Jay Isaac Hollis v. Loretta Lynch
2016 U.S. App. LEXIS 12099
| 5th Cir. | 2016Background
- Hollis, as trustee of a Texas revocable trust, applied to ATF in 2014 to manufacture an M‑16 (machinegun); ATF initially approved then revoked approval citing the 1986 federal ban.
- 18 U.S.C. § 922(o) (1986 amendment to the Gun Control Act) makes possession or transfer of a machinegun unlawful, with limited pre‑1986 exceptions; the NFA requires ATF approval to make/register such firearms.
- Hollis sued, alleging Section 922(o) violates the Second Amendment, exceeds Commerce Clause power, effects an unconstitutional taking, violates equal protection by selective approvals, and does not apply to an unincorporated trust.
- The district court dismissed for lack of standing and on the merits (alternative holdings); Hollis appealed. The Fifth Circuit found Hollis had standing, rejected the trust‑argument, and held machineguns are not protected by the Second Amendment, affirming dismissal.
- Court reasoned Texas law banning unregistered machineguns would likely fall if federal law were struck, so federal relief would redress Hollis; under Texas law a trust is not a separate entity and the trustee is the possessor.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to bring Second Amendment challenge | Hollis suffered an injury because ATF revoked approval; federal law caused the denial | Federal and Texas law preclude possession; state law would bar him even if §922(o) fell | Hollis has standing — federal relief would likely redress injury by permitting registration under NFA and satisfying Texas registration requirement |
| Whether a trust is a “person” under §921(a)(1)/§922(o) | The Hollis Trust (not Hollis personally) would possess/make the gun; trusts are not listed so §922(o) doesn't apply | Under Texas law a trust is a fiduciary relationship, not an entity; trustee holds legal title and thus Hollis would possess the gun; “person” is non‑exhaustive | Trust argument rejected: trustee is the possessor; §922(o) applies |
| Whether §922(o) violates the Second Amendment by banning machineguns | Hollis: M‑16/machineguns are militia arms and should be protected; Miller supports militia‑utility protection | Government: Heller limits protection to arms in common use for lawful self‑defense; machineguns are dangerous and unusual and historically regulable | §922(o) upheld: machineguns are dangerous and unusual, not in common use, and fall outside Second Amendment protection |
| Rule 56(d) discovery / Equal protection claim | Hollis sought discovery to show post‑1986 ATF approvals and to support equal protection | Government moved to dismiss; district court denied Rule 56(d) because case was resolved on 12(b) motions; plaintiff did not meaningfully brief equal protection on appeal | Discovery denial affirmed as Rule 56(d) inapplicable; equal protection argument waived for inadequate briefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Raines v. Byrd, 521 U.S. 811 (case‑or‑controversy/standing principles)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing prongs—injury, traceability, redressability)
- District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (individual Second Amendment right; dangerous and unusual / common‑use framework)
- United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (historical Second Amendment precedent regarding militia‑related arms)
- McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (incorporation of Second Amendment against the states)
- Staples v. United States, 511 U.S. 600 (machineguns and similar weapons as not traditionally lawful possessions)
- National Rifle Ass’n v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 700 F.3d 185 (5th Cir.) (Second Amendment analytical framework adopted in this circuit)
- National Rifle Ass’n v. McCraw, 719 F.3d 338 (5th Cir.) (application of NRA I to state handgun restrictions)
- Caetano v. Massachusetts, 136 S. Ct. 1027 (per curiam) (confirmation that Heller’s analysis governs novel weapons like stun guns)
- Kolbe v. Hogan, 813 F.3d 160 (4th Cir.) (common‑use analysis for modern semiautomatic rifles)
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Cuomo, 804 F.3d 242 (2d Cir.) (large‑capacity magazine common‑use analysis)
- Friedman v. City of Highland Park, 784 F.3d 406 (7th Cir.) (common‑use analysis and methodology differences between circuits)