Hugh's Amendment legal challenge!

[GunLawyer001]

When the subject of "the wrong lawyer filing the wrong suit in the wrong courts at the wrong time" comes up, people frequently mention Quilici v Village of Morton Grove, a bad case which set the cause back a few decades.

I hadn't realized that at the time, some "patriots" had appealed to the general public to fund the lawsuit (not sure of the details here, because Mr. Quilici was an attorney and was filing on his own behalf.)

Anyway, seems like bad ideas are never out of style. Here's a scan from "Soldier of Fortune", June, 1982:

[ungawa]

When I read your posts I hear classical music in the background, I smell rich mahogany and leather bound books, and I imagine a legal office brimming with the accoutrement of a lifetime of experience and wisdom.

Great stuff.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[gfanikf]

Funniest thing was that wasn't it a PA lawyer who tried floating this around first? First, with the idea based on some recent ATF letter about an entirely different matter and second, with trying to get people approved and then disapproved to contact him. Figured he would have been first to the punch.

I'm sure we'll get some fantastically bad law out of this. I'd love to get new machine guns, but yeah not happening, for the reasons GL has stated, among others.

Hell, I can't even imagine (locally) some of the horrors we might get with lawsuits spawned by the new preemption bill (assuming its ever valid), especially when you have that Erie decision sitting around from a year ago.

[GunLawyer001]

I am unsurprised:

http://www.courthousenews.com/2016/0...rd-circuit.htm

[GunLawyer001]

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/...016-05-18.html

[GunLawyer001]

"Watson claimed to be exempt from the prohibition on possessing machine guns because he had applied on behalf of a trust,
which he argued was not a “person” covered by the Gun Control Act."

"Watson argues that § 922(o) of the Gun Control Act does not apply to a trust because § 922(o) applies only to “persons”
and a trust is not a “person” under the terms of the statute.
With certain narrow exceptions, the provision states that “it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess
a machinegun.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). The Gun Control Act defines a person as “any individual, company, association,
firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1). As Watson notes, a “trust” is not one of the
listed entities. However, this does not mean that a trust is therefore entitled to possess a machine gun.
As the District Court stated, a trust is not an entity distinct from its trustees, nor is it capable of legal action on its
own behalf. 76 Am. Jur. 2d Trusts § 3 (citing Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 2 (2003)). Indeed, Watson himself does
not dispute that he is the “individual human being” seeking to possess a gun on behalf of the Trust. He argues, however,
that because trusts are not “persons” under the statute, he may act on behalf of the Trust in his capacity as a trustee without
triggering the prohibition on natural persons transferring or possessing a machine gun. Appellant’s Br. 55
- 56. But nothing in the Gun Control Act supports such a reading.
Irrespective of whether Watson is a trustee, he is also a natural person and therefore prohibited from performing any
of the acts forbidden of natural persons under the Gun Control Act. His inability to comply with the Gun Control
Act, in turn, prevents ATF from granting his application under the National Firearms Act.
See 26 U.S.C. § 5822; 27 C.F.R. § 479.65"

[GunLawyer001]

To be fair, to get a case before the USSC, it helps to have a split between the circuits. You'd want to lose a case in one, and win in another, and get the US Supreme Court to hear the case and settle the matter.

They've got the "losing" part down solidly, so they're halfway there.

We had a 5-4 bare majority with Scalia. Now, it's 4-4 between "the 2nd is an individual right that means "something"", and "the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right at all, it's about the National Guard, which the Feds own." By the time any case gets to the USSC (which would probably require a win in the other circuit), whomever becomes President in 2017 will have a chance to appoint a few anti-gun Hillary Clinton hacks, or some Donald Trump "moderate to conservative" Justices.

In other words, yet another reason to vote for whomever has the best chance to defeat Hillary in 2016, instead of making a self-righteous Pyrrhic victory play, and watch our rights vanish while you post your "I told you so" bullshit on the government-monitored Web forum and fondle your Airsoft guns that we can still own, as long as they're permanently painted day-glo orange.

[Carnes]

"Watson claimed to be exempt from the prohibition on possessing machine guns because he had applied on behalf of a trust,
which he argued was not a “person” covered by the Gun Control Act."

"Watson argues that § 922(o) of the Gun Control Act does not apply to a trust because § 922(o) applies only to “persons”
and a trust is not a “person” under the terms of the statute.
With certain narrow exceptions, the provision states that “it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess
a machinegun.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). The Gun Control Act defines a person as “any individual, company, association,
firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.” 18 U.S.C. § 922(a)(1). As Watson notes, a “trust” is not one of the
listed entities. However, this does not mean that a trust is therefore entitled to possess a machine gun.
As the District Court stated, a trust is not an entity distinct from its trustees, nor is it capable of legal action on its
own behalf. 76 Am. Jur. 2d Trusts § 3 (citing Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 2 (2003)). Indeed, Watson himself does
not dispute that he is the “individual human being” seeking to possess a gun on behalf of the Trust. He argues, however,
that because trusts are not “persons” under the statute, he may act on behalf of the Trust in his capacity as a trustee without
triggering the prohibition on natural persons transferring or possessing a machine gun. Appellant’s Br. 55
- 56. But nothing in the Gun Control Act supports such a reading.
Irrespective of whether Watson is a trustee, he is also a natural person and therefore prohibited from performing any
of the acts forbidden of natural persons under the Gun Control Act. His inability to comply with the Gun Control
Act, in turn, prevents ATF from granting his application under the National Firearms Act.
See 26 U.S.C. § 5822; 27 C.F.R. § 479.65"

Okay, layman terms please. Am I to understand that the whole use of a Trust to facilitate ownership of NFA items is shot to shit?

[GunLawyer001]

Okay, layman terms please. Am I to understand that the whole use of a Trust to facilitate ownership of NFA items is shot to shit?

Here, somebody explained it well 2 years ago:

http://forum.pafoa.org/showthread.ph...70#post2901970

[ungawa]

To be fair, to get a case before the USSC, it helps to have a split between the circuits. You'd want to lose a case in one, and win in another, and get the US Supreme Court to hear the case and settle the matter.

They've got the "losing" part down solidly, so they're halfway there.

We had a 5-4 bare majority with Scalia. Now, it's 4-4 between "the 2nd is an individual right that means "something"", and "the 2nd Amendment is not an individual right at all, it's about the National Guard, which the Feds own." By the time any case gets to the USSC (which would probably require a win in the other circuit), whomever becomes President in 2017 will have a chance to appoint a few anti-gun Hillary Clinton hacks, or some Donald Trump "moderate to conservative" Justices.

In other words, yet another reason to vote for whomever has the best chance to defeat Hillary in 2016, instead of making a self-righteous Pyrrhic victory play, and watch our rights vanish while you post your "I told you so" bullshit on the government-monitored Web forum and fondle your Airsoft guns that we can still own, as long as they're permanently painted day-glo orange.

And it's a very iffy 4-4.