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!
  • fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    lol had an amusing thought that Mark Levin caused. Apparently last week there was an article talking about how Republicans should use the so called "Obama Non-enforcement" doctrine (basically if Obama disagrees with a law, he doesn't enforce it and instructs that Dept to not enforce it) when there was next a Republican president. Can you imagine the howling if a conservative president decided to tell the BATF, " I don't agree with the NFA, it is unconsitutional so stop enforcing it."
    Or income taxes, or any other thing.

    The difference is, the media will cry wolf if a repub tries this nonsense. They will point out "he is violating the Constitution." Hypocritical bastards all.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    I've heard the same theories elsewhere on network TV, though not about guns. The difference is that when a sitting President tells federal officials to not perform a purely federal act (deporting people), then there is nobody to take to jail. If President Levin (scary thought, that) decided to "not enforce" the NFA, then anyone who builds the illegal gun would still have a great deal more to deal with than the ATF. They act would still put some people in jail, somewhere. Immigration is a purely federal act. Guns laws are numerous.

    But even more of a distiction, I think, is that the people facing deportation before Obama's order were already in jeopardy. So his abeyance of the law helps them, while not requiring them to commit any additional act.

    But if President Levin were to hold the NFA in abeyance (or tax, whatever), it would require that you actually perform an illegal act before you are covered. And then, you are still subject to state or local claims against your actions.

    I saw Stephanopolous (I don't care to look up the spelling of his name) ask the President whether a future president could "eliminate capital gains taxes", and the President stumbled horribly in saying, "no". But I saw it like the this: such an order would require I break the law (not pay tax), first. In the case of the immigration order, it affects only those who are already here illegally. Someone, someday would come for that tax money (they always do). At that point, I am no in more trouble than I was before Pres. Levin's order. In the case of the illegal immigrant question, none of them are worse for the wear.

    In short: I would not violate a law just because the President said I could. No more than I would take home-defense advice from Vice President "Shotgun Joe" Biden. But I'd probably welcome an action that deferred penalties for illegal acts I already performed. If anything, it delays the axe a little while. Nobody complains about that. At the same time, I wouldn't do anything that might bring a future axe-man.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    well I just sent my pro hace vice paperwork to the Penn. lawyers
    Between this and my lawsuit for Ares Armor against the ATF I've got the feeling they are not very happy with me right now.
     

    fightinbluhen51

    "Quack Pot Call Honker"
    Oct 31, 2008
    8,974
    Of course. If you look at the letter and spirit of 2A, the NFA itself could be considered "unConstitutional". But we've had a series of governments and administrations who weren't too fond of the people having rights, so slowly they've built a set of clever-yet-cowardly interpretations of 2A that have led to restrictions like this.

    And that's why it won't be overturned this time...because no Supreme Court justice wants to be the one to strike it down and uphold citizen rights, only to have some nutjob shoot up a mall with a machinegun. Then Moms Demand would be in front of their home yelling, "blood on your hands!".

    Overturning it would be the RIGHT thing to do, in the spirit of 2A, but no judge has the balls. So they will weasel out of it.


    If they are intellectually honest, they do not have to even go that far. NFA probably should be reformed to comport with Heller/McDonald, but there isn't a cold chance in hell, they will go as far to abolish the entire acts.

    Remember, the biggest thing with full auto is the fact that registered sears are finite; not infinite. Doing away with the Hughes Amendment in an equal protection type fashion, would drive prices down into "obtanium" levels where a $200 tax stamp, some prints, and a CLEO signoff or trust, aren't HUGE impediments.

    Plus, the arguments that "criminal nut jobs" fell through the cracks, are minimal. Argue all you want about removal of background checks and whatnot, that ship has sailed and will probably never be undone.




    I got into an argument one time with someone that advocated the public militia as the licensing body. The unorganized militia would handle training, "licensure" (loosely fingered quoted), and thus allow the militia's ID to provide as adequate form of competency for unrestricted purchase of small arms. It's quite an interesting idea that would be complicated to implement without .gov compromising (read endanger) the identifies of those militiamen.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    Hey guys the feds file their motion to dismiss. Hopefully I attached it correctly. This is my first time using that feature on here. I've been working on the response. I wasn't on this case when the complaint was filed so I'm doing a little bit of streamlining as far as the legal theories go.
     

    Attachments

    • #10-1 Memo in Support of MTD-1.pdf
      241.4 KB · Views: 223

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    This.

    A mistake by an examiner does not bootstrap an illegal act into a lawful one. I don't like that law, but I like the idea of singular, low-level government employees being able to circumvent federal felony laws by saying, "oops" even less.

    Heck, think of the possibilities: a permit to build an unlicensed nuclear reactor in a residential neighborhood; or even the ever-elusive "license to kill". Or even worse yet: cancelling free ice-cream Friday nationwide.

    One of the documents in the case is a letter from the head of the NFA branch telling a Stemple M60 owner that their firearm is post-86 but they may continue to own it. Supposedly 200 so-affected Stemples existed (serial numbers 300-500), I wouldn't call that a mistake by a low-level employee.
     

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    One of the documents in the case is a letter from the head of the NFA branch telling a Stemple M60 owner that their firearm is post-86 but they may continue to own it. Supposedly 200 so-affected Stemples existed (serial numbers 300-500), I wouldn't call that a mistake by a low-level employee.
    It could be a mistake by the President himself. It still does not turn federal law - passed by Congress and signed by President Reagan - into something else.

    I have yet to see anyone here explain to me how unelected bureaucrats can make law, absent a rulemaking proviso from Congress allowing them to do so.

    And for the record, even the director of ATF is "low-level" in my mind for this case. He and his subordinates are not authorized by the Congress or the Constitution to make this law, so therefore they are below the threshold to do so. Low level == "no authority in this case".

    Seriously...where is the authority for ATF to do this, even if they wanted to?
     

    Kharn

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 9, 2008
    3,578
    Hazzard County
    Patrick,
    I respectfully disagree and say that when it bears the director's signature, it's not a mistake, it's a policy.

    922(o)(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
    (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or [...]

    The GCA also gave the ATF the authority to conduct NFA amnesties.
     

    wolfwood

    Ultimate Member
    Aug 24, 2011
    1,361
    well this is it for briefing for the machine gun cases
    this is the reply brief from the government


    and we filed our sur-reply (that's a reply to a reply brief today


    so that's it for briefing. I've got a feeling this is going up on appeal sooner rather than later in both our cases. Oral argument should be in May for both cases in district court
     

    Attachments

    • Hollis surreply.pdf
      599.8 KB · Views: 162
    • Hollis reply brief.pdf
      186.8 KB · Views: 157

    Patrick

    MSI Executive Member
    Apr 26, 2009
    7,725
    Calvert County
    well the government filed this sur-sur-reply today.
    http://media.wix.com/ugd/c601ae_7a50db75e27f4e178c7fb791cb2cb615.pdf
    Its really weird. Its only one page and says almost nothing. If esq sees this I hope you can give me your thoughts. I don't get why they didn't just file nothing at all.
    Because they think their defense is a slam-dunk. I am not opining on the merits of the approach, but they obviously think they have no need to say more than they already have.

    Again...I am nobody.
     

    Inigoes

    Head'n for the hills
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 21, 2008
    49,365
    SoMD / West PA
    This is practically virgin territory, Farmer was the closest to getting 922 (o) overturned, but he and Halbrooke did not pursue the case. The Court of appeals opinions side with the government.

    It would be nice for the Judge to grant summary judgment for the plaintiff.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Latest posts

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,924
    Messages
    7,259,248
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom