Source: http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/?page_id=2364
Timestamp: 2018-08-14 06:28:01
Document Index: 555064992

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 922', '§ 5801', '§ 479', '§ 922', '§ 5801', '§ 479', '§ 922']

Hollis v. Lynch 15-10803 & USA, et al v. One Palmetto State Armory PA 1, et al No.: 15-2859 – Machine-guns – BOTH LOST « California Right To Carry.org – California Open Carry.com
James Rothery, et al. v. County of Sacramento, et al., – Concealed Carry – 09-16852 – En Banc Petition Denied – Cert Filed 7-26-2018 – 18-121
Young v. State of Hawaii Appeal 12-17808 – Won!
Gelhaus v. Estate of Andy Lopez – 17-1354 – Cert Denied!
Angel Mendez v. County of Los Angeles – 13-56686 – WON!
So, When will you be able to Openly Carry a Firearm in the 9th Circuit?
Virginia Duncan, et al v. Xavier Becerra – Preliminary Injunction Appeal 17-56081 – WON!
Pena et al v. Lindley (formerly Pena v. Cid) 15-15449 – LOST!
Jordan Gallinger, et al v. Xavier Becerra – CalGuns.nuts – LOST!
GOULD V. MORGAN – 1st Circuit – Handgun Carry Licenses – 17-2202
Cases No Longer Active OR Routinely Tracked
7-30-2018 – When Will We Be Able to Openly Carry a Firearm in the 9th Circuit?
6-20-2018 – The Second Amendment is in a Coma ten years after the Heller decision
Hollis v. Lynch 15-10803 & USA, et al v. One Palmetto State Armory PA 1, et al No.: 15-2859 - Machine-guns - BOTH LOST
It has been 1383 days since this case was filed!
BOTH CASES LOST ON APPEAL
Petition for en banc rehearing denied in USA v. One Palmetto State Armory on June 21, 2016. Mandate issued on June 29, 2016.
No en banc petition filed in Hollis v. Lynch. Judgment entered and filed on June 30, 2016.
Cert Petitions are due within 90 days.
Hollis v. Lynch et al Appeal No. 15-10803
USA, et al v. One Palmetto State Armory PA 1, et al No.: 15-2859
Keep in mind that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and other circuits have already held that machine-guns are not protected under the Second Amendment. The only chance these appeals have of being heard by SCOTUS is that the 5th and/or 3rd Circuit Courts of Appeal comes to the opposite conclusion. Considering the 5th Circuit’s recent Second Amendment decisions, the chances of this case prevailing, even if the plaintiffs had good lawyers, is somewhere between nil and none. Still, I hope the plaintiff prevails. UPDATE: The 3rd Circuit ruled against Palmetto.
What is particularly frustrating about these cases is that I spent many hours providing one of the plaintiff’s attorneys, Alan Beck, the long history of “dangerous and unusual” weapons cited in the Heller decision and despite all 800 years of history and case law I provided to him, Beck argues that the scope of the arms protected by the Second Amendment, and the “dangerous and unusual” doctrine—are very different. He is wrong of course. Integral to the concept of “dangerous and unusual” weapon is the type of weapon and if that weapon falls within the class of “dangerous and unusual” then the government can prohibit that type of weapon from being carried in public. In English common law it was armor and for some unknown reason, a short, almost decorative spear (a launcegay). A man could carry a far more dangerous and deadly broadsword or even a full size spear but if he carried a launcegay, he was in violation of the law. Why? Nobody knows.
England also had class based restrictions on weapons. An English peasant was not allowed to carry broadswords because these were “dangerous and unusual” weapons for his social class. And there were exceptions to the class based restrictions for example. merchants who traveled from town to town were permitted to carry broadswords. And then there were weapons which were marketed by persons such as Da Vinci as “dangerous and unusual weapons” among these were Trebuchets (catapults) and siege towers which simply are not “bearable” arms.
Beck posits that a 17th Century English decision on dangerous and unusual weapons stands for the proposition that a type of arm cannot be a “dangerous and unusual” weapon unless the person has armed himself with a weapon and carries it in a manner to terrorize the people. That isn’t what the court held. The court held that privy coats of mail were not dangerous and unusual weapons and nor were other weapons commonly used. The prohibition on wearing armor in public remained. In fact, the original ban on wearing armor in Parliament is still on the books and has never been repealed by any subsequent legislation or court ruling.
The chances of a pair of lawyers who haven’t a clue as to what they are talking about winning a challenge to the Federal machine-gun ban is less than nil to none.
From the Hollis Complaint.
3:2014cv03872
1. This is an action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief from 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq. and the implementing regulations 27 C.F.R. § 479.105(a). These statutory and regulatory provisions generally act as an unlawful de facto ban on the transfer or possession of a machine gun manufactured after May 19, 1986. By imposing such a ban on an entire class of weapons, the statutes and regulations exceed the power of the United States under Article I of the United States Constitution; violate the Second Amendment rights of the Plaintiff and all similarly situated individuals; violate the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the United States Constitution’s principles of federalism and dual sovereignty; by arbitrarily “disapproving” an already approved Form 1, Defendants’ actions violate Plaintiff’s Fifth Amendment right to due process and is an unjust taking; and violate the Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
2. Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief against the unconstitutional provisions contained in 18 U.S.C. § 922(o), 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq . and 27 C.F.R. § 479.105(a); declaring the ban on machine guns unconstitutional under the Second, Ninth and Tenth Amendments and in violation of Article I of the United States Constitution and declaratory and injunctive relief prohibiting Defendants from unjustly taking property without Due Process.
3. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks declaratory and injunctive relief finding that 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) does not prohibit an unincorporated trust from manufacturing or possessing a machinegun manufactured after May 19, 1986 and/or that the Defendants lack the authority and are thus prohibited from revoking or denying the validity of Plaintiff’s approved tax stamp # RM34755.
Here is a link to the Complaint filed on October 30, 2014.
Here are the links to the relevant filings in the appeal:
Hollis Opening Brief – 5th Circuit Court of Appeals – Filed on October 26, 2015.
Hollis – Excerpts of Record – Filed on October 26, 2015.
GOA Amicus
FPC Amicus
Answering Brief due on December 21, 2015. The deficient Answering Brief referenced in the December 15, 2015 update is here
Appellant’s Reply Brief was Filed on 12/28/2015.
This case is now fully briefed.
Oral Arguments took place before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday, April 6, 2016
*There is another machine-gun case out of the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals. Oral arguments took place in that case on Monday, April 4, 2016 (USA, et al v. One Palmetto State Armory PA 1, et al No.: 15-2859 – Here is a link to the documents in that case. As you can see, given the three judges assigned to hear the appeal, the outcome is a foregone conclusion and since a loss by the appellants does not create a circuit split, the cert petition will be denied.
UPDATE: The 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals held that machine-guns are not protected by the Second Amendment. Here is the decision -> Palmetto Machine-gun Decision
The oral arguments for both cases can be found in the April 5th and 6th, 2016 updates below.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 31, 2016 – There has not been a cert petition filed in either case.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 13, 2016 – There has not been a response requested which means that none of the judges has requested a vote on whether or not to grant the petition for en banc rehearing which was filed on July 29, 2016 in the case of Hollis v. Lynch. This is a pretty strong indication that the petition will be denied leaving SCOTUS as the last resort. Given that SCOTUS won’t grant semi-auto cert petitions it does not take a crystal ball to predict that SCOTUS will deny the machine-gun cert petition(s).
06/30/2016 JUDGMENT ENTERED AND FILED. [15-10803] (JRS)
07/29/2016 PETITION filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis for rehearing en banc [8270920-2]. Date of Service: 07/29/2016 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Lee, Titus; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff [15-10803] (Stephen Dean Stamboulieh )
08/01/2016 PAPER COPIES REQUESTED for the petition for rehearing en banc filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis in 15-10803 [8270920-2]. Mandate pull date canceled.. Paper Copies of Rehearing due on 08/08/2016 for Appellant Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis. [15-10803] (NFD)
08/03/2016 Paper copies of petition for rehearing en banc filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis in 15-10803 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes Paper Copies of Rehearing due deadline satisfied. [15-10803] (NFD)
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 25, 2016 – Petition for en banc rehearing denied in USA v. One Palmetto State Armory on June 21, 2016. Mandate issued on June 29, 2016. No en banc petition filed in Hollis v. Lynch. Judgment entered and filed on June 30, 2016.
06/21/2016 ORDER (MCKEE, Chief Judge, AMBRO, FUENTES, SMITH, FISHER, CHAGARES, JORDAN, HARDIMAN, GREENAWAY JR., VANASKIE, SHWARTZ, KRAUSE, RESTREPO and *THOMPSON, Circuit Judges) denying Petition for Panel and En Banc Rehearing filed by Appellant Ryan S. Watson, filed. Ambro, Authoring Judge. *Honorable Anne E. Thompson, District Judge for the United States Court for the District of New Jersey, sitting by designation voted as to panel rehearing only. (TYW)
06/29/2016 MANDATE ISSUED, filed. (TYW)
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 30, 2016 – Hollis lost in the Court of Appeals. Hollis v. Holder Appellate Opinion
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 10, 2016 – Palmetto Petition for Rehearing en banc was filed today.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 25, 2016 – Hollis filed a response.
05/22/2016 RESPONSE filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis to the 28j letter filed by Appellees Mr. Thomas E. Brandon and Ms. Loretta E. Lynch in 15-10803 [8207053-2] Date of Service: 05/22/2016 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Lee, Titus; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff [15-10803] (Stephen Dean Stamboulieh )
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 19, 2016 – The Feds didn’t waste any time filing a notice in the 5th Circuit of the decision in the 3rd Circuit.
05/19/2016 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES (FRAP 28j) FILED by Appellees Mr. Thomas E. Brandon and Ms. Loretta E. Lynch Date of Service: 05/19/2016 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Lee, Titus; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff [15-10803] (Patrick George Nemeroff )
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – May 18, 2016 – The decision is in for the 3rd Circuit case. The Court of Appeals held that machine-guns are not protected by the Second Amendment. Palmetto Machine-gun Decision
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 29, 2016 – There is unlikely to be any significant movement in the machine-gun cases until a decision is published.
04/09/2016 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES (FRAP 28j) FILED by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis Date of Service: 04/09/2016 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Lee, Titus; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff [15-10803] (Stephen Dean Stamboulieh )
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 6, 2016 – The oral argument in this case, Hollis v. Lynch, took place today before a three judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. Just as he did in yesterday’s oral arguments in the 3rd Circuit, the lawyer for Hollis blew it. For one thing, the “core right” under the Second amendment is self-defense and the lawful right of self-defense has never been limited to the home. Hollis’ lawyer said the “core right” of the Second Amendment is limited to the home.
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/15-10803_4-6-20161.mp3
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – April 5, 2016 – Here is the audio from the Machine-gun case out of the 3rd District Palmetto State Armory which took place yesterday. Although one can never tell for certain what the outcome of a case will be based on the oral arguments, none of the circuit judges here even tried to play devil’s advocate with the Feds and the lawyer for the plaintiff told the court that a facial challenge is one in which a law is invalid in every circumstance despite SCOTUS saying that a law does not have to be invalid in every circumstance. If that were the case then the Heller decision would have been decided the other way because there were many applications of the laws at issue in the Heller case which were valid. Such as the law applied to convicted felons, or to the insane, or to persons engaged in criminal activities. Tomorrow the same pair of lawyers will get a chance to screw up arguing its case before a three judge panel of the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals.
http://blog.californiarighttocarry.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/15-2859-USA-v.-One-Palmetto-et-al.mp3
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – March 20, 2016 – The three judges assigned to hear the case will be announced on March 28th.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – February 29, 2016 – New activity:
01/12/2016 ATTORNEY NOT PARTICIPATING. Daniel M. Riess is designated as inactive in this case. Reason:as he has not filed an appearance form nor is he listed on the brief. [15-10803] (NFD)
01/19/2016 MOTION filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis for judicial notice (SEND TO SCREENING JUDGE AND PANEL) [8106243-2]. Date of service: 01/19/2016 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Lee, Titus; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff [15-10803] (Stephen Dean Stamboulieh )
02/01/2016 RESPONSE/OPPOSITION filed by Appellees Mr. Thomas E. Brandon and Ms. Loretta E. Lynch [8116263-1] to the motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis in 15-10803 [8106243-2] (SEND TO SCREENING JUDGE AND PANEL) [15-10803]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RESPONSE/OPPOSITION filed by Mr. Thomas E. Brandon and Ms. Loretta E. Lynch [8116263-1] to the motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis in 15-10803 [8106243-2] Date of Service: 02/01/2016 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Lee, Titus; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff. [15-10803] (Patrick George Nemeroff )
02/03/2016 CASE TENTATIVELY calendared for oral argument for the week of 04/04/2016. [15-10803] (GAM)
02/06/2016 REPLY filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis [8121390-1] to the response/opposition filed by Appellees Mr. Thomas E. Brandon and Ms. Loretta E. Lynch in 15-10803 [8116263-2], to the motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis in 15-10803 [8106243-2]. [15-10803] (SENT TO ORAL ARGUMENT CALENDAR WITH MOTION AND RESPONSE)
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: REPLY filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis [8121390-1] to the response/opposition filed by Appellees Mr. Thomas E. Brandon and Ms. Loretta E. Lynch in 15-10803 [8116263-2], to the motion for judicial notice filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis in 15-10803 [8106243-2]. Date of Service: 02/06/2016 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Lee, Titus; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff. [15-10803] (Stephen Dean Stamboulieh )
02/08/2016 SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITIES (FRAP 28j) FILED by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis Date of Service: 02/08/2016 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Lee, Titus; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff [15-10803] (Stephen Dean Stamboulieh )
02/17/2016 CASE CALENDARED for oral argument on Tuesday, 04/05/2016 in New Orleans in the En Banc Courtroom — AM session. In accordance with our policy, lead counsel only will receive via email at a later date a copy of the court’s docket and an acknowledgment form. All other counsel of record should monitor the court’s website for the posting of the oral argument calendars.. [15-10803] (SME)
02/17/2016 The oral argument is moved from Tuesday, April 5, 2016 to Wednesday, April 6, 2016. [15-10803] (SME)
02/17/2016 RESPONSE filed by Appellees Mr. Thomas E. Brandon and Ms. Loretta E. Lynch to the 28j letter filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis in 15-10803 [8122162-2] Date of Service: 02/17/2016 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Lee, Titus; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff [15-10803] (Patrick George Nemeroff )
02/24/2016 COURT ORDER that appellant’s motion for judicial notice is CARRIED WITH THE CASE [8106243-2]. [15-10803] (MCS)
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – January 6, 2016 – New activity:
12/16/2015 BRIEF MADE SUFFICIENT filed by Appellees Mr. Thomas E. Brandon and Ms. Loretta E. Lynch in 15-10803 [8081708-2]. Sufficient Brief deadline satisfied. Paper Copies of Brief due on 12/21/2015 for Appellees Thomas E. Brandon and Loretta E. Lynch. [15-10803] (NFD)
12/17/2015 Paper copies of appellee brief filed by Appellees Mr. Thomas E. Brandon and Ms. Loretta E. Lynch in 15-10803 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [15-10803] (NFD)
12/28/2015 APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED
Reply Brief deadline satisfied. Paper Copies of Brief due on 01/04/2016 for Appellant Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis. [15-10803] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S REPLY BRIEF FILED by Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis Date of service: 12/28/2015 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Lee, Titus; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellees: Nemeroff, Riess [15-10803] (Stephen Dean Stamboulieh )
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – December 15, 2015 – Something new posted on the Federal docket:
12/15/2015 APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED . Brief is INSUFFICIENT: Caption Incorrect. Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. E/Res’s Brief deadline satisfied. Sufficient Brief due on 12/21/2015 for Appellees Thomas E. Brandon and Loretta E. Lynch.. Reply Brief due on 01/04/2016 for Appellant Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis [15-10803] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLEE’S BRIEF FILED by Appellees Mr. Thomas E. Brandon and Ms. Loretta E. Lynch. Date of service: 12/15/2015 via email – Attorney for Amici Curiae: Lee, Titus; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff; US mail – Attorney for Appellee: Riess [15-10803] (Patrick George Nemeroff )
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – November 30, 2015 – Nothing new posted on the attorney’s website.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – October 26, 2015 – Hollis filed his Opening Brief and Excerpts of Record.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 19, 2015 – Hollis filed a notice of appeal yesterday.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – August 12, 2015 – Hollis lost in the district court on August 7, 2015. He can file a motion for reconsideration with the district court or file an appeal. The decision from the district court is here.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 29, 2015 – A similar case lost on July 22, 2015 in district court. Here is a link to the decision. Here is the Notice of Appeal.
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 10, 2015 – The motion to file a supplemental authority regarding Samuel James Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ____ (2015) was granted. Dkt#41. The notice was filed. Dkt #42.
Full docket text for document 41:
ELECTRONIC ORDER GRANTING [39] Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Authority. No response will be permitted. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 7/2/2015)(chmb)
Dkt #42 is the notice of supplemental authority to Samuel James Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. ____ (2015).
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – July 1, 2015 – Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/14/2015. A motion to file a notice of supplemental authority was filed on 6/3/2015 (Dkt #39) as was a memorandum in support (Dkt #40). I recommend that you read Dkt #40, it contains a highly relevant quote by Justice Kennedy regarding short barrel firearms.
Filed & Entered: 06/30/2015
Brief/Memorandum in Support of Motion
Filed & Entered: 06/16/2015
Update by Charles Nichols, President of California Right To Carry – June 1, 2015 – Not much new, just a filing clarifying (and raising new questions) to an apparent post-ban machine-gun grant to a non-governmental entity.
Filed & Entered: 05/07/2015
Update April 23, 2015 – The motion hearing on the motion to dismiss, or in the alternative, for summary judgment is being held today.
Update March 28, 2015 – The motion hearing has been scheduled.
Full docket text for document 35:
ORDER SETTING HEARING: Motion Hearing set for 4/23/2015 01:30 PM in US Courthouse, Courtroom 1570, 1100 Commerce St., Dallas, TX 75242-1310 before Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn. re: [13] Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 3/24/2015) (chmb)
Update March 17, 2015 – The motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgement are still pending.
ELECTRONIC ORDER DENYING [33] Motion to Compel Rule 26(f) Conference. The Court hereby STAYS entry of a Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order and Rule 26(f) Conference until the Court rules on the pending Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary Judgment [Docket Entry #13]. (Ordered by Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn on 3/16/2015) (chmb)
Update February 20, 2015 – There is a pending motion to dismiss the case.
Update January 13, 2015 – You Will Need A Federal PACER Account To Access The Individual Filings From The Docket Below:
Court of Appeals Docket #: 15-10803 Docketed: 08/21/2015
Jay Isaac Hollis v. Loretta Lynch, et al
Appeal From: Northern District of Texas, Dallas
District: 0539-3 : 3:14-CV-3872
Originating Judge: Barbara M. G. Lynn, U.S. District Judge
Date Filed: 10/30/2014
08/18/2015 08/19/2015
JAY AUBREY ISAAC HOLLIS, Individually and as Trustee of the Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis Revocable Living Trust
Plaintiff – Appellant Stephen Dean Stamboulieh, Esq.
Direct: 601-852-3440
Email: stephen@sdslaw.us
Stamboulieh Law, P.L.L.C.
Madison, MS 39130Alan Alexander Beck, Esq.
Direct: 619-905-9105
Email: alan.alexander.beck@gmail.com
Defendant – Appellee Patrick George Nemeroff
Direct: 202-305-8727
Email: patrick.g.nemeroff@usdoj.gov
Fax: 202-514-9405
Washington, DC 20530Daniel M. Riess
THOMAS E. BRANDON, Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(see above)Daniel M. Riess
FIREARMS POLICY COALITION, INCORPORATED
Amicus Curiae George M. Lee
Direct: 415-979-0500
Seiler Epstein Ziegler & Applegate, L.L.P.
FIREARMS POLICY FOUNDATION, INCORPORATED
MADISON SOCIETY, INCORPORATED
MISSISSIPPI CARRY, INCORPORATED
GUN OWNERS OF AMERICA, INCORPORATED
Amicus Curiae Herbert W. Titus, Esq.
Direct: 703-356-5070
Email: wjo@mindspring.com
Fax: 703-356-5085
370 Maple Avenue, W.
GUN OWNERS OF CALIFORNIA, INCORPORATED
JAY AUBREY ISAAC HOLLIS, Individually and as Trustee of the Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis Revocable Living Trust,
LORETTA E. LYNCH, Attorney General of the United States; THOMAS E. BRANDON, Acting Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives,
3 pg, 213.51 KB CIVIL RIGHTS CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis [15-10803] (SDH)
08/27/2015 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Stephen Dean Stamboulieh for Appellant Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis in 15-10803 [15-10803] (RLL)
2 pg, 67.86 KB INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete, Action: Case OK to Process. [7998296-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. [15-10803] (NFD)
08/27/2015 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED FROM DISTRICT COURT for 3:14-CV-3872. Electronic ROA due on 09/11/2015. [15-10803] (NFD)
1 pg, 56.52 KB TRANSCRIPT ORDER received from Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis advising transcript unnecessary as it is already filed. [15-10803] (MCS)
09/09/2015 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Alan Alexander Beck for party(s) Appellant Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis, in case 15-10803 [15-10803] (RLL)
09/11/2015 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Patrick George Nemeroff for party(s) Appellee Loretta E. Lynch Appellee Thomas E. Brandon, in case 15-10803 [15-10803] (RLL)
09/16/2015 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [15-10803] (MRB)
3 pg, 68.19 KB BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet’s Brief Due on 10/26/2015 for Appellant Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis. [15-10803] (MRB)
71 pg, 494.26 KB APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED.
# of Copies Provided: 0 A/Pet’s Brief deadline satisfied. Appellee’s Brief due on 11/30/2015 for Appellees Thomas E. Brandon and Loretta E. Lynch. Paper Copies of Brief due on 11/04/2015 for Appellant Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis. [15-10803] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: APPELLANT’S BRIEF FILED by Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis. Date of service: 10/26/2015 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff; US mail – Attorney for Appellee: Riess [15-10803] (Stephen Dean Stamboulieh )
58 pg, 935.44 KB RECORD EXCERPTS FILED. # of Copies Provided: 0 Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due on 11/04/2015 for Appellant Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis. [15-10803] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: RECORD EXCERPTS FILED by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis. Date of service: 10/26/2015 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff; US mail – Attorney for Appellee: Riess [15-10803] (Stephen Dean Stamboulieh )
38 pg, 261.07 KB AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FILED by Mr. Bradley D. Rogers, Mr. Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Heller Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Incorporated, Gun Owners Foundation and Gun Owners of America, Incorporated.
The Consent is Included in the Brief.
Brief NOT Sufficient as it requires an Appearance Form from counsel signing the brief (Titus). Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. # of Copies Provided: 0
Sufficient Brief due on 11/16/2015 for Amici Curiae Gun Owners of America, Incorporated, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Incorporated, Heller Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Institute on the Constitution and Bradley D. Rogers.. Paper Copies of Brief due on 11/09/2015 for Amici Curiae Gun Owners of America, Incorporated, Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Incorporated, Heller Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Institute on the Constitution and Bradley D. Rogers. [15-10803]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FILED by Gun Owners of America, Inc., Gun Owners Foundation, Gun Owners of California, Inc., The Heller Foundation, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Institute on the Constitution, and Sheriff Bradley D. Rogers (Elkhart County, Indiana). Date of service: 11/02/2015 via email – Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff [15-10803] (William Jeffrey Olson )
11/04/2015 Paper copies of appellant brief filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis in 15-10803 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [15-10803] (RSM)
11/04/2015 Paper copies of record excerpts filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis in 15-10803 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 4. Paper Copies of Record Excerpts due deadline satisfied. [15-10803] (RSM)
11/04/2015 CASE CAPTION updated. Not Parties Firearms Policy Coalition, Incorporated, Firearms Policy Foundation, Incorporated, Colorado Second Amendment Association, Lone Star Gun Rights, Madison Society, Incorporated and Mississippi Carry, Incorporated added to case. Reason: amicus brief not filed electronically. Filed in paper form only. Document received no action taken. [15-10803] (RSM)
1 pg, 56.56 KB DOCUMENT RECEIVED – NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken at this time on the paper copies of amicus brief received from Not Parties Colorado Second Amendment Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Incorporated, Firearms Policy Foundation, Incorporated, Lone Star Gun Rights, Madison Society, Incorporated and Mississippi Carry, Incorporated because brief must be filed electronically before sending in paper copies. [15-10803] (RSM)
6 pg, 13.37 KB UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Appellees Mr. Thomas E. Brandon and Ms. Loretta E. Lynch to extend the time to file appellees’ brief [8043986-2] filed by Appellant Mr. Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis in 15-10803 until 01/13/2016 at 11:59 pm [8051746-2]. Date of service: 11/04/2015 via email – Attorney for Amicus Curiae: Titus; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff; Attorney for Not Party: Lee; US mail – Attorney for Appellee: Riess [15-10803] (Patrick George Nemeroff )
11/05/2015 APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. George M. Lee for Firearms Policy Coalition, Incorporated and Firearms Policy Foundation, Incorporated , Colorado Second Amendment Association, Lone Star Gun Rights, The Madison Society, Inc. and Mississippi Carry, Inc. for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes.. THE IMAGE FOR THIS FILING WILL NOT BE VIEWABLE AS IT CONTAINS SENSITIVE INFORMATION. [15-10803] (George M. Lee )
44 pg, 571.95 KB UNOPPOSED MOTION filed by Firearms Policy Foundation, Incorporated; Firearms Policy Coalition, Incorporated; Colorado Second Amendment Association; Mississippi Carry, Incorporated; Lone Star Gun Rights; Madison Society, Incorporated to file amicus brief out of fime [8052537-2] [15-10803]
REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED – The original text prior to review appeared as follows: UNOPPOSED MOTION to file amicus brief [8052537-2] Date of service: 11/05/2015 via email – Attorney for Amicus Curiae: Titus; Attorney for Appellants: Beck, Stamboulieh; Attorney for Appellee: Nemeroff; Attorney for Not Party: Lee [15-10803] (George M. Lee )
11/09/2015 APPEARANCE FORM received from Mr. Herbert W. Titus, Esq. for Gun Owners Foundation and Gun Owners of America, Incorporated for the court’s review. Lead Counsel? Yes.. THE IMAGE FOR THIS FILING WILL NOT BE VIEWABLE AS IT CONTAINS SENSITIVE INFORMATION. [15-10803] (Herbert W. Titus )
11/10/2015 Paper copies of amicus brief filed by Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund, Gun Owners Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Incorporated, Gun Owners of California, Incorporated, Heller Foundation and Mr. Bradley D. Rogers in 15-10803 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [15-10803] (SDH)
2 pg, 81.06 KB COURT ORDER granting unopposed motion of Firearms Policy Coalition, Incorporated, Firearms Policy Foundation, Incorporated, Colorado Second Amendment Association, Lone Star Gun Rights, Madison Society, Incorporated, and Mississippi Carry, Incorporated to file their amicus curiae brief out of time [8052537-2] Judge(s): JEG. [15-10803] (RSM)
11/11/2015 CASE CAPTION updated. Party information modified for Firearms Policy Coalition, Incorporated, Firearms Policy Foundation, Incorporated, Colorado Second Amendment Association, Lone Star Gun Rights, Madison Society, Incorporated and Mississippi Carry, Incorporated in 15-10803. Update: amicus parties added to case. [15-10803] (RSM)
38 pg, 495.38 KB AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF FILED by Colorado Second Amendment Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Incorporated, Firearms Policy Foundation, Incorporated, Lone Star Gun Rights, Madison Society, Incorporated and Mississippi Carry, Incorporated.
Brief NOT Sufficient as it requires an Appearance Form from counsel signing the brief (Lee). Additionally the Brief requires CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE IS MISSING THE DATE OF SERVICE. Instructions to Attorney: PLEASE READ THE ATTACHED NOTICE FOR INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO REMEDY THE DEFAULT. # of Copies Provided: 0
Sufficient Brief due on 11/25/2015 for Amici Curiae Colorado Second Amendment Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Incorporated, Firearms Policy Foundation, Incorporated, Lone Star Gun Rights, Madison Society, Incorporated and Mississippi Carry, Incorporated. [15-10803] (RSM)
1 pg, 54.46 KB CLERK ORDER granting in part unopposed motion to extend time to file appellee’s brief to and including 12/15/15 filed by Appellees Mr. Thomas E. Brandon and Ms. Loretta E. Lynch [8051746-2]. E/Res’s Brief deadline updated to 12/15/2015 for Appellees Thomas E. Brandon and Loretta E. Lynch. [15-10803] (MCS)
11/13/2015 CASE CAPTION updated. Party information modified for Bradley D. Rogers, Institute on the Constitution, Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund and Heller Foundation in 15-10803. Update: attorney Titus added for amicus parties. [15-10803] (RSM)
11/13/2015 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Herbert W. Titus for Amicus Curiae Bradley D. Rogers in 15-10803, Attorney Herbert W. Titus for Amicus Curiae Institute on the Constitution in 15-10803, Attorney Herbert W. Titus for Amicus Curiae Conservative Legal Defense and Education Fund in 15-10803, Attorney Herbert W. Titus for Amicus Curiae Heller Foundation in 15-10803, Attorney Herbert W. Titus for Amicus Curiae Gun Owners Foundation in 15-10803, Attorney Herbert W. Titus for Amicus Curiae Gun Owners of America, Incorporated in 15-10803. Sufficient Brief deadline satisfied [15-10803] (RLL)
11/16/2015 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney George M. Lee for Amicus Curiae Firearms Policy Foundation, Incorporated in 15-10803, Attorney George M. Lee for Amicus Curiae Firearms Policy Coalition, Incorporated in 15-10803, by Attorney(s) George M. Lee for party(s) Amicus Curiae Madison Society, Incorporated Amicus Curiae Colorado Second Amendment Association Amicus Curiae Lone Star Gun Rights Amicus Curiae Mississippi Carry, Incorporated, in case 15-10803 [15-10803] (PAC)
1 pg, 56.95 KB BRIEF MADE SUFFICIENT filed by Amici Curiae Firearms Policy Coalition, Incorporated, Firearms Policy Foundation, Incorporated, Colorado Second Amendment Association, Lone Star Gun Rights, Madison Society, Incorporated and Mississippi Carry, Incorporated in 15-10803 [8056058-2]. Sufficient Brief deadline satisfied. Paper Copies of Brief due on 11/23/2015 for Amici Curiae Colorado Second Amendment Association, Firearms Policy Coalition, Incorporated, Firearms Policy Foundation, Incorporated, Lone Star Gun Rights, Madison Society, Incorporated and Mississippi Carry, Incorporated. [15-10803] (RSM)
11/19/2015 Paper copies of amicus brief filed by Amici Curiae Firearms Policy Coalition, Incorporated, Firearms Policy Foundation, Incorporated, Colorado Second Amendment Association, Lone Star Gun Rights, Madison Society, Incorporated and Mississippi Carry, Incorporated in 15-10803 received. Paper copies match electronic version of document? Yes # of Copies Provided: 7. Paper Copies of Brief due deadline satisfied. [15-10803] (PAC)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 3:14-cv-03872-M
Hollis v. Holder et al
Assigned to: Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn
Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights Date Filed: 10/30/2014
Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis
Individually and as Trustee of the Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis Revocable Living Trust represented by Stephen Dean Stamboulieh
601/852-3440
Bar Status: Admitted/In Good StandingElisha Michael Hollis
Law Offices of Elisha M Hollis PLLC
903/450-2473
Fax: 903/200-1290
Email: elishahollis@gmail.com
Attorney General of the United States represented by Eric J Soskin-DOJ
202/353-0533
Fax: 202/216-8460
Email: eric.soskin@usdoj.gov
Bar Status: Not Admitted
Director of the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives represented by Eric J Soskin-DOJ
3:14-cv-03872-M Hollis v. Lynch et al
Barbara M.G. Lynn, presiding
Date of last filing: 07/05/2015
Filed & Entered: 07/05/2015
Filed & Entered: 07/02/2015
Terminated: 07/02/2015
Entered: 04/24/2015
Order Setting Deadline/Hearing
Filed & Entered: 03/16/2015
Terminated: 03/16/2015
Filed & Entered: 03/11/2015
Filed & Entered: 03/03/2015
Entered: 03/03/2015
Modify Hearings/Deadlines
Filed & Entered: 03/02/2015
Terminated: 03/02/2015
Entered: 02/26/2015
Filed & Entered: 02/23/2015
Terminated: 02/25/2015
Order on Application for Admission Pro Hac Vice
Terminated: 02/05/2015
Filed & Entered: 01/20/2015
Filed & Entered: 01/16/2015
Notice of Attorney Appearance
Terminated: 01/20/2015
Cert. Of Interested Persons/Disclosure Statement
Filed & Entered: 12/18/2014
Filed & Entered: 12/17/2014
Terminated: 12/18/2014
Filed & Entered: 11/24/2014
Filed & Entered: 11/13/2014
Summons Returned
Filed & Entered: 11/11/2014
Filed & Entered: 11/09/2014
Filed & Entered: 10/31/2014
Filed & Entered: 10/30/2014
Entered: 10/31/2014