User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:16:01 AM EDT
[#1]
Um it doesn't matter because there are no laws any more. Only the ever fickle and dynamic interpretations of laws.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:16:43 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So they basically have crafted themselves into syntactically mutually-exclusive scenarios when it comes to NFA weapons and unincorporated trusts? They cannot simultaneously hold that a trust is not a person and then deny that non-person entity the authority to manufacture a new machinegun on a Form 1. The problem with this is that if, through some miraculous alignment of the planets they allowed this to follow to its logical end and quietly allow trusts to manufacture new machineguns, the window of opportunity to accomplish this will likely be measured in days or weeks until some clarifying rule is put into place or legislation snuck through. This is exactly what I am thinking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:18:43 AM EDT
[#3]
TAG
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:18:43 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
They probably will, but if a trust is a person in the revised opinion they will have to perform some other mental gymnastics to require the NICS check. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Holy S***! Yeah, it is a technicality, but the point is valid. However, can the ATF simply reverse its opinion about what a person is on a whim -- if it decides that the outcome of one position is less desirable than the other? Yes, the letter is just an advisory opinion. BATFE can, and has, rescinded opinions provided in them. They probably will, but if a trust is a person in the revised opinion they will have to perform some other mental gymnastics to require the NICS check. And I think the ATF has been eating their own dog food for so long that the judiciary has begun asking questions about how they collectively support their position with the law. You can see some of the logic cracks in their PGO non-NFA shotgun 'firearm', the Sig Brace, the muzzle break ruling and subsequent challenge by Sig on identical grounds. When an organization gets down in the weeds with semantics, minutiae, and technicalities, I can't believe it has taken this long for the citizenry to start looking at things the same way. They are being hoisted by their own petard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:21:16 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Holy S***! Yeah, it is a technicality, but the point is valid. Technical, like "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:23:19 AM EDT
[#6]
There is no reason not to fill out the paper work.
Just like a SBR send off for the stamp get the stamp build the gun. The worse they could do is take your $200 and say no. Because a lower is simi lower still a simi lower till its been drilled and milled. and if some paper pusher approves it? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:24:03 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Technical, like "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Holy S***! Yeah, it is a technicality, but the point is valid. Technical, like "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"? More like "You can't have your cake and eat it, too." They have to decide if unincorporated trusts are "persons" or not. Either position has implications. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:24:55 AM EDT
[#8]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:25:11 AM EDT
[#9]
Either way, I am really looking forward to Nola's commentary on this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:25:16 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you guys realize how fucking absurd it is you have to fill out forms and send paperwork off to a government organization so you can do something with an object? Your car? And yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:25:28 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Alright. Who's going to submit a Form 1? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: That's a stretch It's not. Just like a trust, corporations aren't "people" either. Alright. Who's going to submit a Form 1? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:25:32 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No, you're the first one to ever think about that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Do you guys realize how fucking absurd it is you have to fill out forms and send paperwork off to a government organization so you can do something with an object? No, you're the first one to ever think about that. lmao |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:25:57 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
..... The problem with this is that if, through some miraculous alignment of the planets they allowed this to follow to its logical end and quietly allow trusts to manufacture new machineguns, the window of opportunity to accomplish this will likely be measured in days or weeks until some clarifying rule is put into place or legislation snuck through. And that is why I'll be printing up a couple Form 1's this weekend. Anyone know what an HK auto-sear/sear pack form 1 looks like? What do we have to lose? I'm already on their list. I suspect you are as well. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:37:42 AM EDT
[#14]
To make sure I understand the implications...
BATFE ruled Trusts as a non-person... so the human picking up the NFA item on behalf of the Trust need to have a NICS check done on them. Do I have this quagmire right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:41:20 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To make sure I understand the implications... BATFE ruled Trusts as a non-person... so the human picking up the NFA item on behalf of the Trust need to have a NICS check done on them.If BATFE ruled a Trust to be a person... the human picking up the NFA item on behalf of the Trust would NOT need a NICS check done.Since the BATFE ruled a trust as a non-person... the prohibition in 922(o) of the GCA on a 'person' manufacturing or possessing a post-86 machine gundoes not apply to trusts. Do I have this quagmire right? Pretty much the same thing I am getting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 12:56:06 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And that is why I'll be printing up a couple Form 1's this weekend. Anyone know what an HK auto-sear/sear pack form 1 looks like? What do we have to lose? I'm already on their list. I suspect you are as well. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
..... The problem with this is that if, through some miraculous alignment of the planets they allowed this to follow to its logical end and quietly allow trusts to manufacture new machineguns, the window of opportunity to accomplish this will likely be measured in days or weeks until some clarifying rule is put into place or legislation snuck through. And that is why I'll be printing up a couple Form 1's this weekend. Anyone know what an HK auto-sear/sear pack form 1 looks like? What do we have to lose? I'm already on their list. I suspect you are as well. Me? Why? Just because I have a form 1'd live frag grenade? I am not opposed to poking the bear :-) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 1:11:49 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you guys realize how fucking absurd it is you have to fill out forms and send paperwork off to a government organization so you can do something with an object? So your married too ehh?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 1:18:23 AM EDT
[#18]
So in this case, straw purchases are ok.
Got it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 1:28:20 AM EDT
[#19]
I'm thinking this is a pipe dream.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 1:32:11 AM EDT
[#20]
You first
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 1:43:01 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So in this case, straw purchases are ok. Got it. I suppose only if an unincorporated trust can be classified as a prohibited person, but they ruled it is a nonperson, and I don't think there is such a thing as a prohibited nonperson. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 1:52:50 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I suppose only if an unincorporated trust can be classified as a prohibited person, but they ruled it is a nonperson, and I don't think there is such a thing as a prohibited nonperson. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So in this case, straw purchases are ok. Got it. I suppose only if an unincorporated trust can be classified as a prohibited person, but they ruled it is a nonperson, and I don't think there is such a thing as a prohibited nonperson. I'm sure the BATFE can do the mental gymnastics to make it so... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 2:29:44 AM EDT
[#23]
I think I will just sit back and watch the fun...
Having a trust I would love to F1 a lower into a MG.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 2:46:19 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
However, can the ATF simply reverse its opinion about what a person is on a whim -- if it decides that the outcome of one position is less desirable than the other? ATF can reverse their opinion on anything any time they want, and can throw the book at you even if they gave that first opinion to you in writing. The written law doesn't really mean anything anymore. This is only about what they think they can get away with. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 2:53:24 AM EDT
[#25]
Stranger things have happened.
I grew up thinking that the 94 AWB will get renewed and life will never be the same. here we are today. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 2:59:39 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is no reason not to fill out the paper work. Just like a SBR send off for the stamp get the stamp build the gun. The worse they could do is take your $200 and say no. Because a lower is simi lower still a simi lower till its been drilled and milled. and if some paper pusher approves it? What is a "simi lower?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 3:35:46 AM EDT
[#27]
Made in Simi, CA.....north of Santa Rosa or Simi Valley, CA near LA.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 3:59:28 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hasn't there been some "special" cases where people were allowed to register new machine guns? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
ATF probably did this knowingly so they could backdoor machine guns onto the registry for liberal elites. Hasn't there been some "special" cases where people were allowed to register new machine guns? GWB has saddams G18 and said he had fun shooting it at the ranch. Think about that for a moment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 5:23:48 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So they basically have crafted themselves into syntactically mutually-exclusive scenarios when it comes to NFA weapons and unincorporated trusts? They cannot simultaneously hold that a trust is not a person and then deny that non-person entity the authority to manufacture a new machinegun on a Form 1. The problem with this is that if, through some miraculous alignment of the planets they allowed this to follow to its logical end and quietly allow trusts to manufacture new machineguns, the window of opportunity to accomplish this will likely be measured in days or weeks until some clarifying rule is put into place or legislation snuck through. Ha. This is the .gov we're talking about. What's more, it's the ATF. For your consideration, a link. Oh, and... 
__________________________________________________________________ Cross-platform electronic bound book (original thread). PGP public key. «nolite confidere in principibus, in filiis hominum quibus non est salus» |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 5:39:45 AM EDT
[#30]
Words have consequences.
Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 5:41:34 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You first What are you scared of? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 6:22:32 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 6:31:19 AM EDT
[#33]
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The way it reads to me "people" are able to make machine guns while trusts may not be allowed to. Or am I reading something wrong? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 6:35:08 AM EDT
[#34]
There is no good sane reason an American can't buy a new manufacture machine gun
And dont take that to mean people cant own the old ones... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 7:10:48 AM EDT
[#35]
In for the results
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 7:13:24 AM EDT
[#36]
If ATf was smart they'd allow it. Job security. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 7:21:01 AM EDT
[#37]
/filling out Form 1.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 7:30:20 AM EDT
[#38]
Tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 7:35:52 AM EDT
[#39]
Taggage
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 7:42:49 AM EDT
[#40]
Sure, they'll approve the transfer to the trust, then charge the trustee with possessing an unregistered machinegun when he picks it up. Because a person has to pick up the machinegun, not the piece of paper that is the trust.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 7:43:18 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hasn't there been some "special" cases where people were allowed to register new machine guns? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
ATF probably did this knowingly so they could backdoor machine guns onto the registry for liberal elites. Hasn't there been some "special" cases where people were allowed to register new machine guns? Yes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 7:43:23 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Tempted to form 1 one of my AR lowers as an MG tomorrow. That may be the only way to honestly find out....but don't worry, they will change it real quick. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 7:52:53 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 7:59:49 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sure, they'll approve the transfer to the trust, then charge the trustee with possessing an unregistered machinegun when he picks it up. Because a person has to pick up the machinegun, not the piece of paper that is the trust. Won't work that way. Any person listed on the trust is part of the trust. The legal nightmare the ATF has jumped into with this is mind blowing. The more I think about it and the more I realize that ATF hasn't looked at some very important court cases and Federal law.... well folks, they done fucked up in a major way. Will the ban be nullified? I'd say there is a 20-30% chance. I'm not going to go into detail until I have a chance to talk to a few people but I think this also is going to do severe damage on a few other fronts in the firearms field that is going to make ATF cringe bad. The libtards are going to be screaming bloody murder over this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 8:00:38 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Bloomberg, Soros, Gates, Buffett, et al, would spend every penny they ever had to keep that from ever happening. It's the world we live in now. And I'm okay with that. It's not like it's going to happen anyway. Let those fuckholes spend their money fighting something like this, rather than issues where they actually stand a chance of infringing on our rights. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 8:04:35 AM EDT
[#46]
Tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 8:05:02 AM EDT
[#47]
When I read this last night, I was tempted to send in a Form 1 on a homemade full auto just to see what would happen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 8:15:21 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a stretch technically, its the "letter of the law"... but not the intent of the law... or maybe case law? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 8:18:50 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Won't work that way. Any person listed on the trust is part of the trust. The legal nightmare the ATF has jumped into with this is mind blowing. The more I think about it and the more I realize that ATF hasn't looked at some very important court cases and Federal law.... well folks, they done fucked up in a major way. Will the ban be nullified? I'd say there is a 20-30% chance. I'm not going to go into detail until I have a chance to talk to a few people but I think this also is going to do severe damage on a few other fronts in the firearms field that is going to make ATF cringe bad. The libtards are going to be screaming bloody murder over this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sure, they'll approve the transfer to the trust, then charge the trustee with possessing an unregistered machinegun when he picks it up. Because a person has to pick up the machinegun, not the piece of paper that is the trust. Won't work that way. Any person listed on the trust is part of the trust. The legal nightmare the ATF has jumped into with this is mind blowing. The more I think about it and the more I realize that ATF hasn't looked at some very important court cases and Federal law.... well folks, they done fucked up in a major way. Will the ban be nullified? I'd say there is a 20-30% chance. I'm not going to go into detail until I have a chance to talk to a few people but I think this also is going to do severe damage on a few other fronts in the firearms field that is going to make ATF cringe bad. The libtards are going to be screaming bloody murder over this. Hard_Rock, I'm always interested to read your posts and we've chatted privately as well. However, over the years I've read a lot of big things from you but never actually seen anything even peek from it. With all your inside perspective is there any thing you might be able to share with us? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2014 8:19:04 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Won't work that way. Any person listed on the trust is part of the trust. The legal nightmare the ATF has jumped into with this is mind blowing. The more I think about it and the more I realize that ATF hasn't looked at some very important court cases and Federal law.... well folks, they done fucked up in a major way. Will the ban be nullified? I'd say there is a 20-30% chance. I'm not going to go into detail until I have a chance to talk to a few people but I think this also is going to do severe damage on a few other fronts in the firearms field that is going to make ATF cringe bad. The libtards are going to be screaming bloody murder over this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sure, they'll approve the transfer to the trust, then charge the trustee with possessing an unregistered machinegun when he picks it up. Because a person has to pick up the machinegun, not the piece of paper that is the trust. Won't work that way. Any person listed on the trust is part of the trust. The legal nightmare the ATF has jumped into with this is mind blowing. The more I think about it and the more I realize that ATF hasn't looked at some very important court cases and Federal law.... well folks, they done fucked up in a major way. Will the ban be nullified? I'd say there is a 20-30% chance. I'm not going to go into detail until I have a chance to talk to a few people but I think this also is going to do severe damage on a few other fronts in the firearms field that is going to make ATF cringe bad. The libtards are going to be screaming bloody murder over this. But is the person acting in a trust considered a person or a trust? That's the technicality. If a trustee is considered a trust what other cases can support this? |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
