing was a joke.
Granted my research is looking up wikipedia, but when the first line says every list is different and different government entities define agencies differently shits fucked up.
I also had no idea how many goddamn offices we have. How does more shit not get done with all these people working on so many different issues
Wait, where do you see that M16 use as civilian and been effective at self defense?
Not shitting on you, I'm just requesting sauce.
Enter Leland Yee and Associates.
Almost guarantee that it won't be seen that way. Johnny Law will come down with believable fury upon the insufferable Homegrown Terrorists, and that's just the way the media likes it. Anyone smarter, more capable of delving into rhetoric, or investigative enough to refute their arguments based on fact will get chokeslammed into oblivion by the controlled media.
Or against our religious beliefs, if the /k/ubists can get their shit recognized.
One reason that it may not work is saying that the Constitution doesn't mention marriage, but does mention firearms in the second amendment. Marriage was never mentioned in any amendments, but was loopholed into existence by saying that States have a duty to reciprocate legal statutes in other States (though this gets fucky with CHL reciprocation).
@1:04 or so
I'll take a select fire C96 clone with buttstock attached instead, but only after all other historical guns have been taken.
I also want a M1927
>Normally only fat hands get hammer bite from a 1911 but a beavertail should be standard on a full retard.
>Muzzle rise levers rear of pistol down.
>Gun actively tries to consume your hand.
See Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct.
2584, 2606 (2015) (finding a right to same-sex marriage and that states must recognize
lawful marriages performed in other states). Obergefell is fatal to the government’s
contention that Texas must be a party or that a pronouncement from this Court that
the Second Amendment protects machineguns would not have an effect on state law.
This is simply incorrect.
Can someone explain this in a loud slow voice so that i can understand what the fuck this means?
So basically we're fucking Lynch in the ass raw but she'll get away with it anyway because government?
States' Rights. Texas MG definition is "more than one bullet with one physical manipulation of a trigger pull" while federal law says "more than two bullets..."
Essentially, if you created a two round burst weapon, you're lawfully creating an MG in Texas, but not federally, so you're in the clear. The ATF doesn't like that, though, so your dog just got shot.
NFA definition of a Machine Gun is any firearm that fires more than one cartridge per trigger pull.
So, technically, if you developed a new firearm that fired bullets out of a single "cartridge" that held stacked layers of propellant and bullets (ie. Metal Storm) - it wouldn't be a machine gun, because it's only firing bullets from the one cartridge.
But this would mean that You would have to buy sealed cartridges of 5, 10 or even 30 bullets.
It also has the fucking 10th amendment on the books, which was JUST upheld as the champion of gay marriage across all states, as a state right and equivalence between states.
By that very logic, MA/CA/NJ/NY residents can become residents of Texas, build a 2 round burst weapon in Texas as a Texas resident, then move BACK to (wherever) and take their shit with them because of reciprocation. But MA is gay and won't let you own shit, CA is too busy trying to lock down domestic terrorism, NJ is too scared of a single bullet (looking at you, .50BMG), and NYC is a piece of shit for allowing Bloomberg to control an overwhelmingly rural state.
>It also has the fucking 10th amendment on the books, which was JUST upheld as the champion of gay marriage across all states, as a state right and equivalence between states.
This is what bugs me the most, the doublethink is unbearable.
There's no doublethink at all. They hate you and will use any pretext under any circumstance to harass, tax, disadvantage, trip you up, and fuck you over.
We went past the point where we could assume it was some sort of well-meaning cognitive dissonance a long, long time ago.
Who knows, the courts move slowly.
This has been going on since April at least, I don't anticipate a resolution we'd like for at least another year.
Verbal arguments haven't even started yet.
So if we got caseless ammo to come in a single sealed block, then figured out a weapon system that could feed a portion of the cartridge at a time, it would not be a machine gun...
Possibly a cartridge that is in the shape of standard box magazines, that is just pushed into the top of a modified magazine.
Spring pressure would push the cartridge upwards.
Magazine feed lips would have to be fold (possible point of failure) to allow the entire cartridge to load at once.
Individual propellant charges/bullets would be separated by ceramic/metal plates, which would form the bottom of the chamber, then be ejected as the individual charges are fired, to prevent the entire cartridge from firing out of battery.
Think of a stack of caseless ammunition glued together with ceramic/steel strip's between them.
The firearm that utilises them would have to be specially designed as the magazine would feed directly into the chamber and the individual charges would from the bottom of the chamber.
This would prevent individual charges from being stripped off and then considered cartridges in and of themselves.
In addition, there would have to be a device that prevents the gun from firing more than one cartridge at a time - say for example, a spring that pushes a cam down into the magazine that separates cartridges and only resets when the trigger resets.
So, if you load two five charge cartridges, it will only fire five shots before needing the trigger to be reset.
This will be tied directly into the trigger mechanism, meaning you can't just cut it off if you want a machine gun - an entire new trigger assembly would be needed.
So, tl;dr: When I get home, I'm drawing this up and starting a patent process.
Exactly, there has to be a mechanical element to the firing method.
Electric ignition would be fine, if there was a level moving it out of position between cartridges, but at that point you might as well just use primer caps and a hammer.
They have mechanical components that prevent someone from modifying them to fire full auto.
Also, he was talking about electronic ignition (think spud gun) on the actual cartridges.
That really wouldn't work though, as a bolt would still be required to eject the chamber seal after every charge is fired.
I'd want the cartridge to be a solid rectangle or 'banana' - how would I enclose the front of each charge?
Is there a ceramic or powder that could handle tough handling but literally vaporise upon ignition?
Or would I just extend the chamber seal to a shroud around the front of the bullet, so that each charge seals the bottom of the chamber and the front of the chamber.
If I went with the second option, the front shroud size could change size depending on the projectile, allowing for calibre swaps to be as simple as a different magazine for bullets with the same diameter or a magazine and a quick change barrel for different diameter projectiles.
Hell, if spring tension is put on the bolt (gun would have to be striker fired) it could easily space itself.
I'm also thinking a two part bolt, with a camming rear section that locks the chamber, connected to a square section at the front that seals the chamber and is not locked to the camming section, a high pressure spring between them would ensure the chamber is properly spaced and sealed.
Front section of the bolt would be swappable for left and right handed ejection.
This would make the bolt xbox hueg and probably require a buffer tube.
The weapon would still be short though, as the magazine feeds directly into the chamber and charges do not have to be stripped forwards.
Alright, I have a few suggestions from /g/.
When I get home I'll start playing about and start drawing it.
I might make it open source and distribute it to a few firearms manufacturers.
Once I design it should I send a copy of it to the ATF for a ruling on whether it violates the "one cartridge per trigger pull" rule.
Even if it does, it'd be a cool concept to make caseless ammunition feeding viable.
Be careful about that one, dude.
It might just be a mental exercise for you and your CAD abilities, but if you got raided we would never know unless some liberal media spotlight hits you.
Nobody knew what that faggot with a 3D printer was trying to do until he got one made...and even then, the ATF didn't officially care until he proved it could work. Now we have pending (or finalized, I don't recall) legislation from all kinds of angles telling us what we can and can't fucking do. Hell, the ATF tells us we can't have fucking shoestrings. What kind of shit is that?
I wouldn't make one, just a CAD file.
To be honest, I'm Australian, even a zip gun would ruin me for life.
A CAD file might be illegal if I had all the materials and tools set up, but I don't and won't.
How does any of this matter when Obama is literally going to shut down all private sales without an FFL and background check and mandate everyone enter their shit purchased as of today into a government database?
I definitely will, I'll make two CAD versions, a semi and an auto; the semi should be legal to make in most US states where you can build an 80% AR, but it would require you to ensure it meets the OAL requirements.
The auto one would be for testing the NFA, if shoestrings can be machine guns, a machine gun can be a semi auto.
If the ATF boohoos it, nothing is really lost, because I like my theory. The main obstacle of the design would be the ammunition.
So, whilst someone with the tooling and expertise may be able to legally make the gun, they might not have anything to feed it.
Let me ask this
Black powder arms aren't federally recognized as firearms, correct?
If so; why are there no BP machine guns?
If they're not firearms, wouldn't electronic / motor-op triggers be free game?
While they did exist at the time of the signing of the bill of rights, they were neither very effective nor very functional.
By all means. If you can find a way to make a BP MG, that won't blow up in your face, go for it.
All gun sellers must have an FFL under the new EO. Every single gun sale/transfer, even face to face must now have an NCIC check attached to it.
Basically, the EO instantly ends private sales of guns. Obama just became the best salesman for the Pawn business ever
It'll get challenged in the courts, because the definition of "being in the business of selling guns" is so vague and defacto ban-y that some dude trying to clear out his gun collection to pay off bills could get busted for not get an FFL to sell guns ONCE.
The pressures of black vs Smokless powder are vastly different. It will almost always pop a muzzle loader should you use Smokeless instead of BP.
That in mind, creating a full auto firearm with the tolerances of only being able to handle BP pressures would technically be legal.
>No no no, this FA gun can only function with Black powder! It'd blow up if you used smokeless cartridges! :^)
Of course, now you come to the issue of BP fouling...
but that's not what an engineer's job is anon
>design something to barely do its job @ 100% or more markup in price
>average joe is a "low use" user anyway
>widget will now last 3 or 4 years
>average joe will then buy a new one