Update: NFA cases: Hollis v. Holder; Watson v. Holder - Dallas argument

[RamRoddoc]

April 23, 2015 the Texas judge heard the argument to dismiss the case. Below is an individual's observation, a personal one so take it with that grain of salt.


A fly on the wall in Texas :

Another attendee here. I'll try to summarize, but I have zero experience in a courtroom, so my interpretation of events is pretty sketchy.

When I got there, Nolo and the others asked who I was. I didn't know who was who, so I wasn't quite sure how to respond; "I'm from the internet" doesn't really sound appropriate. Told them I was from the "website", which seemed to work :-) Everybody was dressed very professionally and made it through street-level and court-level security successfully.

It turned out to be fairly sparsely attended. Nolo had two others with him for legal support, and the feds had two guys. Nolo did all the talking for us, a short youngish guy spoke for DOJ. I think it was scheduled for about an hour, but it ran for 1:45, from 13:30 to 15:15.

DISCLAIMER...
My notes are just general bullet points I jotted down. I'm no stenographer, so it's far from complete or comprehensive. Just trying to draw a bit of a picture for the gang here.


Judge Lynn started out by having DOJ review issues related to "standing".


DOJ:
Injury discussion
Commerce clause
Even if federal law allowed MGs, TX law does not, so this case is irrelevant
The Dakota silencer letter (trust is not a person)
Referenced the relevance of a cockfighting case!
NFA safe harbor

Nolo:
During introduction, Judge asked Nolo to pronounce his name 2-3 times
Fed definition of MG differs from TX definition; more than one shot per trigger pull vs more than two. Therefore a fed decision is not directly transferrable to state (?)
Maddox letter (Dakota letter)
Explained the specific situation of ATF approving the Hollis Form 1, and other Forms 1s as well, but ATF has no authorized process or authority for disapproval, so this is a "due process" issue
In response to a question, tried to explain the ATF's Form 1 approval process to the Judge, which isn't really publicly documented, but requires supervisory approval in addition to examiner approval. A mistake doesn't just happen by one person's accidental mark on the form approval, it was vetted and approved.


Judge acknowledged that she is not all that familiar with NFA/2A issues


DOJ:
Surprised at difference between fed and TX definition of MG
Claimed that a trust is still a person, regardless of any letter stating otherwise
Played down the importance of ATF reversing their decision after an erroneous approval


Then it got into more general 2A issue discussions.


DOJ:
References Heller and the Supreme Court decision, and nothing in the Heller decision prevents banning of MGs
Claims ATF doesn't have authority to approve Form 1 MGs due to existing law
MGs are "dangerous and unusual" and therefore not protected by 2A
MGs not commonly used for protection
MGs commonly adapted for criminal use
MGs outside the scope of 2A
And other standardized .gov arguments against MGs
Discussed relevance of scrutiny levels, i.e., intermediate, strict scrutiny

Nolo:
Explained that based on prior Form 1 approvals that ATF does in fact have authority to approve MGs, e.g., Stemple M60s that were approved post-86. Judge looked at copy of approved Form 1 for one of the Stemple M60s, and asked about the date, which had been redacted. Nolo offered to provide details of this case at a later date to help provide relevance.
Disputed DOJ assertion than MGs are commonly used for criminal use, extremely small percentage compared to handguns
Requested the court to define "dangerous and unusual", since term is thrown around loosely, but other courts have not defined it
Addressed various DOJ anti-MG rhetoric

DOJ:
Tried to reenforce their earlier claims that relevant details of Miller and Heller ruling do intersect


And that was it. No decision from the Judge, she just disappeared through the little door behind her bench.

Another case that was scheduled to start at 15:00 had quite a few other people coming into the courtroom starting about 14:45, so Judge Lynn was kind enough to let our case continue for a bit longer, with all the attorneys trying to be brief at the end.

I expected yelling and banging on tables during the hearing, but everybody was very congenial and just stated their points. Both legal teams chatted with each other outside the courtroom afterwards. Then our group, the legal team and observers, visited for a bit outside by the courthouse. Very interesting afternoon. I thought Nolo represented our side very well. Kicking myself for not buying some beers for Nolo afterwards.- Maroonfeather (ARFCOM)

The feds wanted the judge to simply dismiss the case immediately. That did not occur.

 

[alnen]

I wish I could have been there, I'm just in the wrong Dallas!

Thanks for posting this, I hope alot of people are following these 2 cases closely. I know I am.

 

[Camper292000]

How many AR rifles in police car trunks are 3 burst auto? Anyone know?

If so then that's dangerous and unusual. And not commonly used??

 

[RamRoddoc]

How many AR rifles in police car trunks are 3 burst auto? Anyone know?

If so then that's dangerous and unusual. And not commonly used??

So dangerous and "unusual" that it's standard issue to nearly every serviceman....

That's such a B.S. argument and those using it don't seem to realize it.

 

[Hayata]

Fingers crossed!

 

[jcountry]

This is why the judge kept bringing up Nolo:

shorthand for:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/nolo+contendere