Second lawsuit filed challenging federal ban on new machine guns

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Sorry if this is a re-post, I did not see a thread here or in the NFA section.

Plaintiff is from our Commonwealth.

http://www.examiner.com/article/seco...w-machine-guns

A complaint for declarative and injunctive relief was filed Friday in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Plaintiff Ryan S. Watson, acting individually and as trustee of the Watson Family Gun Trust, is suing Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. and Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Director B. Todd 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.”

Attorney David R. Scott is joined in the lawsuit by Stephen D. Stamboulieh, the Mississippi attorney who filed a similar action in Texas on October 30 in the case of Hollis v. Holder. This latest action differs from the first in that Watson is subject to an actual taking resulting from actions performed under authorization of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, for which approval was later revoked.

Following an ATF Firearms Industry Programs Branch determination that “unincorporated trusts do not fall within the definition of ‘person,’” Watson, acting as an authorized official of the Watson Family Gun Trust, electronically submitted an ATF Form 1, “Application to Make and Register a Firearm” in May. In August, he received ATF approval along with its stamp evidencing payment of the tax affixed to the form, and based on that authorization, he manufactured a machine gun.

Watson had also submitted an earlier Form 1 in April in paper form, and while that one was later returned disapproved, the signature box, date box and approval box had been “whited out” by ATF. In both cases ATF processed and retained the $200 “tax.”

As for the approved machine gun, ATF reneged after the fact and advised Watson it had erroneously approved his application, despite, per Stamboulieh, the agency having no statutory authority to revoke an approval. ATF’s Philadelphia Field Division ordered Watson to surrender the manufactured machine gun, reminding him that “possession of this unregistered machine gun is a Federal felony.”

The complaint asks for judgment along several grounds, including that existing statutes barring private ownership of machine guns exceed the authority of Congress and violate the Second Amendment. It additionally seeks declarations that such statutes cannot be applied individually or against trustees, that the defendants are enjoined from enforcement and that they have no authority to revoke tax stamps. Alternatively, the complaint asks that “unincorporated trusts are not prohibited from manufacturing or possessing machine guns.” It also seeks to recover costs of the suit and attorney fees, as well as “any other further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.”

[PAMedic=F|A=]

PHILADELPHIA (CN) - On the same day the United States allegedly forced him to turn in a machine gun he manufactured himself, a Pennsylvania man filed a federal complaint under the Second Amendment.
Ryan Watson claims to have made the gun after the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives approved his June application and accepted his $200 tax.
The application allegedly named Watson Gun Trust as the manufacturer.
On Sept. 10, 2014, however, about a month after the ATF approved his application, the agency sent Watson an email "stating that the status of the approved Form 1 had been changed from 'approved' to 'disapproved,'" the complaint states.
Watson says William Boyle III, head of the National Firearms Act Branch of the ATF, told Watson in October that the trust Watson had formed did not shield him from the ban against machine guns under the Gun Control Act.
Indeed, "unincorporated trusts" are notably absent from the list of entities included in the law, which bans the sale and manufacture of any machine gun made after May 19, 1986, according to Watson's complaint.
Watson included Boyle's letter as an exhibit to his complaint. It states: "ATF must disregard such a non-entity under the GCA and consider the individual acting on behalf of the trust to be the proposed maker/possessor of the machine gun."
Essam Rabach, head of the ATF Philadelphia Field Division, then allegedly contacted Watson to arrange a time to surrender the weapon, promising that the hand-over would not be used to prosecute Watson.
Watson says he met another agent on Nov. 14 and turned over the weapon.
That afternoon, Watson filed his complaint, challenging the ban under the Second Amendment.
Watson says he operated legally by manufacturing his gun through a trust, and that the $200 tax required to manufacture it is also unconstitutional, "just as a poll tax, a tax to exercise one's religion, or a tax assessed on printed materials before one could exercise his or her first Amendment rights would be unconstitutional as well."
The 19-page complaint seeks damages for detrimental reliance as well as violations of the commerce clause, the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment and the 14th Amendment.
Watson is represented by David Scott of the Law Offices of J. Scott Watson. That firm's website lists Watson, the plaintiff, as one of its attorneys.

http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/1...memade-gun.htm

[Gunsnwater]

Be nice to change this law.

[forby]

It would be interesting to see gang bangers and drug thugs carrying full auto weapons if repealed.

Don't forget that if repealed, any manufacturer could sell a MG to anyone legally allowed to possess. The price would be essentially the same as semi.

"well sir, here we have the semi version for $1200 or you can upgrade to the full auto for $10 more!!!!!" DUH!!

Future criminals and thieves would be in possession of MG's. Now, there is no bigger, self-named gun nut than I. I would hate to have to convert all my sport rifles to full auto to stay equal with the BG's. Not to mention all the extra ammo I would have to buy!!

Sounds like a case of arms escalation to me. Maybe we'll have a MG treaty some day like the nuclear arms treaties.

For the sake of my budget, I hope it doesn't come to pass. For the sake of a boat load of fun and the 2nd amendment, I hope it does.

I'm so conflicted.

[bluetrane2028]

It would be interesting to see gang bangers and drug thugs carrying full auto weapons if repealed.

Don't forget that if repealed, any manufacturer could sell a MG to anyone legally allowed to possess. The price would be essentially the same as semi.

"well sir, here we have the semi version for $1200 or you can upgrade to the full auto for $10 more!!!!!" DUH!!

Future criminals and thieves would be in possession of MG's. Now, there is no bigger, self-named gun nut than I. I would hate to have to convert all my sport rifles to full auto to stay equal with the BG's. Not to mention all the extra ammo I would have to buy!!

Sounds like a case of arms escalation to me. Maybe we'll have a MG treaty some day like the nuclear arms treaties.

For the sake of my budget, I hope it doesn't come to pass. For the sake of a boat load of fun and the 2nd amendment, I hope it does.

I'm so conflicted.

Gang bangers would be subject to the same NFA process or be illegal as they already are. In short nothing would change for the bad, and freedom will be gained. To assume otherwise sounds very anti.

[nfafan]

It would be interesting to see gang bangers and drug thugs carrying full auto weapons if repealed.

Don't forget that if repealed, any manufacturer could sell a MG to anyone legally allowed to possess. The price would be essentially the same as semi.

"well sir, here we have the semi version for $1200 or you can upgrade to the full auto for $10 more!!!!!" DUH!!

Future criminals and thieves would be in possession of MG's. Now, there is no bigger, self-named gun nut than I. I would hate to have to convert all my sport rifles to full auto to stay equal with the BG's. Not to mention all the extra ammo I would have to buy!!

Sounds like a case of arms escalation to me. Maybe we'll have a MG treaty some day like the nuclear arms treaties.

For the sake of my budget, I hope it doesn't come to pass. For the sake of a boat load of fun and the 2nd amendment, I hope it does.

I'm so conflicted.

I can’t see it as an “arms race” with the bad guys IF all the current F1/F3/F4/F5 processes are followed – then the possibility of ex-con gang-bangers getting NFA are remote or really no greater than today.

Yeah, maybe a Trust/LLC or straw purchase can slip thru – but given the REAL registration that occurs with NFA, the registered buyer will have to be Manson-family-brainwashed to put their own ass on the line to help a bud get a MAC.

But your concerns are duly noted – which is why CLEOs hate signing Forms and why NO legislator will risk the political capital fighting for having the ban overturned.

If we want it overturned – got to get it thru the courts. Gives our elected royalty an easy out.

And as for pre-ban NFA prices – back in the day, MANY an MG was less than the NFA stamp itself.

And many an MG was less money than some top-shelf semi’s like a Belgian FAL or FNC, Joe Poyer Aussie L1, VALMET, Sterling carbine, Swiss SIG, Austrian AUG.

When I think of those days, makes me want to scream…

[GunLawyer001]

Zero chance of this succeeding. Well, the people involved will make a lot of money from the donations, so THAT part will succeed. The "overturning" part, or the "trust loophole" putting a new MG into your hands.....that's just silly.

I'd like to see the 1934 law repealed, and the 1986 freeze repealed, among other things. They do squat to deter real crimes. These folks won't get it done. And that's a shame.

[ChemicalReaper]

I was having a discussion about suppressors with one of my friends. He thought they were illegal, and that suppressors would be dangerous: I reminded him that they're expensive to begin with, that there's a $200 tax added to it, and that it has to be registered to a trust or a corporation or the paperwork has to be signed by a sheriff. Strangely enough, criminals don't going to incorporate themselves and spend $700 on a suppressor to rob a Wawa.

Those same criminals are also not going to buy a $200 tax stamp, fill in the appropriate paperwork, and wait a few months for it to be approved so they can hold up a gas station with a $1,200 full-auto AR-15.

[PAMedic=F|A=]

Zero chance of this succeeding. Well, the people involved will make a lot of money from the donations, so THAT part will succeed. The "overturning" part, or the "trust loophole" putting a new MG into your hands.....that's just silly.

I'd like to see the 1934 law repealed, and the 1986 freeze repealed, among other things. They do squat to deter real crimes. These folks won't get it done. And that's a shame.

I very much hope you are wrong.

I am concerned you are right. It does not appear that the Plaintiff in the PA case is seeking finical assistance.

[nfafan]

<snip>

Those same criminals are also not going to buy a $200 tax stamp, fill in the appropriate paperwork, and wait a few months for it to be approved so they can hold up a gas station with a $1,200 full-auto AR-15.

True that, but add a few zeroes to the price of that AR nowadays.