Anda di halaman 1dari 4

Case 3:14-cv-03872-M Document 12 Filed 01/16/15

Page 1 of 4 PageID 62

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
_____________________________________
JAY AUBREY ISAAC HOLLIS, individually
and as trustee of the Jay Aubrey Isaac Hollis
Revocable Living Trust,

Case No. 3:14-cv-03872-M

Plaintiff,
v.
ERIC H. HOLDER, JR., Attorney General of
the United States, and B. TODD JONES,
Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms
& Explosives,
Defendants.

DEFENDANTS UNOPPOSED MOTION AND BRIEF TO EXTEND THE PAGE LIMIT


APPLICABLE TO DEFENDANTS MOTION TO DISMISS
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(c), Defendants respectfully move for an eleven-page
extension of the 25-page limit for the brief in support of their motion to dismiss for lack of
jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. In support of their motion, Defendants represent the
following:
1.

Plaintiff challenges 18 U.S.C. 922(o), the federal ban on possession of a machine gun

manufactured after 1986. This provision of law is part of an interconnected framework of


federal laws regulating the interstate firearms market, including the Gun Control Act of 1968
(GCA), as amended, 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44; the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), 26
U.S.C. Chapter 53, the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (Omnibus Act), Pub. L.
No. 90-351, 82 Stat. 197 (1968), and the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA),
Pub. L. No. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449.
1

Case 3:14-cv-03872-M Document 12 Filed 01/16/15

2.

Page 2 of 4 PageID 63

Plaintiffs complaint raises four separate causes of action, alleging violations of four

separate provisions of the United States Constitution, including the right to bear arms in the
Second Amendment, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and the list of powers provided to Congress by Article I.
3.

Under the two-step framework for analyzing firearms restrictions challenged on Second

Amendment grounds adopted by the Fifth Circuit, see Natl Rifle Assn (NRA) v. ATF, 700
F.3d 185, 194 (5th Cir. 2012), Defendants memorandum of law will attempt to explain the
historic traditions associated with the Second Amendment guarantee and how those relate to the
federal ban on machine guns. Id. Defendants memorandum must also analyze whether the
statute satisfies the appropriate level of means-end scrutiny in the event the Court seeks to look
beyond Defendants analysis of the historic traditions of the Second Amendment. Id.
4.

To explain why the challenged statute is within Congresss enumerated powers to

regulate interstate commerce under the Commerce Clause, Defendants memorandum of law will
attempt to thoroughly explain the statutory framework as described above.
5.

Defendants memorandum of law also addresses the constitutional question of

jurisdiction under Article III, contending that Plaintiff lacks standing to raise his Second
Amendment and Commerce Clause claims because he has not identified a redressable injury that
is traceable to the federal ban on machine guns.
6.

Because of the multiple constitutional provisions at issue, the ten additional pages

requested are necessary for Defendants to provide the statutory and historic background and
analysis to adequately address the constitutional challenges raised by Plaintiffs complaint.
Defendants respectfully submit that this Court would benefit from a full analysis of the issues
presented here. The interests of justice will therefore be served by the requested extension.

Case 3:14-cv-03872-M Document 12 Filed 01/16/15

7.

Page 3 of 4 PageID 64

Undersigned counsel has conferred with counsel for Plaintiff, who does not oppose the

relief sought in this motion.

Defendants, therefore, respectfully ask this Court to enter an order granting them an eleven-page
extension of the ordinary page limit.
Dated: January 16, 2015

Respectfully submitted,
JOYCE R. BRANDA
Acting Assistant Attorney General
JOHN R. PARKER
Acting United States Attorney
/s/ Eric J. Soskin
DIANE KELLEHER
Assistant Branch Director
ERIC J. SOSKIN (PA Bar # 200663)
DANIEL RIESS
Trial Attorneys
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division, Rm. 7116
20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
Washington, D.C. 20530
Telephone: (202) 353-30533
Fax: (202) 616-8460
Email: Eric.Soskin@usdoj.gov
Attorneys for Defendants

Case 3:14-cv-03872-M Document 12 Filed 01/16/15

Page 4 of 4 PageID 65

CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE
Pursuant to Local Rule 7.1(a) and (b), I hereby certify that on January 13, 2015, I
conferred with Counsel for Plaintiff regarding the relief sought in this motion. Counsel indicated
that Plaintiff does not oppose the relief sought in this motion.

/s/ Eric Soskin


Eric Soskin

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
On January 16, 2015, I electronically submitted the foregoing document with the clerk of
court for the U.S. District Court, Northern District of Texas, using the electronic case filing
system of the court. I hereby certify that I have served all parties electronically or by another
manner authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5(b)(2) or the local rules.

/s/ Eric J. Soskin


Eric J. Soskin