NFA Lawsuit Filed – Holder, Jones Summonsed

922 (o)UDATE 11/24/2014:  The DOJ has filed an Entry of Appearance naming Eric J. Soskin as counsel for the defendants.

UPDATE 11/5/2014: Holder and Jones have both been officially served with their summons as of 5 November, 2014  at 5:22AM.  The 60-day clock is ticking.

We recently posted about the Mississippi attorney who was seeking crowd funding for a lawsuit or lawsuits to challenge certain aspects of the gun control regulations laid out in the National Firearms Act, Gun Control Act and associated legislation, ATF rulings, etc.

The complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief in Hollis v Holder et al. was filed yesterday with the goal of either declaring the de facto ban on machine guns to be unconstitutional or finding that 922(0) does not prohibit unincorporated trusts from manufacturing or posessing a machine gun manufactured after the 1986 date created by the Hughes Amendment to FOPA.  From the introductory section of the Hollis v Holder complaint:

1. This is an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from 18 U.S.C. §922(o), 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq. and the implementing regulations 27 C.F.R. § 479.105(a). These statutory and regulatory provisions generally act as an unlawful de facto ban on the transfer or possession of a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986. By imposing such a ban on an entire class of weapons, the statutes and regulations exceed the power of the United States under Article I of the United States Constitution; violate the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals; violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the United States Constitution’s principles of federalism and dual sovereignty; by arbitrarily “disapproving” an already approved Form 1, Defendants’ actions violate Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right to due process and is an unjust taking; and violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

2. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the unconstitutional provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq. and 27 C.F.R. § 479.105(a); declaring the ban on machine guns unconstitutional under the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments and in violation of Article I of the United States Constitution and declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from unjustly taking property without Due Process.

 

3. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief finding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) does not prohibit an unincorporated trust from manufacturing or possessing a machinegun manufactured after May 19, 1986 and/or that the Defendants lack the authority and are thus prohibited from revoking or denying the validity of Plaintiff’s approved tax stamp #RM34755.

The summons notifying recently-resigned Attorney General Eric Holder and BATFE directory B. Todd Jones of the lawsuit, has been issued and is available online specifying that if the defendants fail to respond within the 60 day deadline,  judgment by default will be entered against them for the relief described above.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Partners



The Carry Academy: Firearms Safety Training Course
Categories
Archives
R.K.B.A

Join NRA Save $10


GunLink is a proud member of NSSF