How does /k/ think the government will respond to these lawsuits?
Hopefully the government will realize that the ATF can't deny a tax stamp once It's been issued and they'll do the right thing.
>>24358811
It's not going to go the way you want to.
>>24358835
Not Op, but what do you think's going to happen then?
>>24358811
They've done similar actions before. Originally the USAS-12 and the Striker shotgun could be bought without any special license, and then the ATF called them destructive devices (well except for the .410 Striker).
>>24358811
The ATF will rule all autoloading rifles illegal
>>24358861
Since when have the ATF been Congress?
>>24358811
Hopefully they will consider unfucking the ATF, because it is in a state of deep fuck.
>>24358894
How're they in deep fuck besides enforcing shitty laws?
>>24358920
Well other than burning kids alive. Not much.
>>24358866
You dont know how it works do you.
The ATF is an organization with NO oversight. NONE. They could literally declare anything short of muskets illegal tomorrow. We would of course fight it in court and win, but they COULD
>>24358920
Aside from coercing mentally disabled people into doing donkey work for them, not much really.
>>24358953
Canadian here
At least they aren't as bad as the RCMP...
>>24358811
>How does /k/ think the government will respond to these lawsuits?
They'll print four dozen pages of lorem ipsum and then smear the words MUH COMMERCE CLAUSE in shit all over them.
>>24358981
>implying the government can ban an entire class of guns.
>government response to hughes amendment
>tfw everyone is blown the fuck out and the government says that it never actually passed
>tfw republican congress and senate
>tfw they know that they could never pass a hughes amendment now when they have power
>>24358992
>implying they haven't effectively done so since 1934
>implying the majority of Americans aren't dumbshits who would support the Hughes Amendment even though it has no legal basis
>>24359006
NFA isn't a ban, but I guess neither the hughes amendment is too. However; the $200 tax stamp became nothing with time, having to literally sell your soul for one is not something that will change overtime.
>>24359030
>NFA isn't a ban
>be 1934
>"how do we remove guns"
>institute tax of $200 (equivalent to $3500 today) on everything scary
>everyone but the mafiafags you use to justify the NFA is too broke to afford it
>mafiafags keep killing each other with autos and SBRs
>???
>"we need to remove more guns"
Yes a $3500 tax was a near ban at the time. Thankfully they didn't account for inflation so the rate never changed, and it's becoming more and more of a minor inconvenience.
>>24359082
>Thankfully they didn't account for inflation
Exactly, the Hughes IS a defacto ban since only rich kids can afford them and that's the way it's going to stay. Therefore, It's unconstitutional.
>>24358953
Since when did America let a part of the Executive branch make laws like it was part of the Legislative branch?
>>24359000
Please if there is any resemblance in what used to be the United States this is the only outcome.
>>24358811
The lawyers pushing these lawsuits are jokes. This isn't Alan Gura or a jurist of similar stature. How many times have any of these people taken on the feds and won, or orchestrated a circuit split and brought it to SCOTUS? Much less on $50,000!
The threat that these lawsuits present - aside from seriously arguing the notion that trusts can legally make new, transferable machine guns - despite the clear prohibition on the trustees POSSESSING those guns - is that they're begging the very anti-gun courts to establish the basis for review for 2nd Amendment cases. Note that SCOTUS never did that, it's in the air whether it'll be Rational, Intermediate, or Strict. This is so serious that getting it wrong could worsen every gun law in the country at once. This is no exaggeration, the level of scrutiny determines how far the government has argue before they can infringe on our rights. Rational Basis would be every anti-gunner's wet dream - and because the groundwork hasn't been laid yet, that could very well be where we're headed if these cases are taken seriously.
As for the "trusts can make machine guns because they're people or something" argument, it's absurd. In fact, BATFE explained why in each of their denial letters. Even if it were true that trusts could make machine guns (they can't), the HUMAN TRUSTEES wouldn't be able to legally POSSESS them. People make comparisons between trusts and SOTs, government entities, and so on - but trusts aren't legal entities. IE, they are not separate from the trustees. This isn't the case with a corporation, for instance. See 1680 Property Trust v. Newman Trust:
“Unlike a corporation, a trust is not a legal entity. Legal title to property owned by a trust is held by the trustee. A trust is simply a collection of assets and liabilities.”
It's unfortunate that the lead attorney didn't research that opinion or the others like it before beginning this misadventure.
>>24359384
Fuck off liberal it's our duty to give them as much shit as we can.
>>24359499
Preach.
>>24359499
Yeah you dont get it you illiterate mongoloid.
He's pointing out the deficiencies in the lawsuit which could cause quite an antigun backlash if it backfires.
>>24359514
>>24359499
>I'm okay with giving a Federal Circuit a chance to rule on scrutiny
>>24359152
Since the Red Scare.
The Cold War is the reason for most shit the US is going through because during that the people being bending over for the government and it only got worse as the government really began getting into it.
>>24359152
>Since when did America let a part of the Executive branch make laws
The 1930s, more or less
>>24358811
One would hope the courts will come down in our favor but we all know that's unrealistic. If the government thugs want machine guns banned, it doesn't matter what the Constitution or settled case law says.
We're going to get the legal equivalent of "because I'm the mom, that's why" and the people who brought this suit while we're racking up legislative victories are fucking idiots who just invited a radical reinterpretation of our rights. Get ready for DC v. Heller to be retconned to only apply to black powder because once they rule a class of guns can be banned, the antis will roll up on us class by class until nothing from the last 200 years is available to civvies. Get ready for "ban high speed bolt action repeaters."
>>24359152
they interpret the laws, not make new ones.
>>24360509
none of that is true. why dont you settle down, jimmy
>>24360772
They enforce laws from an official standpoint, however through the establishment of executive departments, over time the amount of power the Executive branch wields in terms of interpretation and implementation of unofficial policy has grown.
>>24360788
I tell you what, if this goes through and they strike Hughes down, I will buy you one of the first new production machine guns to roll off the line. If it doesn't and it actually makes things worse though, you have to come back to this thread to collect a photo of my asshole and wear it on your face every time you have sex for the rest of your life.
>>24360788
You must have missed the part about opening a specific class of guns to being banned and establishment of scrutiny. People do not have an appreciation for how dangerous this is to us. It would be an incredibly easy thing for a Federal Circuit to determine that Machine guns are extraordinary weapons and declare that Rational Basis is all that is needed to prohibit their ownership. This establishes a terrible president and history of case law where extraordinarily dangerous implements can be withheld on the basis of rational bias. Establishing scrutiny is the difficult part, and if they're given Rational Basis, or even Intermediate Scrutiny on a specific class of "extraordinary" firearms, it's very easy after that to establish another class of firearms as "extraordinary" and prohibit their ownership. You'll essential be giving all the validation in the world for things like the SAFE act, all because people wanted to run all over Hell and breakfast in the courts with some fanciful case that has zero chance of doing anything.
>>24360836
>implying
I am the Sergeant of a three-man Rapid Tactical Force at one of America’s largest indoor retail shopping areas. Although there are typically between fifteen and twenty normal security officers working the beat there, we decided a while ago that it would be best to have a specilized force for violent individuals. We use modified electric vehicles and can be anywhere on a given floor within eight and a half minutes.Naturally, the regular security people are unarmed. We “RTFers”, by arrangement with the local police, carry high-strength OC spray and batons. If we have a full tactical alert and permission from the local LEOs we also have a Mossberg 500 with less-lethal rounds and two K-frame Smith .38s loaded with 158gr. LRN.Basically, the situation is that we get the call, we lock up the situation, put everything five by five, and cordon the area until the local authorities arrive. We’re cops, we just don’t get the glory. I am not permitted to carry Glocks on duty; however, when my wife picks me up from work I strap on the “Deadly Duo” of a 27 and 23, each with Bar-Sto .357 bbl.I am writing a proposal to replace our current Mossberg-Smith armament with the following:
3) MP5K-PDW with red-dot sights;
2) G36 rifles using SS109 rounds;
3) Glock practical tacticles in .357 Sig
1) PSG-1 using Fed Gold Medal .308
1) Starlight scope for the PSG-1 in case we lose power in the building.
3) Glock 27 backup guns
3) Kahr P-9 holdouts
I think this would make us capable of facing nearly any situation. I’ll let you know what the management says!!!
>>24360947
You sound like ya gots some book learnin. Law student?
>>24358852
That was actually the Brady Campaign who lobbied the Department of Treasury to make that ruling. If they didn't, then they would still be Title I guns.
>>24361068
There is just simply nothing for us as gun owners to found a legal argument on. The ownership of material goods with respect to trusts and trustees has already been established again and again for 150 years and in a consistent manner. Research into case law and appellate opinions shows that opinions again and again hold that trusts are simply collections of property that fall under the ownership of trustees, which are persons - persons which are prohibited from possessing machine guns under enacted legislation. It would take a first year law student about 15 minutes to knock down the argument that the attorneys in this case are making for their client, and the fact that these men apparently have zero understanding of trust law does not give me hope for their arguments in court.
On the obverse side of this coin, it would take the same first year law student another 15 minutes to make a case for establishing Machine guns as an extraordinary class of firearms not protected under the second amendment, or at a minimum making a case for the infringement of the right under scrutiny other then strict. This creates a heinously dangerous combination of judicial opinion and case law where by laws such as the SAFE act can be defended by simply painting something under it's provisions as equally extraordinary and there by subjecting them to the same level of reduced scrutiny as machine guns. Suppressors might be an example at the federal level, something else easy to paint as an extraordinary device.
There is also no reason to believe that the courts will rule in our favor in this matter, and people need to figure out that legislative action on firearms at the Federal level is a dead end as we've seen over the last few years. The only body capable of strengthening gun control is the courts through interpretations of existing laws. We need to tread carefully.
>>24361292
This is my greatest fear. All these faggots ITT who actually want to put our rights in the hands of the courts are crazy.
Although eventually it will come to that and the courts will rule against gun ownership. This is inevitable.
>>24361292
Defeatist pls go.
>Thread about what could be a catastrophic shift in gun control
>People are focusing on bullshit legislation on page 1 that won't do anything
Blind as ever /k/, always following the carrot and never the stick.
>>24358835
>>24361400
There's a difference between defeatism and being realistic. This is shit that should definitely make you concerned.
>>24362425
All I hear is a bunch of boot-licking statists telling me we can't.
>>24362491
Lot of Obama voters on /k/ these days.
>>24361292
>Courts won't rule in the favor of liberty or freedom!
>Said every asshole ever during major court cases that extended liberties and freedoms.
>>24359297
source for this? this legit?
>>24361292
Do you think that the courts do recognize that this could be leading into a slippery slope that allows the government to, in practical effect, suppress 2nd Amendment rights?
>>24358861
The moment that semi-autos become ban.
Is the moment BATF packs up,because they would not exist the next day.
This is not the 90s.
>>24360947
>don't open up precedent for them to rule on a specific class of guns, just don't fight them.
We have the machine gun ban because of the nfa. You can't just let shit sit there. is this the best way? i just heard of this recently, i haven't had time to study it. After Roberts backing out like a cuntweasle i have no faith in the courts. Not even sure if he'd be the swing at SCOTUS.
>We might lose if we fight guys so just lay down and take it. maybe they will let us have some stuff.
>>24362786
>>The moment that semi-autos become ban.
>Is the moment BATF packs up,because they would not exist the next day.
I'm not that guy I envy you for being able to see national opinion that way and being able to take comfort in it. Gun control almost always gets worse here in California and it's pretty much shaped my view on the recent progression/regression of gun rights.
>>24361292
>obverse side
just say "other side."
>>24362886
Pretty much all gun manufactures produce semis,every gun store has semi-autos.
Pretty much all pistols are semi autos.
What I can see we winning the lawsuits and the BATF getting rich,but being big enough dicks to not expand for the demand.
6month wait for suppressor? ha, try 3 years.
>>24362786
This this this.
>>24358811
The courts will back the ATF. Nothing will happen besides the trust loophole getting closed. In 24 hours come back to this post and witness my wizard-like powers of foresight.
>>24362979
It has been ruled that you can ban guns with a taxstamp. BATF does not give tax stamps. So they will be forced to give tax stamps to the individuals.
>>24362610
>>24362766
Here's the problem, you could get exactly what you claim to want, a 100% rational and unbiased court that is going to thoroughly research previously existing case law and interpret the law the to the letter - to that end, you're going to achieve two ends.
1. The deceleration, or rather reaffirmation, that a trust is not a means through which a person can circumvent the Hughes amendment because trusts are simply collections of property, people do. This is well established through a number of cases, one of which has already been mentioned by myself in this thread. The likely hood of the circuit overturning 150+ years of trust law and opinion is zero.
2. Running the risk of creating the aforementioned president of establishing suspect classes of firearms and subjecting their scrutiny other then strict.
Courts won't rule in favor of liberty as you claim, because there is nothing to support the ruling. Jurisprudence on the matter of scrutiny towards the Second Amendment is not established. Even the unlikely rulings in favor of rights which you have so quickly and hopefully invoked have been heralded by extraordinary dissent which was already preexisting, often from the SCOTUS. William Brennan attacking censorship in Lamont v. Postmaster General or Harlan on Jim Crow laws.
I want to say that again.
There is -NO- established scrutiny on the matter of the Second Amendment.
And you're willing to hand it to a by-and-large liberal court on a platter for such a decision. This is a door that you, I, or any one else who owns a gun does not want opened, because once it's opened in anything but our favor it's going to be impossible to close. Furthermore, the J.V. grade lawyers handling this case are not equipped, educationally, financially, or in terms of experience to deal with a Circuit Court making a ruling on scrutiny of the Second Amendment or establishment of suspect classes of firearms - both of which are incredibly real possibilities.
>>24362757
You can watch it yourself.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ
TLDR
Stupid rookie lawyer is going to fuck up guns for America.
>>24362886
>I envy you for being able to see national opinion that way
Luckily, there's no need to pretend or even envision. Everything is on the table.
>>24363110
>Everything is on the table.
how so?
>>24363110
Source?
>>24363147
Even firearm polls done by anti-gunners end up being pro-gun.
>>24363110
All this is telling me is that doom is five percentage points away. Also public opinion doesn't mean shit for the court system. That's why there IS a court system.
>>24358811
I'd be willing to bet it will piss us off somehow.
i there anywhere else that's talking about this?
This thread:
>let's go into a gunfight with a knife guise!
>no that's stupid, let's retreat and be more careful next time
>LE DEFEATIST COWARDS
everyone here seems to forget that this is about repealing the hughes amendment, which technically doesnt even exist and is an illegal law. its cut and dry.
>>24363321
Except that's not how law works, nor is it the scope of the suit.
>>24363299
>le shitting reddit meme
>>24363349
shitty*
Stupid autocorrect.
Fuck the courts and laws
Can the /k/ube just rise from its slumber and eliminate all gun control laws since 1934?
>>24363349
Except he's 100% correct about this. The guys pursuing this lawsuit are going to get smoked and smoked HARD. The correct way to pursue this issue was to pursue all the little fish surrounding it to build up a solid body of precedent and hopefully somehow manipulate the Supreme Court into conceding that there's no basis to regulate firearms based on arbitrary features. Once we had won a case that established you can't limit magazine sizes or cosmetic features, that would pave the way to challenge limitations on mode of firing on the same logical basis.
At best, nothing bad happens and the status quo is maintained. At worst, a huge new wave of bans is coming on the basis that this court will rule it's ok to arbitrarily ban shit.
>>24363176
>a-all this tells me is defeat is f-five percentages away!!
fuck off defeatist, this graph shows national approval of gun rights is on the rise
>self defeating prophecy
>>24358811
>judges in modern america
>delivering common sense/good judgement
You wish.
>>24362425
>There's a difference between defeatism and being realistic.
That's what I tell myself and I am still a kissless virgin at 24.
Don't do that shit with your rights, bro.
Bunp
>>24362229
>following the carrot
>not following the burger
>>24359553
Antigun backlash is a good thing. Things have to get much worse for there to be a catalyst for change. The 2nd Amendment enshrined your gun rights so you can use them to defend ALL your rights. So far, not too many gun owners are for that method.
>>24363589
This. I'm not sure what world some of you yards have experienced but this is a chess game that is going to take years for us to get what we want. Believe it or not most of America doesn't identify with neckbeards who work at jiffy lube open carrying their SKS in Chipotle. Liberalism is mainstream and the ones looking to take it all from us have millions of dollars in their war chest to fight us. Some state school mom pop lawyer trying to tackle legislation of this nature without proper funds and backing is going to get fucking steam rolled.
If we wanted to actually get shit done it would be a little here a little there, stacking our ammo so to speak. But instead fuck tard "molon labia" wants to essentially go in like Leroy Jenkins and fuck us all
>>24364875
>fuck off
He's not wrong though. The courts hold the real power in the US; they can do whatever they want. You can vote out politicians, but the supreme court is there for life. If they make an unfavorable ruling, all the senators can do is wring their hands and say "Well, we don't support the ruling, we promise to resist!", and then proceed to do absolutely nothing.
>>24363045
How could it not pass my such a huge margin and STILL go into law? There's something else going on here, I doubt so many representatives from both sides would just roll over and lrt it pass.
>>24358811
So what's the name of the case?
>>24367694
I believe its Stephen Stamboulieh VS Huges Amendment but hes also going after the ATF, NFA, and BATFE
>mfw the rookiee lawyer BTFOs the opposition
It's a long shot, but if he does it then holy shit it'll be like a page out of history.
>>24367818
I think its going to be more hilarious if it gets passed imagine how ass blasted anti-guns are going to be.
>>24367818
Would they make a movie of it?
>>24367944
Probably.
I'd be a movie showing how the evil white man let criminals have machineguns and go on to attribute every homicide afterwards to this though.
>>24367764
>the ATF and the BATFE
Those are the same entity
All I want is a krink without dicking around with the ATF or registering it.
Being able to buy a supressor over the counter and replace parta without paying another stamp would be good too.
If new MGs went down to slightly above their semi auto variants that would be gravy.
Life will go on even if none of this happens today, but damn I want it to happen
What is the time limit for this counterargument from Holder? The end of the day is coming and we still don't have a reply.
>>24368834
This.
I'm really curious about the response.
>>24368834
Could have already been submitted and not been made available to PACER? I don't know how shit works, all I know is that stuff gets posted to PACER and people who pay for it puts it up later else where.
>>24358953
Lol, fight in court
the proverbial habbening would take place and it still wouldn't be enough for you to take up arms?
ATF is in an all out assault this week, First this and now the SIG brace.
>>24368834
Holder is too busy blowing police the fuck out
>end to civil asset forfeiture
This redeems him in my eyes
>>24370067
It has been on the chopping block for a long time and the public view of civil asset forfeiture has been getting more and more negative within the last few years due to MSM mocking it when they get a chance.
He is not ending it either, cops just need to prove that a crime occurred before the forfeiture process begins, this is pretty easy to do when most of the time it is added on top of minor violations of law.
There is no redeeming holder, he is just trying to keep another incident from happening before he leaves.
>>24370067
>Redeeming supplying firearms to the cartel and blaming legal firearm owners/dealers/manufacturers
>Redeeming causing the housing market crash, ruining the finances of millions of Americans and almost destroying global finances as a whole
No. He should be in jail.
>>24370351
>jailing someone for what they fight for in court
DA TOVARISH HOW IS LIFE IN GLORIOUS SOVIET UNITON! DADADA YESCHE VOTKA XAXAXA
>>24370412
He broke the law. He should go to jail.
>>24370451
Drafter... people that high up don't go to jail. This is how the world works, people become untouchable once they get high enough and have enough contacts.
I really hope they livestream this shit
I want to see this go down
>>24370524
Who's going to live stream what now?
Responses from holder have just been filed a few minutes ago. PDF's soon fellow /k/ommandos.
>>24370542
Make one please.
>>24370542
i have a feeling its gonna be getfucked.pdf
>>24370531
I just hope that there will be some link to watch how the lawsuit goes tomorrow.
>mfw there might be a chance there will be unrestricted funs
>>24370576
Please don't get my hopes up...
>>24370482
are you the same defeatist in the whole thread
>>24358835
>>24358920
Aside from shutting down the bank accounts of gun and ammo sellers they are alright.
>>24362425
If none of you fucking faggots are going to fight for your god damn rights, then why the hell do you own guns? Why do any of you vote? Why haven't any of you already shot yourselves? I mean, we're all going to fucking die like faggots, some day, so why should anybody give a shit, right?
Gun rights are a risk vs. reward system. Always have been, always will be. And for the past since America's been around, guns have always been favored in the legal department. There have been times when they've been controlled and subject to bureaucracy, but they're always been nearly guaranteed because FUCKING PEOPLE FOUGHT FUCKING TOOTH AND NAIL TO ENSURE THEY HAD THAT RIGHT TO KEEP THEM.
If you fuckers aren't going to take the risk in order to take full possession of rights, then none of you deserve the right to own firearms. If you won't fight for it, then you don't deserve to own firearms. Its the same with every other god damn right you own.
Until we've slapped our asses firmly in the stars and have grown to the point where if we don't like how shit is, we can just move to another system, we're fucking stuck here under this one collective banner. Fucking quit your bitching and waste that breath by screaming in the ears of those who decide how free our rights are, or start screaming in the ears of your fellow man, starting a call to arms.
>>24370603
no, a different person, but instead a realist
>>24370280
>Fast and Motherfucking Furious
>Literally responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Mexican citizens and over a dozen US citizens
Okay mr statist : 3
>>24370665
notice how drafter said 'should'
>>24370665
>nono g-guise I'm just a realist!
that's why you are still a virgin.
I refuse to believe there are two people as beta as you are.
>>24365382
what rail is that?
>>24370664
fucking this, this is why gun rights get trampled on, fucking commie faggots who say "i-it will never work guise!"
They should kill themselves, honestly, they are doing more to promote gun restriction than a politician ever will.
>>24370672
I don't disagree with you, If you read my post you can see that I said there is no redeeming holder and he is trying to buy some good will before another incident happens.
Also, does anyone know if and on what channel the case will be broadcasted on?
>>24370576
>tfw only a has-bow no-guns
>tfw this will still literally make or break my week.
>>24370985
I know that feel m8
HERE WE GO GUYS.
THE RESPONSE.
#15 Appendix
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868038/15-Appendix-to-MTD
#15 Part Two
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868037/15-1-Appendix-to-MTD-Part-2
#14 Memo in Support of MTD - Hollis
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868036/14-Memo-in-Support-of-MTD
#13 Motion to Dismiss - Hollis
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868034/13-Motion-to-Dismiss
#12 Motion to Extend Page Limit - Hollis
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868033/12-Motion-to-Extend-Page-Limit
>>24371324
quick summary for layman pls
>>24371324
So they want the judge to dismiss the case entirely on the basis of holder being the attorney general?
>>24371324
On phone, can't read. Keeps stopping my reading and trying to force download of an app.
What's this say?
>>24371407
Basically
The Second Amendment Does Not Protect an Individual Right to Possess Machine Guns
Thanks Holder.
>>24371324
WATSON V. HOLDER
Motion to Dismiss
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868263/10-Motion-to-Dismiss
1 Memo in Support of MTD
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868264/10-1-Memo-in-Support-of-MTD
Exhibit 1
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868271/10-3-Excerpts-From-HR-REP-83-1337
Exhibit 2
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868272/10-4-Exhibit-2
Exhibit 3
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868265/10-5-Ex-3-132-Cong-Rec-9-602
Exhibit 4
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868268/10-6-Ex-4-Militia-Laws
Exhibit 5
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868269/10-7-Ex-5-Machine-Gun-Laws
Exhibit 6
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868266/10-8-Ex-6-19-and-20-Century-Laws
Exhibit 7
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868267/10-9-Ex-7-HR-REP-73-1780
Exhibit 8
https://www.scribd.com/doc/252868270/10-10-Ex-8-S-Rep-82-1495
>>24371431
THAT'S IT???
What the fuck...
I mean, no. Holder has been a dick the entire time. His status as attorney general isn't untouchable, but as long as he's there he can say some stupid shit.
Is there anything in there about WHY he wants to throw it out?
Or is it already thrown out?
>>24371504
But wouldn't Holder want new MGs? It'll be easier for him to give them away to the cartels that way.
>>24370664
Lead the way, Mr. Threeper :^)
>>24371504
Seems like the counterargument mostly covers the fact that there already is a precedent of possessing machine guns not being allowed under the rights protected by the 2nd amendment.
>>24371482
1/2
>>24371535
Oh don't worry, he won't let something as asinine as the law stop him
>>24371581
So that's why they want to dismiss the case as fast as possible? What happened to the whole person ≠ Trust thing?
Why is all of /k/ not taking about the biggest case since Heller vs DC?
>>24371591
2/2
>>24358811
>Hopefully the government will realize
> and they'll do the right thing.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAHAHA
>>24371591
>>24371610
They are trying to dump the case as fast as possible.
>>24371598
Because we're still wading through fucking everything.
This shit is a god damn mess, and besides. Even if the judge says "fuck this," the decision can still be appealed. Which it probably will until it flies right to the top to SCOTUS.
>>24371591
>>24371610
>The 2nd Amendment does not protect the right to own a machine gun
>Because any burden imposed by the challenged federal laws is minimal
Fucking whack as fuck. Absolute bullshit.
>>24371624
Since the table of contents is essentially a TLDR for the whole thing, I see their first argument for dismissal being that they claim THERE IS NO CLAIM, and the last one is that the plaintiff has failed to establish the necessary elements of a claim.
Is this basically saying that they claim he has no claim, and then try to explain that the claim he made is lacking?
They just contradicted the fuck out of themselves.
>>24371700
>implying the court will care
Monday morning: Case Dismissed :3
>>24371731
Court cases are made and lost in technicalities.
tfw you will never get a $40 sten shipped to your door from amazon
>>24371758
Not when the government comes to play. Then it's "Yes sir, of course sir, how high sir?"
Holder could write an opinion that says the plaintiff lacks a claim because the Second Amendment is actually a right to eat cheese, and the court would still rule in his favor.
>>24358920
Lets not forget about running guns to Mexican cartels with no oversight after the gun get across the border.
>>24371790
Not in most of the US, and not by Amazon, but it'll be for $40 inflation adjusted and it'll certainly be in your lifetime.
>>24371802
>mfw
Honestly. What does Holder have over someone else in such strength that the cunts in court just listen to him?
>>24371700
Yeah, it doesn't really make any fucking sense since what they're first claiming is that there is no claim because there is no substance to the claim.
Then they say that there is no claim at all and that the case doesn't even claim anything.
Then they try and say that MG's aren't really guns and therefore, are not protected under the second amendment
Then theres a whole bunch of shit about how MG ban was lawfully passed, even though your average fucking law student can pull up the video n shit and say, "uh, no it wasn't."
Then they say that the claim is so small that it isn't even worth evaluating, mind you, there wasn't a claim at all in the first place, according to them.
Then more BS about how the Second Amendment is out of style and how even though there are presidents for these claims, we should just ignore them because there is no claim.
Then there's shit about how the ATF's defacto crap is legal, even though its not and any fucking judge, corrupt or not, would fucking know its not legal.
Then there's a ton of shit saying that the claim that the ATF is overstepping its bounds by making legislative decisions is totally okay, and has no substance as a claim because there is no claim.
And the plaintiff can't claim anything because he doesn't like how the feds are running the show, because his claim has no substance.
That's what it comes down to.
>In 1986, Congress again turned its attention to firearms, examining,inter alia, the hazards of machine guns and the desirability of their control.
>hazards of machine guns
>Wasn't a single crime with a registered machine gun until 1988
>implying the whole amendment wasn't to shit up the FOPA as bad as possible.
Holy fuck, they're in full damage control so god damn bad
>>24371847
He doesn't have anything. He's just part of the government.
I don't think you understand how things work in this country.
>>24371855
>plaintiff can't claim anything because he doesn't like how the feds are running the show
Sounds a lot like
>I don't like Timmy, so everyone be mean to him
>>24371902
I never said I did. By all means, elucidate and inform me.
>>24371929
THE GOVERNMENT ALWAYS WINS. The US government NEVER loses a law suit when the judiciary agrees with them.
It was a miracle that Randy Weaver won his suit, and even that only happened because the ATF fucked up in literally every theoreticaly possible way.
>>24371929
Thats pretty much exactly what it is.
There is nothing to these arguments, its grasping at straws. Not even that, fucking grasping at air. Fucking everything they said, is pulled straight out of their ass AND has been ruled upon ALREADY AND is not up for debate when there is evidence saying contrary to what they're trying to prove.
Is there anyone here with a law degree to give us some kind of expectation based in reality?
>>24371999
>dem trips
I can contact a family member, but theirs was based in business law, not constitutional law.
>>24371963
>when the judiciary agrees with them
My point exactly. Does anyone know what the Court's stances are on this (or similar)?
>>24372033
better than nothing, sure as hell beats these armchair heroes
>>24370805
VLTOR CASV
I predict they give us an inch but take a mile by doing some shit like ruling shotguns destructive devices or something fuck stupid
>>24372079
Allow me to expand. He's anti gun.
He gives absolutely no fucks about this case, and actually hopes it will fail.
Hell, he keeps grandpa's Iwo Jima-sanctified 1911 in pieces because he doesn't like it.
I was graced with the opportunity to clean and fire it, and there was so much rust that I basically cried.
No. That man is a lost cause.
>>24358953
you are grossly exaggerating the power of the ATF
every ruling they've made, that I've read, has made perfect legal sense, but since it defies common sense, everyone cries about it
the law is fucked, but the ATF follows it to the letter, well, most of the time
>>24369133
because taking up arms this day in age doesn't do shit but destabalize the country. stop being so fucking simple minded thinking everything can be solved with war.
>>24372146
WHAT THE FUCK
get that shit from him somehow. piece of shit doesnt deserve it
>>24372146
Jesus Christ....
>>24372166
Fuck off, bootlicker.
Or should I say COINTELPRO?
>>24372142
I'd wager almost everyone who owns a gun, owns a shotgun.
I'd be MOLON LABE at that point
>>24372190
Oh, when he dies, I know exactly to which loving and caring arms they will go...
>>24372166
The Lord is a man of war: the Lord is his name.
Exodus 15:3
Cowboy up. Slick.
>>24372250
>not wanting to live through a violent revolution makes you a bootlicker
dude if you want to shoot people just move to somalia.
>>24372289
if its not a completely rusted piece of shit by then
>>24372292
>justifying war by quoting the fucking Old Testament
please try harder
Ban assault firemen.
>>24372164
They propose, not laws, but rulings based on those laws. Each of them destroy the gun owner rights, be it in small chips or in huge chunks.
Just...IMHO, abolish all banning, restricting, or otherwise distancing the ability to obtain and retain firearms.
Sure, people will claim "blood in the streets", but it isn't like that shit isn't happening right now anyway. Most likely, you'll wind up having niggers kill each other and not much else.
Look at Kennesaw, GA. They have had a (rather impotent) law on the books for years requiring the heads of households to own at least one firearm. Their violent crime, domestic disturbance, home invasion, and assault rates have dropped like a rock.
An armed society is a polite society.
Freedom means having the freedom to fuck up, and responsibility means owning up to your fuckups.
>>24372303
I saved it once, I'll do it again.
>>24372351
>mfw that typo causes the court to accidentally the whole NFA
>>24372351
SAUCE
>>24372674
It's in the statement posted before http://www.scribd.com/doc/252868270/10-10-Ex-8-S-Rep-82-1495
At the end of Page 2/9
>>24372166
I do understand the risks of armed uprising, but lets say that in this hypothetical situation of an all out ban on arms above muskets and you do go through the legal process to get it overturned, what then? Maybe 20 years later the government would be business as usual picking away at our rights little by little, maybe not the 2nd amendment, but the 1st and 4th may be the next targets. And do you know why? Because this government does not fear the people like it should. You can beat them back in court here and there, but men in power won't stop grasping for more power until that one day finally comes.
This whole response is not a final ruling, this is merely government opinion. The Courts still have the last laugh, so who knows what will happen from here; Though, I wouldn't expect a ruling for a while.
Have court cases always been long, drawn out affairs over the course of many months, or has "speedy trial" at one point really result in quick decisions?
>>24372921
Most of the time It's the former, they only have "speedy trials" if something matter to them the most.
>>24371855
I want to believe and like to think that an argument that shitty means they know they are outnumbered in opinion, holding an opinion that is increasingly unpopular, holding an opinion that has increasingly outspoken opponents and they know none of it is legal or was passed, yet want to defend it anyways.
