User Panel
Um it doesn't matter because there are no laws any more. Only the ever fickle and dynamic interpretations of laws.
|
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote This is exactly what I am thinking. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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 BATFE can, and has, rescinded opinions provided in them.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. |
|
|
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? |
|
Quoted:
Technical, like "if the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit"? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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. |
|
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. |
|
Either way, I am really looking forward to Nola's commentary on this.
|
|
|
Quoted: Alright. Who's going to submit a Form 1? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted: 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 |
|
Quoted:
No, you're the first one to ever think about that. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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 |
|
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. View Quote 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. |
|
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? |
|
Quoted:
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? View Quote Pretty much the same thing I am getting. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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 :-) |
|
|
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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... |
|
I think I will just sit back and watch the fun...
Having a trust I would love to F1 a lower into a MG.
|
|
Quoted:
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? View Quote 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. |
|
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. |
|
Quoted:
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? View Quote What is a "simi lower?" |
|
Made in Simi, CA.....north of Santa Rosa or Simi Valley, CA near LA.
|
|
Quoted:
Hasn't there been some "special" cases where people were allowed to register new machine guns? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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» |
|
|
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. View Quote 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. |
|
"...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? |
|
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... |
|
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.
|
|
Quoted:
Hasn't there been some "special" cases where people were allowed to register new machine guns? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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. |
|
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes 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. |
|
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. View Quote 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. |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote 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. |
|
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.
|
|
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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? |
|
Quoted:
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. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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? |
|
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.