That took me forever to do on my phone.

Never thought I'd see something like this happen

It will be harder to say they are keeping you from having a machine gun when they can argue that you already have one.

Just some food for thought for everyone who thinks this cannot happen and that it is doomed to fail.

The Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 was a major victory for antigun groups. It affected almost every aspect of the gun industry for a decade. Many of us (myself included) thought it would be renewed without much resistance. Inertia is a powerful force, and once we become accustomed to something we eventually believe that change is neither inevitable, nor even possible. Unlike Hughes, which made a dramatic change to a very small niche market, the assault weapons ban affected almost every gun owner, especially those that were new to the market and did not already own anything that was grandfathered by the ban.

The Assault Weapons Ban expired, even though George W. Bush pledged that if Congress passed a renewal he would sign it. Think about that - something as enormously high profile as the AWB ended, even when the President, a Republican, says he will support a renewal. Now consider the Hughes amendment. Most Americans think machine guns are illegal. Most don't understand how some people can own them, or how businesses can own them and use them for movies, but they also don't care. They know you can't walk into a store and buy a machine gun and walk out with it. Damned few living Americans are old enough to remember a time when you could.

If Hughes falls, or if we just succeed at formally securing a single legal pathway through it, that doesn't change. It doesn't affect most people. Even those that support Hughes must do so carefully, as any discussion of it with the public suddenly dispels the preconceived notion that machine guns are already impossible to attain (and not just insanely expensive). Defending Hughes, at least in terms of fighting the trust exemption, means openly defending that people can own pre-86 machine guns but cannot use the same process, acting as trustees, to acquire post-86 guns. The left stays quiet about NFA for a reason.

Hughes can be defeated, and doing so could easily go unnoticed by the vast majority of our society.

Just for reference........

I found out this morning.

An acquaintance submitted a Trust form 1 for MG build via paper in early June and it was disapproved on Aug 29.

He provide NO cover letter with his submission.

He said reason given was a "bunch of legal mumbo jumbo" why he couldnt make a MG.

This time period should have been right square in the window for the so-called, accident approvals, mistake approvals or policy change approvals.

I'll just leave this here...

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/DownloadDocument?documentID=420966&version=1

Holy shit, you have to be a Fed.

Sad day for trusts if that happens. .................I had to laugh a bit when I read the "paperwork reduction act notice" on page 4

Will you fucking stop lying?  

riiiiiight

The rest of us will wait around more conveniently timed "information"

 

He called to ask status. Thats how he found out.

He said he has received nothing in the mail.

Do you have tea parties with your imaginary friend as well?

Don't know not a lawyer, but they could then try to argue they aren't fully restricted from a class of weapons if they already own one ?

Lawlaurz

I want to form 1 everything I own right now... unfortunately even though we have made a lot of progress in the last few years Illinois will still not let me own a machinegun so there is nothing I can do other than offer financial support for the eventual fight in court.

I doubt it.

Is that what they're going to ask from Santa Claus?  

That form reads like "hold on there you son of a bitch."

If Dianne Feinstein registered an account on here and started posting she'd have both more credibility and more friends than you do.

Just stop.  

No one believes you.

So either answer the pit thread or gtfo, or post titpics, seriously all will be forgiven if we see mammaries

who do you think disapproved it?

I filed one.  Illinois law states a person commits unlawful use of a weapon when in possession of a machine gun the law states nothing about registered machine guns or trust registered machine guns.  Yet again the atf clearly states a trust is not a person.

Interesting.

And what about a guy who owns a pre-'86 machine gun papered to him as an individual, and attempts a form 1 via trust? I'm thinking that would be fairly easily dismissed because a different legal entity technically owns the gun; one being a person and the other being a non-person. Now, if the trust were to simultaneously file a form 1 for new machine gun and a form 4 to receive a transferable machine gun from an individual...

Lol That is definitely sig material right there. Someone needs to grab that.

Don't know. His home state is OK. So it would most likely be the examiner for OK.

If it was dissaproved on 8/29 I would think he should get something in mail very soon.

Wait, each state gets their own examiner?  Why on earth does everything seem to take so long then?

Undefined wrote:



The savvy antigunners (not the so-called "left") want the NFA -- and all the administrative penumbra surrounding it -- to remain in place because they want to use it as a prototype for regulating semiautomatics and, eventually, all handguns. That's exactly what Diane Feinstein tried to do with "assault weapons" following Sandy Hook. Instead of reinstituting a ban with grandfathering, as in 1994, she wanted to bring them all under the NFA, with transfer tax, ATF approval, etc. No outright confiscation that would trigger the "taking clause" (and require compensation) under the Constitution. In practice it would be a more effective ban, by far, than in 1994. Her proposal went nowhere that time, but in the future, who knows?

huehuehuehue

Examiners are assigned State or states but its not uncommon for someone else to show up on the form.

Vacation and workload can effect who signs.

yep, one pull of the trigger, and all the rounds go down range in seconds.

Actually had to fix my signature.

While I understand and agree with what your saying, popular support and publicity that reaches the pro gun crowd and lobbyists will be HUGE. I know there have been some articles already written but that is only reaching a fraction of the pro gun populace that would be willing to get behind this.

It would be beneficial to get a small group together and start reaching out. You don't have to get commitments from them but just touching base and then reading their reactions should give you an idea at what you are looking at. Then when ever you are ready to get serious make more official requests from those who y'all have deemed an appropriate fit. Obviously, this won't be done soon but needs to happen way before any legal actions are put in motion.

Also, need to think about when you want the "cat out of the bag" with these groups because they may get the ball rolling (unintentionally) and gain publicity before you are ready to push forward. Which may draw unwanted attention before you are ready to counter it.

People have to be aware of this. If they are aware then they can write congressmen, donate, etc.

Some ideas for publicity: Magazines (Guns and Ammo, SWAT, RECOIL, knife magazines, car magazines, mens health magazines etc) Youtube Channels, Twitter, Instagram, NRA, all the other pro gun orgs with power in Washington.

Every thing should be considered, no matter how unlikely it is they donate or support or no matter if you agree with some of their policies or not. You may have to get in bed with the devil if he has something useful to the cause. Some may say no thanks early on and then jump on the wagon at a later date.

I know y'all have some great legal minds working it but just thought I would throw out my opinion.

He read the employee handbook

That's how it used to be, but that's not how it is now.  There are no assignments anymore - they all work off the same pile.

Tell me if this theory is plausible or if I need to loosen my tinfoil a little more.

The ATF doesn't like people using trusts.  Obviously, they proposed 41P to lower the number of people using trusts to get NFA firearms.  No matter whether 41P is implemented as proposed, or it's something slightly less onerous, the ATF is going to be taken to court over it.  The ATF realizes they could lose this potential 41P court case, so they need a backup plan.  But trusts are listed in the NFA as entities that may possess firearms, so they can't just disallow all transfers to them.  They have to have the law actually modified by Congress.  But Congress won't bother to pass a bill removing trusts as valid entities from the NFA unless there's some urgent "problem" that needs to be fixed.

But now, everyone realizes a strict reading of the GCA means that trusts can manufacture and possess machine guns.  Someone devious at the ATF realizes that this could be the backup plan they've been looking for to solve their trust "problem" in case they lose a court case over 41P.  They purposely approve a few trust form 1'ed machine guns, then say "Durr, we made a mistake" and deny any more.  As we've seen ITT, the few approvals and subsequent rejections for everyone else afterwards guarantees that the ATF will be taken to court over this, too.  At this point, what happens next depends on what happens in the 41P case.  If the ATF wins the 41P case, then they've effectively eliminated trusts already.  They just hope they get a ruling that follows the "intent of Congress" line of thought on the trust form 1 machine gun case.

If ATF loses the 41P case, then they either just reverse themselves again and start approving trust form 1'ed machine guns, or purposely lose the form 1 machine gun case.  They do this because they need Congress to act and remove trusts as valid entities in the NFA.  What better way to do this than by dramatically increasing the number of machine guns owned by the general public?  Get a few anti-gunners beating the "OMG MACHINE GUNS ON OUR STREETS" drums and I'm guessing the odds are pretty good they'd get Congress to do the ATF's bidding and remove trusts from the NFA.  Even if the ATF wins the 41P case and loses the machine gun case, they still eliminate a lot of people as potential machine gun owners, because trusts wouldn't be valid any more.  Hell, they'd be able to confiscate a bunch of currently owned NFA firearms, because the trusts that own them wouldn't be valid any more.

Note that I'm not saying it's necessarily a bad idea to sue the ATF over either 41P or trust form 1'ed machine guns.  I just think they have an ulterior motive for the form 1 machine gun approvals and this might be why.  If it is in fact their strategy it's rather risky and could really backfire on them.  But if they succeeded they would get rid of trusts as valid NFA-possessing entities, which seems to be a high priority for the ATF.



Or the NFA Branch could just be a bunch of incompetents and they approved a bunch of form 1's by mistake because they didn't see "machine gun" in box 4b on all those form 1's.  

That's possible. But not policy(2011). They have a much extended staff now and they are running around with their heads cut off. Most dangerious is the assistants who precheck things. Checking for anything not right.

Ive been in the nfa world as a User of the system for a very long time.

Hang out in the Class 3 forum.  The NFA actually shares the info, it all makes its way here.  And as pointed out, that's old info.

So, since just letting this go would just generate more revenue/overtime/promotion opportunities for you and your co-workers, why not just let it go?

You make some points, And a lot of those things are on the agenda, but we have to get ourselves set up first.  

This whole thing kinda just sprang up a few days ago, and all the hard work you see, and don't see, had all been balanced against family time, and work, and the real world.  Hell one of the guys is having his birthday this weekend.  I'm typing this as my son is nodding off to sleep.

Hopefully we will know more tomorrow or Monday. It all depends on who replies to emails over the weekend and what gets decided
 A lot of stuff is up in the air.  But I do know that we do have friends and fans. And this is going somewhere real.