NFA Lawsuit Filed – Holder, Jones Summonsed
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.
But It’s Just a Policy…
Why “Concealed Means Concealed” is a Bunch of Hooey
Since there have been firearms to carry there have been businesses, individuals and organizations that want to restrict firearms carry. This isn’t anything new. However, there has been a recent rash of well-publicized statements from companies like Target, IKEA, Starbucks, Chili’s, Chipotle and others who say that they would prefer to have a “criminal protection zone” than an environment in which their customers are able to #EatSafe and #ShopSafe.
These statements are often met with replies along the lines of “concealed means concealed” or “if you do it right, they will never know that you are carrying.”
It is most likely true that you could carry a concealed firearms into any of these places without anyone ever being wise to it. After all, have you ever seen metal detectors or pat-downs in any of the aforementioned businesses. In many of these cases, you would probably be within the law unless you were asked to leave and refused to do so.
The question is… why on earth would you want to? Continue reading
NSSF Video: Gun Crimes Plummet Even as Gun Sales Rise
A majority of Americans say they think gun crime has increased over the past 20 years, even though it has actually fallen dramatically, a recent Pew Research Center survey shows.
Sources: DOJ, ATF AFMER & USITC, Pew Research Center, National Safety Council, Gallup
Civil Disobedience: Tens of Thousands in CT ignoring Gun Registration Law
[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. – United States Bill of Rights, Ratified Dec 15, 1791
One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all” – Martin Luther King Jr, Letter from a Birmingham Jail, 1963
A recent article by Hartford Connecticut’s Courant business writer Dan Haar is bringing attention to widespread disregard to the recently effected law that would require residents to register “military style” firearms. In April 2013, CT legislators passed the law (introduced, ironically, on April Fools Day even though it isn’t just a bad joke) which established the December 31st, 2013 deadline for having such firearms registered. The law, widely seen as a knee-jerk reaction to a series of murders by a deranged madman in Connecticut, also included multiple other restrictions on firearms and accessories. More sad irony for what is nicknamed “The Constitution State.”
Many may remember the infamous picture of obedient Connecticut residents queued up in long lines to register their firearms. Despite the long lines and the end-of-year deadline, Haar reports that state police had only received approximately 50,000 applications for registration – a number which includes over 2,000 incomplete (and, thus, invalid) applications. This is a figure that is estimated to be as little as 15% of so-called “assault weapons” in Continue reading
