Watson v. Holder - NFA 922(o), Unincorporated Trusts

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • cad68m_m

    Member MSI, SAF, NRA
    Nov 26, 2011
    311
    Calvert
    Brief Amicus Curiae of GOA In the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

    Filed Dec. 9,2015
     

    Attachments

    • n20151221.pdf
      147.7 KB · Views: 235

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    The following transaction was entered on 02/03/2016 at 2:30:07 PM CST and filed on 02/03/2016
    Case Name: Jay Isaac Hollis v. Loretta Lynch, et al
    Case Number: 15-10803
    Document(s): Document(s)

    Docket Text:
    CASE TENTATIVELY calendared for oral argument for the week of 04/04/2016. [15-10803] (GAM)


    both cases have argument in the same week
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    I am writing the en banc petition right now and I've still got the 5th Circuit case Hollis. It ain't over til its over
     

    ddestruel

    Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    90
    I am writing the en banc petition right now and I've still got the 5th Circuit case Hollis. It ain't over til its over

    I wish you luck.

    the courts responses were what was expected. frustrating that they ignore or refuse to explore the reality


    they ignore the fact that over 240000 legally owned fully automatic firearms are owned in the US and only 2 deaths have occurred.

    Alito writes in caetano, “If Heller tells us anything, it is that firearms cannot be categorically prohibited just because they are dangerous.” The case notes that “virtually every covered arm would qualify as ‘dangerous.’

    what makes fully automatic unusual as the court claims? Are they following the logic of MA superior court with the stun gun ruling? unusual would seem to be more of the suitcase gun, pen gun, camera gun etc.... but in the case of both meeting the test of dangerous and unusual. per caetano’s point regarding arms all being dangerous, is dangerous a firearm that is capable of going off on its own, can be dangerous even when not in use or operated remotely, more so than an arm that is controllable by the person possessing and using it in a law abiding manner?

    could the argument be made that exploration of the machine gun point has never occurred and challenging the court on how they are combining dangerous and unusual to define a machine gun when in fact if that were the case then special training like with explosives, or use of missiles in the military would be necessary?

    if civilian police departments, various other civilian/government LEO’s, the national guard and the military all use them as standard issue equipment as well so do 240k private citizens own and legally use them without issue. it would seem they are far from unusual, and no more dangerous than any other arm... instead questionably more common place and standard issue equipment ... only recently (i.e. not long standing) regulated by an artificial limit on the number of tax stamps?.

    this leads into the discussion about CA’s objective to prevent further semi-automatic firearm / rifle sales. ......... At some point obviously now isnt the time but the question posed to the court is what makes the arm more dangerous than another? a SBS vs a standard 18" barrel shotgun? the legislature declaring it to be such arbitrarily? well then now CA declares all semi automatic rifles that once were typically possessed for lawful purposes to be assault weapons and they can no longer be sold, lent etc. the evolution of revolver to semi automatic or single shot to lever action could also have been described as a similar “dangerous and unusual” evolution using the courts logic.

    http://californiawatch.org/public-s...s-gear-boon-local-calif-law-enforcement-15493
    http://www.daytondailynews.com/news...-boost-arsenals-with-free-military-wea/nPSGC/

    This process you’re in might be flushing out the true definition of dangerous and unusual a court created term and how that definition is accurate or inaccurate relative to statistics, facts and common use of the weapon by so many other departments and civilian and military services without any special training etc.


    definitely a lot of details to cover in the reply and en banc request.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,916
    Messages
    7,258,559
    Members
    33,348
    Latest member
    Eric_Hehl

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom