NFA Case: Hollis V. Lynch (Formerly Holder)

Discussion in '2nd Amendment' started by lcback, Sep 22, 2015.

  1. I'm not sure how aware you guys are of this case. I mentioned it in an earlier thread, but its not really the place to discuss it.

    It has been an on going case for quite sometime. Lots of appeals and the standard controversial court rulings.
    NOTE: this all takes place after 1986 when the MG registry was closed.

    The basics are that Hollis filed a form 1 with the ATF to create an M16. It was approved much to the surprise of everyone. A stamp was issued and received. The M16 was manufactured. Then without warning and 0 due process. the BATFE revoked the stamp, and issued it as denied.
    They are challenging the legality, and constituionality (sp?, is that a word?) Of the total ban on post 86 samples.

    They have a lot of good points, and are meeting a lot of opposition from pro gun and anti alike.

    Most pro gun opposition are MG collectors that got in before the 86 ban and do not want there investments to drop from $20,000+ to $3,000 over night.

    If Hollis would win MG's would be regulated like suppressor's tax stamp and BG checks from the feds.

    a while back one of the attorneys did a question answer session on Reddit, and had some interesting discussion.
    Here is his opening statement. Link to post at the bottom.
    This is a case i would love to see be won. They claim that the ATF has issued post 86 stamps to a select few who have ties to the top. and they claim to have proof. that will play a part I'm sure.


    to donate

    Reddit AMA with the lawyer :

    If I missed anything let me know. also give me your opinions, I'm very curious what you guys think of this suit, the MG registry, and what you want to see happen.
  2. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    If there really have been some special post-'86 MG stamps issued, then it crushes any justification for denying manufacture of new MGs. Personally, I think that an MG is an impractical toy, But doggonit, if I or anyone else want that toy, we should be able to have it.

    As free adult, taxpaying citizens, we have a right to determine what firearms we, as free adult, taxpaying citizens want to buy or independently manufacture. No politician or bureaucrat should have the authority to tell us otherwise. The "shall not be infringed" part of the 2A says as much, and I find the arrogance of Constitution-violating authoritarians to be an affront to the intent that our Founding Fathers had in mind.

    The idea that mere men would dare to dictate to free adult, taxpaying men, in the same way as Medieval royalty, would have greatly offended their sensibilities, just as it should offend the sensibilities of today's free adult, taxpaying citizens.

  3. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    Here's the summary on The Firearm Blog:

    • Hollis and his legal team assert that there is a de facto ban on machine guns in the USA
    • The argument made includes violating the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the United States Constitution’s principles by arbitrarily “disapproving” an already approved Form 1
    • The case revolves around the assertion that the “ban” on machine guns is unconstitutional under the Second, Ninth and Tenth amendments
    • The complaint lists the supreme court cases of Heller and McDonald as precedent
    • Interestingly, the Miller decision in 1939 which convicted a man for the illegal possession of a short barreled shotgun is listed a precedent; At the time Miller was convicted because short barreled shotguns were not “part of ordinary military equipment”
      • The Hollis camp are asserting that machine guns like the one he intended to create are part of current military equipment and under this previous decision must be legal
    • The BATFE acknowledges that the NFA’s “underlying purpose was to curtail, if not prohibit, transactions in NFA firearms”
      • Since Congress lacks/lacked the authority to ban NFA weapons outright, it instead imposed a large tax (in 1934 dollars) on their manufacture and transfer which few individuals could pay
    • Past BATFE Director Stephen E. Higgins stated during congressional hearings that “machineguns which are involved in crimes are so minimal so as not to be considered a law enforcement problem”
    • The complaint declares how similar the AR15 rifle is to the select fire M16
    • Another argument hinges on how a machinegun made in the State of Texas and that has not traveled in interstate commerce cannot be regulated by the Federal Government under the interstate commerce clause

    Peace favor your sword,
  4. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    And also on The Firearm Blog, a post on why he doesn't think the ban will go away. The summary is, "Joe Sixpack, who outnumbers gun owners as a voting block, doesn't want people to be able to purchase 'machine guns'."

    While I agree that if the issue were put to a public vote that it would likely not pass, the issue currently is whether or not the current restriction would be struck down (ultimately by SCOTUS). That has nothing to do with whether or not the general public would vote for it or if current politicians would expend political capitol or endanger their political careers pushing for it.

    A better argument for him to make would have been that if SCOTUS strikes it down, there would be an immediate push by gun-grabbers to find another way to back-door-ban which would be successful because of wide public support and flagging opposition by other side of the aisle.

    Peace favor your sword,
    Last edited: Sep 22, 2015
  5. It would be fantastic if they win, if they lose using the argument that a AR is similar to a M16 could be a disaster.

    Plus Scalia already touched on this subject in Heller that some guns can be restricted, and he is the most conservative of the justices.

    This is the objection that many have, if the case is lost, and it looks like it will be using Scalia's ruling in Heller. The AR will again be on the chopping block by the ruling. The attorney should have left out any mention of the AR in his filings. What was he thinking?
  6. ajole

    ajole Supporting Member

    NE Utah
    That's not right. Joe Sixpack IS the gun owning voting block.

    It's Jane Soccermom, the Democratic party, and Joe Biden that are the issue.:rolleyes:
  7. Think1st

    Think1st Supporting Member

    Not necessarily. If they lose based on the assertion that the AR is like the M-16, then that could actually be a repudiation of any further attempts to equate ARs with "military grade" firearms.

  8. People asked him what i think is your point before.

    here are his responses..

    I highlighted there username's to try and clear up the conversation.

    obviously 2alitigator is the lawyer.

    You may be right, but i hope you're not.
  9. What I am afraid will happen is Scalia will author the decision, and he will stand firm that MG's are one of those weapons that can be restricted. If he does that, and does not even make mention of the similarity between an AR, and a M16 the ruling will pave the way for another assault weapons ban when progressives again get control of congress.

    The argument could have been made without any mention of AR's, and should have. To be honest I do not have much confidence in this attorney.
  10. He has stated that there are approximately 200 M60's that were allowed to be transferred by mistake by the ATF. And they decided it wasn't a big deal and they could keep them as long as they were not transferred again.

    So some body, or 200 some body's got to keep M60 machine guns.

    NOT M16's, or MAC10's giant hulking M60's.

    That is simply what sources have told him. IF they get into a discovery phase and the ATF has to release documents requested they imagine there are MANY, MANY, more examples of favoritism and over sight.
  11. lklawson

    lklawson Staff Member

    This would be the same ATF that still hasn't coughed up all the documents related to "Fast & Furious" which the Senate has legally demanded? That ATF?

    Peace favor your sword,
  12. yeah that one.

    It's interesting to me though that often a government branch can demand something. Then never get it and give up.
    While a plain citizen will keep asking, and perstering
  13. One of the problems so many have with him is the amount of time he spends on the internet in chat rooms, and forums. Plus in the beginning the donations went into his personal account, what respectable attorney does that. He could take the money, and run at anytime, not saying he would it just shows his abilities as a attorney.

    He first started this by going to forum, to forum demanding money, not asking, but demanding. When questioned with the obvious questions his loyal followers commenced locking up forums with insults, using mostly a derogatory word for homosexuals. And he approved of this behavior on AR15. He is not a good attorney IMO, subject to playing on the internet instead of working. IMO just looking for a name for himself so he can become high dollar, like SAF attorneys. You won't find them yaking in the internet.

    On top of that he turned in, and testified against a public official for carrying a concealed handgun on campus, mostly because he could not. It cost that person their career.

    I have absolutely zip confidence in him, even though I believe the right to keep and bear arms includes all forms of arms. All those that can be used to defend liberty, which is all firearms.
  14. okay, so you dont like they guy, and think that because he is a fudd the case is destined to fail. Is that your opinion?
  15. It is may/likely to fail because of the current decisions by the leading conservative justice. Plus we very well may be looking at a progressive/liberal court when it finally makes it to SCOTUS. To make it worse he is IMO, not competent to the task.

    I would have had less objections to him trying if he had left out the AR15 argument. That in my opinion was downright stupid, and not necessary for the suit.

    The fact that the money went into his gofundme account, and that he is a Fudd does not help matters.
  16. all good points.

    I would bet most of his internet goins on, is an effort to gain support and get some donations.

    He mentioned the cost on average for this is 50K for the first court, and then on wards and upwards of 200K by the time they get to SCOTUS.

    but i can see your disdain, he seems amateur for such a monumental case.
    I do believe Hollis picked him thought. Not the other way around. and other lawyers have joined up since the Heller foundation began helping.
  17. Hopefully this gives some insight into Scalia's mind. Focus on two points, the second amendment at the time, and restrictions at the time. Listen for him to describe a "frighting" which is very similar to our NC GATTTOP common law crime. I would think battle axes would be acceptable at the time of the writing of the constitution, but not according to Scalia. If public considers MG's to be a "frighting" I believe he will weigh that with the battle ax in the 1800's

  18. FlashBang

    FlashBang I Stand With Talon Lifetime Supporter

    The only question the BATFE, or anyone, needs to answer:

    What is the difference between a fully automatic M16 manufactured prior to 1986 and one manufactured after 1986? ;)

    If one is legal to own then so is the other.

  19. undeRGRound

    undeRGRound ROLL wif Da MOLE! Supporting Member

    This is a perfect example of libs using "divide and conquer". They have pitted many
    well-heeled and rich MG collectors AGAINST what is a no-brainer for the overall
    gun owning public. Machine Guns being restricted (effectively banned) is totally
    against any proper interpretation of the 2A, but these elite few are against the
    overall gun owning public being able to join their ranks. Sad State of Affairs :(
  20. I think that ks one of their main points.
    Why is it legal for someone who ks rich but not poor. Why was it okay If you did it in 1985 but not after?