Did shit just get real, yo?

Neva gonna happen

Charlie Wilson brought back a Krinkov from afghanastan and was allowed to keep it on a form 10

I can't believe I'm saying this.....but I almost wish I lived in MS now.

 

Here's a cover letter I typed up for anyone interested in submitting any Form 1s.

I think I covered everything, but I'm not a lawyer, so if any of you legal types want to chime in and add/edit anything, feel free.

Also, the cover letter references the ATF letter to Brandon Maddox, so it would be in your best interest to print a copy of it and send it in with this cover letter.

PDF of ATF letter





Attention: NFA Examiner
National Firearms Branch
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
244 Needy Road, Suite 1250
Martinsburg, WV 25405


According to the Firearms Industry Programs Branch letter dated March 17, 2014 to Brandon Maddox of BMaddox Enterprises LLC, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) holds that unincorporated trusts are not “persons” as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a) and the Gun Control Act (GCA).


18 U.S. Code § 921(a) provides:

(1) The term “person” and the term “whoever” include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.



ATF further clarifies the character of the law by stating the following in the letter to Mr. Maddox:

  "ATF has interpreted the GCA exception in sections 922(t)(3)(B) and 478.102(d)(2) to mean that firearms transfers are exempt from a NICS check when they have been approved under the NFA to the person receiving the firearm.  Unlike individuals, corporations, partnerships, and associations; unincorporated trusts do not fall within the definition of “person” in the GCA."



Since ATF holds that an unincorporated trust is not a “person” under the GCA,  the prohibition on the transfer or possession of machineguns as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(1) and 18 U.S. Code § 922(o) cannot apply to unincorporated trusts.


18 U.S. Code § 922(o) provides:

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to–
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.



Therefore, included with this letter is an Application to Make and Register a Firearm (ATF Form 1 (5320.1)) and the appropriate accompanying documents, in order to register and pay the applicable tax on the manufacture a machinegun, as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(23) and 26 U.S. Code § 5845(b), on behalf of (((TRUST NAME))) Trust.



Sincerely,

(((NAME))) , Trustee

(((TRUST NAME))) Trust

Since when does ATF have to operate within their stated opinion letters?

This thread is relevant to my interests...  

Is there anyway to get a trust with opposable thumbs?

I'd be willing to pay a little more.

Transfer yourself as an individual from social security number to trust name?

Following your logic a trust can't form 1 any NFA item, as the person would have to form 1 the item then form 4 the item to the trust.



 

Quote History

Quoted:


Your dog could certainly be trained to hit the "GO" button on a CNC. Just sayin'...

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:

Quoted:
They're making this shit up as they go.  They'll keep making this shit up as they go.

Which means they'll make up a new rule when it comes to their attention that their previous one was stupid and bit them in the ass.

Yup, or fire the bitch ,and the next person "correct" it'

As far as the story in the OP. I think this has something to do with it  "the trustee or other person acting on behalf of a trust must undergo a NICS check". I assume the paper/trust won't be making the guns. You send off for the check/approval to make a MG, and it gets kicked back. What it sounds like to me anyway.

Figure out a way a trust can make a machine gun. Or make my dog a trustee and train him how to drill holes as my dog is not a person.

Your dog could certainly be trained to hit the "GO" button on a CNC. Just sayin'...

How hard would it be to get a chimp? They could do more than hit go...

And entities act through... persons.

922(o) has 2 exceptions allowing PERSONS to possess evil-baby-killing-death-black-machineguns

under authority of gov (aka Colt entity and it's individuals while acting on behalf of that entity)

or

pre-1986

IANAL, so I defer to the folks who are when they say the ATF done screwed up, but I'm definitely parsing that response differently.  This seems to be the crucial sentence:












 

They'd close the trust "loophole" before allowing any new machineguns in their enemies hands.

What's funny is any entity filing a form 1 could just as easily make a machinegun without permission.  It's only our law abiding honesty that prevents it.



 

There are far more MGs off of the NFA registry than on it, would be my guess.

Now my interest is piqued!  This is a tag

a general rule of thumb is around 10% compliance with registration of pretty much anything

I would also guess that the number of SBRs and SBSs off registry would be astronomical compared to the MG numbers.

Ron_Paul.gif

That may seem like the case for transfers (Form 4), but it may not be as clean cut for manufacturing (Form 1)

I'm not a lawyer or involved in the legal profession. In US V. Stewart in 2003, a case that I provided some layman research for, the 9th Circuit ruled that homemade machine guns didn't affect commerce and thus were not illegal under the FOPA. That opened the flood gates for for folks filing Form 1's for new MG's. It didn't make a difference in the grand scheme of things because BATF appealed the 9th's ruling to SCOTUS and sat on the applications until a ruling was handed down in Gonzales v. Raich. The  9th was asked to reconsider Stewart and use Raich as guidance and the 9th's original ruling was subsequently vacated.

It really is almost comical, isn't it?

The BATFE illegally ran guns into another country to make American gun owners look bad and encourage gun control, they do what the fuck they want.

Cut me a cheque for $200 and I will tell you to go to hell too.

How soon is your form 1 going out?  My trust's went out today



 

Feel free to use my cover letter if you send any more

Good thing the court ruled against that evil dope.   What a win for us.

you cant make this shit up.

This isn't going to work. The human being who "possesses" the post-86 machinegun is still in violation. Just like the human being who picks up the NFA item on behalf of a trust now has to be NICS'ed.

Then I guess all the "human beings" in the Department of Defense, Department of State, State and Local Police forces are in violation of the '86 ban.

The logic does not apply if there is a Form 1 submitted by a Trust.  After the Form 1 approval, any physical labor preformed in assembling the new MG would be treated no differently than you cleaning your suppressor or adding a different stock to your SBR.

With respect to Form 1s, THE TRUST is the applicant, not the Trustee.


I could see how your logic could make it to where Form 4 transfers would be in jeopardy, but with a Form 1, there is no point-of-sale and there is no "transfer".

ETA:  When you pick up a can on a Form 4 transfer, you are the transferee, and you then assign the newly acquired property to the trust.

With a Form 1, the application is made by the trust, and the item exists solely within the trust.  No transfer takes place.

None of which changes the simple fact that there is still 1) possession 2) by a person 3) of a post-86 machinegun. The whole point of this recent letter from the ATF is that for GCA purposes, the human being is the transferee. That's why the NICS check is required. And likewise, the human being is a possessor of the machinegun even if you adopt the position that the trust is the "maker" of it.

You have not read the government exception carefully enough. What it says is " a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof." The human beings who possess the machinegun in their official capacity do so under the authority of that governmental agency.

Section 2A addresses possession under the approval of the state.  It could be argued that once a form 1 is approved, their is possession under approval from the .gov agency no matter who the possessor is.



 

When you pick up a can, SBR, MG, etc on a Form 4 transfer, you are the transferee, and you then assign the newly acquired property to the trust.

With a Form 1, the application is made by the trust, and the item exists solely within the trust. No transfer takes place.

ETA: The same logic can be applied to trusts

Which would be a great argument if 922(o) only spoke of transfers, and did not prohibit POSSESSION.

Read the Code.

No it can't. There is no exception to 922(o) that makes possession of post-86 MGs legal for any human representatives of any non-governmental entity.

Again, read the fucking Code.

I like the cut of your jib, Sir.



 

Fucking good.

When their rulings are arbitrary and make zero logical sense, they become nothing more than "This is how I'm going to justify something because I don't like it."    Fuck them.  I hope this opens the door to unfettered machine gun ownership across the boards.  Fuck, I'll form a trust for the sake of owning another one.   And not because I need a fucking bullet hose, but because the ATF sucks.

No, it doesn't.  It prohibits possession by "persons".  

"Persons" are defined by the GCA as "any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company"

It specifically does not state trusts, which is what brings this whole question to light.

My posts referring to transfers were replies to your posts regarding the same.  Calm down.

I don't think you understand how 922(o) works.

Even if an entity owns the machinegun, the machinegun can only be possessed by actual individuals.  Such possession is only allowed for "under authority of Gov" and pre-1986 machineguns.

There isn't a question. Are you (human being) a "person?" Are you holding or otherwise exercising dominion and control over a machinegun made or imported after May 19, 1986? If yes and you're not doing so under authority of a government agency, then you're in violation of 922(o) regardless of who made or owns the MG, and regardless of whether any transfer is involved.

In the world of interpreting statutes, something I get paid to do regularly, this is an easy one.

God speed, Nolo!





I had an odd thought regarding this. Lets assume for a moment that you're not acting as the proxy or agent of the trust in the purchase or manufacture, but must privately take possession/manufacture first before transferring it onto the trust...

Could you not have a friendly (and trustworthy) SOT FFL make the MG, add that FFL holding corporation as a trustee, have them put it on the trust, and then remove them as a trustee?

This is precisely the issue. Even if we indulge the notion that trust can make a MG on paper, no human being can actually possess it and there's no way around that because of 922(o).

Then explain Dealer Samples to me.

Possessed by a dealer under the authority of a government agency in the form of a formal demo request letter from the agency.

That was easy.

There's a lot of softballs in this thread. Complete non-issues for those who haven't fallen and can't reach their code books.

I thought it was illegal to possess an unregistered machinegun.

If nothing else, it seems it would be legal to transfer a pre sample to a trust because the pre sample was legally possessed before 1986.