Texas Trust Cannot Possess Firearms Under Federal Law

A trust under Texas law cannot possess machine guns and similar weapons because trusts are not considered separate legal entities, but fiduciary relationships which violate federal law

Hollis v. Lynch, 2016 BL 211710, 5th Cir., No. 15-10803, 6/30/16.

   A Fifth Circuit court joined the Third Circuit in holding that a trust under Texas law cannot possess weapons that are in violation of federal law. The plaintiff argues that federal statutes prevent “persons” from obtaining or passing certain weapons and because it is the trust that owns the weapons, it is exempt from this law. The court found that the "argument strains common sense and misunderstands trust law.” The court noted that in some jurisdictions, trusts have a separate legal existence, but not in Texas where the case originated. There, a trust is not a legal entity but a fiduciary relationship between the trustee and the trust property.

   Additionally, the court rejected any Second Amendment argument because the right to bear arms does not extend to “dangerous and unusual” weapons.

https://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/desktop/document/Hollis_v_Lynch_No_1510803_2016_BL_211710_5th_Cir_June_30_2016_Cou?1467841848

Load Indicator Law in Massachusetts Did Not Violate Due Process

A due process challenge led by gun groups, dealers, and consumers against a new Massachusetts gun law requiring “load indicators” fails. 

Draper v. Healey, 2016 BL 194313, 1st Cir., No. 15-1429, 6/17/16.

    In a First Circuit opinion, the court found that a due process challenge against a new Massachusetts gun regulation fails because the plaintiffs was unsuccessful in showing any injury and because there was sufficient notice of the law and its requirements.

   The court first found that some of the plaintiffs lacked standing, including groups and associations from out of the state that did not have any members in Massachusetts. The next group, gun dealers, had fair notice of the law’s requirements from the state, which the court held to be sufficient, noting that blueprints or specific plans are not necessary to create notice. Finally, gun consumers did not have standing because the court found their claim of having standing derive from gun dealers was not sufficient if the gun dealer’s claim did not succeed.

http://www.bloomberglaw.com/public/document/Draper_v_Healey_No_151429_2016_BL_194313_1st_Cir_June_17_2016_Cou.