Help Overturn 18 USC 922(o) & NFA

[Dolomite_supafly]

I would do three MGs, an AK of some sort, a RDIAS and some sort of 22. Oh and maybe an HK sear, nothing cooler than a MP5K in full auto or even a two stamp gun and suppress it.

 

And if they removed the silencers from the registry every gun I own, and do not carry on my person, will have a suppressor of some sort. I would add some mini, two baffle, cans to my Mini Draco to knock down the "bite" some.

Edited October 14, 2014 by Dolomite_supafly

[JohnC]

I would do three MGs, an AK of some sort, a RDIAS and some sort of 22. Oh and maybe an HK sear, nothing cooler than a MP5K in full auto or even a two stamp gun and suppress it.
 
And if they removed the silencers from the registry every gun I own, and do not carry on my person, will have a suppressor of some sort. I would add some mini, two baffle, cans to my Mini Draco to knock down the "bite" some.

I'm with you! My collection of FA's would begin immediately and wouldn't stop until I had 1 to 2 of each type that I want. :up:

[Dolomite_supafly]

I would be constantly trying different suppressor designs that have been rolling around in my head for a long time but can't because of the stupid laws regarding silencers. If there is one thing that should not be regulated in any way it should be a silencer. Regulating them is like regulating a set of BUIS, a scope or some other accessory. A dedicated 22lr AR is quieter than a suppressed 223 AR.

 

I know there are some serious research going on in other countries, by individuals and not the government, into small holes in the outer tube of the silencer to bleed of high pressure air. So far it seems very, very promising. How it works is high pressure is being released out of those small holes and the noise is at levels above human hearing. To the naked ear it is extremely quiet and that intrigues me like nothing else. I would also like to try different baffle designs but because I cannot even have a single extra baffle it is impossible without destroying baffles I have already made which is insane.

 

It should be encouraged to be a safety issue to prevent hearing loss.

 

But nothing should be regulated and as I said if they MUST regulate something to make themselves feel good regulate the person.

[Johnny Rotten]

I'm with you! My collection of FA's would begin immediately and wouldn't stop until I had 1 to 2 of each type that I want. :up:

Easy buddy, baby steps, one at a time, buy a whole lot of ammo, then move to the next one...LOL

[JohnC]

Almost at $30k now!

[JohnC]

@ almost $33k now! :up:

[JohnC]

This just surpassed $35k recently.... :up:

[mikegideon]

This just surpassed $35k recently.... :up:

 

Almost have enough money to buy two RDIAS. There is LOTS of money behind keeping the laws the way they are. That $20,000+ M16 will be worth less than $1000 if the machine gun ban ever goes away. Uphill climb. I'm all for it.

[Dolomite_supafly]

I have said this for a very long time, the dealers stand to loose millions in some cases if the MG ban goes away. But it would seem they could write it off as a loss and become big time players in selling new, perfectly legal, machine guns.

[JohnC]

Hit over $40k now... First complaint issued.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/245057730/Hollis-v-Holder-Complaint

[JohnC]

Reached goal of $50k and passed it! :woot:

[JohnC]

Interview: Meet the Man Suing Eric Holder and the ATF

Before getting to the interview, we'd like to give you some background facts on what led to the lawsuits.

First, it is legal in the United States for a private citizen to own machineguns. Some individual states prohibit the ownership but it is permissible on a Federal level per the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), so long as the Federal government approves the purchase (currently regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or BATFE, formerly “ATF”) and the citizen pays a $200 tax. Once the purchase is approved (a process that can take several months), the citizen receives a document called a tax stamp and can then go about their business with the firearm. Since this is approval for a purchase, not a permit for continued possession, there is no legal mechanism for the stamp to be “revoked” or for the approval to be reversed.

Next, in 1986, the Firearm Owner Protection Act was passed but included a provision (called the Hughes Amendment) stating that “persons,” as defined by the Gun Control Act of 1968, could still own machineguns as before but only if they were manufactured prior to that date. This created a rapid and artificial inflation of machinegun prices, putting them out of the financial reach of most citizens.

Finally, in 2014, the ATF was asked – via legal document – whether a firearm transferred to a trust required a NICS background check. In an effort to require background checks without involving Congress, the ATF declared that unincorporated trusts do not fit the legal definition of “persons” per GCA ‘68.

Through this declaration, the ATF essentially stated that trusts, not being “persons,” were not bound by the Hughes Amendment. Based on this, several individuals applied for a tax stamp to manufacture new machineguns and were approved. Their checks were cashed, the stamps were issued and, in at least one case, such a gun was manufactured.

Then... the ATF simply changed its mind. The recipients were told their stamps were “revoked.” Any machineguns manufactured were now possessed illegally and must be surrendered immediately. The recipients of the stamps received phone calls, letters and eventually personal visits to confiscate any modified firearms.

The reason? “Because we said so.”

Regulatory agencies such as the ATF (and the IRS and the EPA and the BLM and…) have the power to change the rules by which we live, without any approval or intervention by our elected officials. These agencies are simply empowered by Congress to “regulate” a particular activity or industry and are given near-free reign to do so at their own discretion, often ensnaring law-abiding citizens in a web of red tape. Running afoul of them has cost many citizens their time, money, and reputations; many have also lost their personal property (including homes and family-owned land), their freedom and, in some cases, their lives.

But an interesting thing is happening to this particular agency, this particular time. It’s being held accountable for its overreach.

Mississippi Attorney Stephen Stamboulieh has filed two lawsuits so far, naming Attorney General Eric Holder and ATF Director B. Todd Jones as defendants, and demanding simply that their agencies obey the laws they are charged with upholding – or that the prohibition on the manufacture of new machineguns be lifted entirely.

Stephen took time out of his schedule to answer a few questions for us and we’re pleased to post his responses.
DoLP: First off, Stephen, thanks for taking the time to chat with us. I suspect you’re a pretty busy man these days.

SS: It’s been a pretty busy couple of months for sure.

DoLP: You’re suing the Federal government. Why? And what can you tell us about the case?

SS: As of now, we are suing in two federal districts. The Northern District of Texas, in Dallas, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, in Philadelphia. The why is fairly simple. Since May 19, 1986 Congress has banned the possession and transfer of an entire class of weapons, machineguns, that are protected by the second amendment. Machineguns are no less protected by the 2nd Amendment than any other firearm. With the ban as it exists now, if the machinegun was manufactured after May 19, 1986, an individual cannot own that weapon.

But it goes beyond that. Since 1934, certain firearms (and non-firearms) are registered and taxed by the government. When you go to purchase a suppressor, which by itself is only defined as a “firearm” because our government says it is, you must pay a $200 tax, file paperwork with the government, and then wait 6 to 9 months for the BATFE to “approve” the paperwork and register that device in your name. The same thing occurs with a machinegun. But why, you probably want to ask, if the 2nd Amendment protects, as Justice Scalia said in Heller, “all instruments that constitute bearable arms,” how can the government mandate a tax on a right like this? Why not a tax to vote? Why not a tax to send an email? Why not a tax to go to church?

Let me get back to your question. Here is what happened. My clients – Jay Hollis and Ryan Watson – each filed applications to manufacture a machinegun on a trust. A trust is not prohibited from possessing or transferring a machinegun per the statute. The BATFE granted my clients approval to manufacture. One of my clients did manufacture a machinegun. The BATFE then “revoked” or “disapproved” their approved applications and demanded that if they made a machinegun, that they immediately surrender it. But there is no authority for the BATFE to revoke a stamp in the fashion they did. Zip. Nada. None. So, we sued on a various number of grounds.

DoLP: Is this a class action suit? How many folks are you representing or have been affected by this?

SS: It’s not a class action, but I do currently represent two individuals and the trusts that filed for, and were approved, to manufacture a machinegun.

DoLP: So these folks asked for permission to make something, they were told that permission was granted, they made this presumed-legal gun and then were told, “Oops, we changed our minds. Turn them over or we’ll arrest you,” simply… because? That’s terrifying.

SS: One of them manufactured. One didn’t. But yes. Turn them in “or else.”

DoLP: Keeping in mind that I am not a lawyer but have seen a few episodes of “Law & Order,” this sounds like entrapment to me. Have any of your clients been arrested or penalized? Have they complied with the surrender order?

SS: No arrests. And yes, the machinegun was surrendered under protest. Penalized is an interesting word. What is the value on one of the ONLY post-May 19, 1986 civilian legal transferrables? I don’t know, but I bet it is a lot. So yeah, penalized as he essentially had his property taken from him.

DoLP: Alright, I know I’m leading a little on this but it’s an important point to make. A lot of people reading this will see “gun,” think, “Well, I’m not a ‘gun guy.’,” and go click on something else. Why should they care about this?

SS: Look, the Constitution says what it says. The Second Amendment protects our rights to “keep and bear arms.” If Congress can rewrite the Second Amendment through legislation - and I mean, the Second Amendment is as cut and dried as it gets - why not rewrite the Fourth Amendment? Why not require that every person register with the Government for an email address and you can only use that one? What about a government issued Twitter ID? Facebook account? Heck, why even have a Constitution in the first place?

DoLP: Taking it a step further, someone skims the story and thinks, “Well, why do these people want to make machine guns, anyway? Are they terrorists or something? If he wins, are people going to be walking around with Uzis and AK47s? Buying them at Walmart or something?” There’s a connotation there. What’s your response to that line of thought?

SS: I love those arguments. So, yeah, let’s go down that path. Why not allow them for sale at gun stores? I can buy a gun at a gun store, right? What’s the difference? The Government already regulates FFLs (federal firearm licensees) why not allow them to sell machineguns if they want to? And the emotional argument regarding terrorists is a strawman.

DoLP: What do you hope to achieve with this if you win? What do you see as the downstream effect, not only for second amendment rights but for other personal freedoms?

SS: I hope that our freedoms are restored. Nothing more, nothing less.

DoLP: Are there more suits pending or can you talk about that?

SS: Yes.

DoLP: Ha. Okay, I’ll assume that brevity means, ‘We’re not talking about that further.’ Now, these are in different Federal districts. Was that dumb luck, strategic planning…?

SS: The BATFE approved a bunch of these applications. I dance with the one that brought me.

DoLP: Do you have other attorneys working with you? Anyone of note?

SS: Yes. Hollis’ brother is an attorney. Watson is an attorney, and I associated one of his partners.

DoLP: Do you have anyone not working with you that you were expecting to take up the cause? Any notable refuseniks?

SS: No. I don’t expect anything from anyone.

DoLP: What about detractors? You’ve gotten some pretty nasty comments and snarky accusations from members of the shooting community, of all places. What’s your response?

SS: They are afraid of a bad ruling that ends up somehow restricting things further. But what better time than now? Our government already denies us our rights. Are they going to deny them more? Like, machineguns now are double extra illegal? My response is this: lead, follow or get out of the way.

DoLP: Are there legitimate arguments against pursuing these cases?

SS: The arguments against us are all based out of fear. I don’t buy into the fear. I believe we are on solid ground. The courts will decide, and the chips will fall where they may, but we are going to try.

DoLP: Any concerns about retaliation from the U.S. government? That used to be a paranoid question but with Operation Chokepoint, Lois Lerner’s IRS targeting, Fast & Furious setting up legitimate gun sellers, domestic spying by the NSA…. It’s not so far-fetched anymore.

SS: What difference, at this point, does it make? Seriously. If we won’t take our own government to Court… due to fear of them doing something? Are we all really that afraid?

DoLP: How long do you anticipate that this will drag on and how expensive do you think this will get?

SS: Time frame - I don’t know. A couple different things could happen to shorten or lengthen the process. As to expense, depending on the length, how many attorneys, and the appellate process, I could see it getting fairly expensive. Especially if we get to the Supreme Court.

DoLP: Any chance this won’t go to the Supreme Court?

SS: Sure. The Supreme Court takes cases it wants to. If they refuse to hear the case, then we don’t get there.

DoLP: You mentioned what you hope to get out of a victory. What about ramifications of a loss? Again – for gun rights but also for civil liberties in general?

SS: What if we do lose? Like I said earlier, are machineguns going to be extra illegal?

DoLP: Okay, elevator pitch time. If you could sum up why someone – say, one of those “not-a-gun” people – should care about this action, keep an eye on your progress and most importantly donate, what would you say?

SS: It’s about the government’s ability to legislate our rights away. Period. It’s about our rights.

DoLP: Excellent. Stephen, thank you once again for your time and, very sincerely, thank you for standing up like this. Good luck with the cases.

SS: Thank you.

http://www.dolpress.com/news/2014/11/20/interview-meet-the-man-suing-eric-holder-and-the-atf Edited March 6, 2015 by JohnC

[JohnC]

More press:

Claiming the “ban on the quintessential militia arm of the modern day defies the protections our Constitution guarantees,” the legal team led by attorney Stephen D. Stamboulieh filed a sur-reply February 27 in the case of plaintiff Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis against Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd Jones. The additional reply was in response to “defendants’ reply to plaintiff’s response in opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment.”

Hollis, acting individually and as trustee of a revocable living trust, is suing Holder and Jones in their official capacities for administering, executing and enforcing “statutory and regulatory provisions [that] generally act as an unlawful de facto ban on the transfer or possession of a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986.”

That Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division (the court's Fort Worth Division last month declared the interstate handgun transfer ban unconstitutional) used her discretion and permitted a sur-reply indicates an interest in the plaintiff’s arguments, and if the government can be responsive to them. That she then issued a March 3 order giving the defendants until March 11 to file a sur-sur reply could indicate she has concerns over the lack of substance on government filings submitted to date, and is not even sure if defendants will produce anything more than continued obfuscation and misdirection.

Arguing against the preposterous claim that plaintiff Hollis lacked standing, the sur-reply went on to challenge contentions regarding levels of judicial scrutiny and the government’s interpretation of Heller case applicability, and to expose wholly unsubstantiated arguments for a ban based on non-existent crimes.

Referring to the earlier case of United States v. Miller, the sur-reply explained that “Miller’s phrase 'part of ordinary military equipment' could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected.” Instead, plaintiff observed, Heller actually “expands upon Miller and found that weapons which have personal self-defense value are protected regardless of whether they have military value.”

As for those weapons that do have such military utility, and refuting government claims to the contrary, that only three-round burst firearms are standard issue, plaintiff noted squad automatic weapons are “by definition bearable upon the person, fully automatic and designed to be operable by one person,” and “The U.S. military currently issues a number of fully automatic light machine guns to its ordinary soldiers.”

“[T]he machinegun ban is unconstitutional both facially and as applied to Mr. Hollis,” the sur-reply concluded. How Holder and Jones will reply remains to be seen, but one reality cannot be ignored, at least with any pretense of logical consistency: As Hollis will not overturn current requirements for owning machine guns, but merely remove the ban on more recently-manufactured firearms, it seems inconceivable for the government to contend that it trusts citizens to own machine guns manufactured before May of 1986, but anything functionally-identical made after that is just too dangerous for “civilians” to possess.

http://www.examiner.com/article/court-filing-argues-post-1986-machine-gun-ban-defies-constitution

[JohnC]

Someone posted this and it made me lol, so I had to share. :lol:




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[DaveTN]

I don’t expect machine guns to be legalized and if they were states would still have a say.

I think some legislators might support the legalization of suppressors but I’m not sure how they will break that out of the GCA.

The state of Tennessee has addressed suppressors in the Tennessee Firearms Freedom act. No test of that yet, that I have seen.

I still live in a state where it is illegal to carry a gun. I’m more concerned about changing that.

[JohnC]

I don’t expect machine guns to be legalized and if they were states would still have a say.

I think some legislators might support the legalization of suppressors but I’m not sure how they will break that out of the GCA.

The state of Tennessee has addressed suppressors in the Tennessee Firearms Freedom act. No test of that yet, that I have seen.

I still live in a state where it is illegal to carry a gun. I’m more concerned about changing that.

The only thing that will stop us in the end is these left-leaning political activist judges because clearly banning an entire class of popular firearms post 1986 while pre-86 is legal is unconstitutional. If we ever get the right judges up to SCOTUS to hear it and follow the constitution as original intended by our founders, we will have a restoration of the second amendment.

There was not even a crisis or a need to ban them post-86. So there is absolutely no legitimate reason for them to be banned.

All the arguments they make are the same old tired leftist arguments they make with carry permits, constitutional carry, etc., as if you allow it, it'll be the wild west and bodies will litter the streets because we'll all be spraying each other dead.

[JohnC]

Just thought I'd update.

One of the lawyers helping in this case posted this for some of his credentials:
 

Originally Posted By wolfwood:
I'm litigating this case with Steve. I tend to stay away from these internet forums but I figured I'd chime in regarding our experience.
I actually litigated the Hawaii handgun carry case Baker v. Kealoha. That was argued and won on the same day as San Diego v Peruta at the Ninth Circuit.
I overturned Hawaii ban on resident aliens in Fotoudis v. City and County of Honolulu
I have two other Hawaii cases on appeal to the Ninth Circuit on Second Amendment issues. Both are fully briefed and deal with novel issues for the nation
I also currently represent Ares Armor against the A.T.F. in several matters.
I also have been successful in other areas of constitutional law. Primarily First Amendment and government takings issues.
I have spent almost my entire legal career dedicated to curbing governmental abuse. Prior to that I served in the Marines which provided me with basic weapons knowledge most other attorneys in this area of law do not possess. I have found Stephen to be a capable attorney that is easy to work with. I believe that the pleadings we have drafted in this matter are on par with anything you will find from the gun lobbies' attorneys.

-Alan Beck

[Dolomite_supafly]

Anyone see the recent rulings in Texas. The judge on the Texas supreme court has ruled the 1986 ban in unconstitutional. Then the question was asked of the ATF with them required to respond on the 21st of March. They were asked for a valid reason why a MG made before 1986 is legal to possess wile the exact same one after 1986 is illegal. The ATF responded with they have no valid reason why but asked the court to side with them anyway. So the case in Texas is close to being done. Next is whether the US supreme court will hear it, if the ATF appeals, or if the US supreme court sends it back to the Texas court affirming the ban is illegal.

 

This is the closest we have been to having legal MG ownership of brand new guns in 30 years.

[JohnC]

Trust me, I cant contain my excitement! :hyper:

This is HUGE and I belive it will kickstart the restoration of the second amendment! :up:

Which has me shocked more people aren't chiming in on the topic. :confused:

[btq96r]

If you guys have any links to the Texas case, I'd like to see them.  Having some trouble with my own Google-fu. 

 

I'm pretty sure no state court can invalidate a federal law, just refuse to enforce it with state resources.  So, unless the machine gun cases are being filed and won in the federal district and circuit courts in D.C., it isn't going to do anything but give a moral victory.

[Dolomite_supafly]

Trust me, I cant contain my excitement! :hyper:

This is HUGE and I belive it will kickstart the restoration of the second amendment! :up:

Which has me shocked more people aren't chiming in on the topic. :confused:

 

This is all I have been talking about with ANYONE that might happen to make eye contact. I am more excited about this than anything else gun related EVER. I just hope the SCOTUS decides to send it back to the lower court affirming that the ban is unconstitutional. It would make the process much quicker and we would be owning machine guns again. They will still need to be registered causing a massive backlog but they would be approved one day. Or maybe with everything else going on the massive backlog will cause an outcry and the whole NFA thing will be overturned. One can only hope.

 

The way it was passed was underhanded at best and illegal at worst but what would you expect from a person like Charlie Rangel. It sickens me every time I think about it and how easy it would be for any legislator to do the same thing stealing one of our rights away.

 

I also believe there are some gun people who are against the legalization of machine guns. Not because they think they are bad but because they are sitting on millions of dollars of inventory of transferable machine guns. The second a person can buy, or make, their own machine gun that gun that is selling today for $25K would be worth $1K unless it had some historical significance.

 

I can tell you the first gun I will register, actually I will register probably 5 immediately, will be one of my AKs. They would be the most fun to me. And I would Form 1 an DIAS because I could make that in probably an hour with a hacksaw and a set of files. And then I will find some sort of belt fed. So many stamps to file, so little money.

 

 

If you guys have any links to the Texas case, I'd like to see them.  Having some trouble with my own Google-fu. 

 

I'm pretty sure no state court can invalidate a federal law, just refuse to enforce it with state resources.  So, unless the machine gun cases are being filed and won in the federal district and circuit courts in D.C., it isn't going to do anything but give a moral victory.

http://www.sofmag.com/new-twist-in-machine-gun-suit/

 

Sur-Reply Argues That Full-Auto Ban in Unconstitutional
By SOF

 

Official portrait of U.S. District Judge Barbara M. G. Lynn. taken in 1999.

A new twist has emerged in a lawsuit challenging the 1986 ban on the registration of fully-automatic firearms. The suit challenges a provision that anti-gun lawmakers inserted into the Firearms’ Owners Protection Act.

 

According to a report by National Gun Rights Examiner David Codrea, the lawyers for Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis, who set up an unincorporated trust that had initially received a tax stamp for a fully-automatic firearm before the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) tried to revoke the stamp, have filed what is known as a sur-reply.

 

The sur-reply, delivered in response to a motion to dismiss offered by the Justice Department, is before federal district judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division, argues that both the 2008 Heller case, as well as the 1939 case known as U.S. v. Miller and the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in Peruta v. County of San Diego, which struck down California’s application of its law regarding concealed carry permits, require that the ban on fully-automatic firearms manufactured after 19 May, 1986, be tossed out. Judge Lynn was appointed to the court by former President Bill Clinton.

 

The sur-reply also cited last month’s decision tossing out the ban on interstate handgun sales from the Fort Worth Division of the Northern District of Texas. In that ruling, United States District Judge Reed O’Connor applied a standard known as “strict scrutiny” to the interstate ban, and proceeded to strike it down.

 

The federal government has until 11 March to respond to the sur-reply.

 

I am looking for the ATF's response, might take me a bit but I read it the other day. Basically they admitted they had no valid reason why the same machine gun is legal before May of 1986 and illegal after. They asked the judge above to rule in their favor though but with her record and her response so far it is very likely she will NOT side with the ATF.

 

There is a lot going on right now related to firearms and 90% of it is good. There are rulings I never thought I would see in my lifetime happening every day. The only monkey in the works is the federal government's unwillingness to abide by the courts or laws. I can see us winning the machine gun case but the fed saying they don't care what the law says and threaten to make you disappear if you get caught doing something THEY don't like even though it is not against the law.

[Oh Shoot]

Trust me, I cant contain my excitement! :hyper:

This is HUGE and I belive it will kickstart the restoration of the second amendment! :up:

Which has me shocked more people aren't chiming in on the topic. :confused:

 

For me personally,  sure, it would be great to see any repeal of any federal firearm law, but it's hard to get "excited" about making this niche genre more widely available under NFA registration.  Now, actually removing something from NFA entirely, like SBR/SBS/suppressors (or the full auto)  that would "excite" me.

 

Just speaking for myself, since I wouldn't avail myself of it, but seems vast majority of firearm owners probably feel that way.

 

Again, not knocking it at all, and I would be quite glad for folks who want to get a more affordable auto weapon, and also for the fact that since the Hughes amendment was not enacted lawfully in the first place this would at least be overturning a small piece of tyranny that masqueraded as legislation.

 

- OS

[JohnC]

For me personally,  sure, it would be great to see any repeal of any federal firearm law, but it's hard to get "excited" about making this niche genre more widely available under NFA registration.  Now, actually removing something from NFA entirely, like SBR/SBS/suppressors (or the full auto)  that would "excite" me.
 
Just speaking for myself, since I wouldn't avail myself of it, but seems vast majority of firearm owners probably feel that way.
 
Again, not knocking it at all, and I would be quite glad for folks who want to get a more affordable auto weapon, and also for the fact that since the Hughes amendment was not enacted lawfully in the first place this would at least be overturning a small piece of tyranny that masqueraded as legislation.
 
- OS

I understand you because we all feel similar on all sides of this issue.

But this is a total lost right as far as I'm concerned because we can no longer buy new post-86's MG's. Only the old and very expensive pre-ban pre-86 MG's, so if this were to open the door to being able to buy and own new MG's post 1986, I'd consider it a HUGE win for gun rights and by far, a MUCH BIGGER win than removing suppressors or SBR's from the NFA because that is not a lost right and you can still buy them new.

The only thing in my mind that would be bigger is all NFA items being legal (full repeal and close down BATFE regulatory arm for NFA items) and easy as walking in and buying a new S&W revolver at the LGS, no NFA, no tax stamp, nadda.

[JohnC]

The Heller Foundation joined up on the lawsuit! There is also a new donation link at the bottom of the page.   :up:
 

The Heller Foundation is pleased to announce that it has teamed with Jay Hollis and attorneys Stephen Stamboulieh and Alan Beck to fight the federal restrictions on machine gun ownership. Complying with the onerous registration requirements for automatic firearms and paying the $200 tax to exercise his right, Mr. Hollis filed a Form 1 with the BATFE to manufacture an M16 machine gun. The BATFE then approved that Form 1, giving Mr. Hollis permission to manufacture the M16. Shortly afterward the BATFE erroneously and without due process revoked Mr. Hollis’ approval.
 

On October 30, 2014 Mr. Hollis filed his complaint against Eric Holder and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (“BATFE”) seeking to overturn both the National Firearms Act and the ban on private ownership of machine guns manufactured after May 19, 1986. The case, Hollis v. Holder, et al, Civil Action No.3:14-cv-03872-M, is being led by attorneys Stephen Stamboulieh and Alan Beck. It is currently pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division. “The M16 is the quintessential militia arm and is thus protected under any reading of Miller or Heller,” said attorney Stephen Stamboulieh.
 

“Winning this case is critical to the security of the nation’s citizens,” added Dick Heller, Chairman of the Heller Foundation. “We think it’s important enough that donors to the Heller Foundation can now make a directed contribution on our web site, HellerFoundation.org, for the support of this case.”
 

Almost seven years ago the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Heller Foundation, a non-profit exempt organization as described in Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, was founded shortly after the landmark ruling by plaintiff Dick Heller to continue to expand gun owner rights through the judicial system.
 

District of Columbia v. Heller became the cornerstone for gun owners nationwide to push other important wins through the federal court system. Jay Hollis, Stephen Stamboulieh, Alan Beck, and the Heller Foundation intend to build on those wins in the ongoing battle for the Second Amendment by targeting the National Firearms Act and the machine gun ban.
 
https://hellerfoundation.org/hvh/

 

Donate here: https://hellerfoundation.org/product/donation-2-2/

[Wingshooter]

Wow, I'm just getting caught up on this. This would be a big win. I don't really have a strong desire for a MG since it would chew up and spit out all my ammo way too fast :) but the right should definitely be restored. Plus, it's just another layer and buffer between the anti's and their attack on the semi's, bolts, levers, etc. I don't like the fact that more people would be willing to "register" a firearm, but we have to take baby steps. I hope the good news continues