Defendants cannot support their position with any factual data regarding machineguns with respect to law abiding citizens. It cannot be done and there is no justification for § 922(o)’s prohibition with regard to a law abiding citizen…
Stephen D. Stamboulieh and Alan Alexander Beck
February 27, 2015
Case No.3:14-cv-03872-M
JAY AUBREY ISAAC HOLLIS Individually and as Trustee of the JAY AUBREY ISAAC HOLLIS REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST, Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of the United States; B. TODD JONES, Director of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearm and Explosives, Defendants.
PLAINTIFF’S SUR-REPLY TO DEFENDANTS’ REPLY TO PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
[H/T to Ry for the Tweet.
Work is in progress on making new manufacture machine guns available to the general public. I am not a lawyer but it seems the ATF made some serious forced errors in regards to trusts. While legally a very narrow window of opportunity these may bear fruit when leveraged with the Heller, McDonald, and Mance decisions.
This is consistent with what we were thinking seven years ago while waiting for the Heller decision.—Joe]
Two facts of interest: you have no right to a sur-reply, the court has to grant the ability. Mance was decided in the same district between the original filing of Hollis v Holder and granting of the sur-reply. Does the second drive the first? Unknown.
You shape the battlefield, then you strike.
We’ve got to acknowledge that the mere fact we are legally and morally correct in our position doesn’t mean we can ignore that truth and expect to win in the long run.
I know my trust is ready and waiting should this make it to SCOTUS and trusts can manufacture. Lotta my stuff gonna get a happy switch…