User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 5:49:46 PM EDT
[#1]
It matters more how the state of Washington interprets the word person and if that includes trusts.
I haven't looked at the RCW's so I have no idea. But if it did I would think someone would have done it by now. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 5:53:51 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It matters more how the state of Washington interprets the word person and if that includes trusts. I haven't looked at the RCW's so I have no idea. But if it did I would think someone would have done it by now. Good points. I'll edit the OP |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 7:07:36 PM EDT
[#3]
it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun You, the person, are an agent or trustee of the trust, but that doesn't mean you're not a person. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 7:39:06 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You, the person, are an agent or trustee of the trust, but that doesn't mean you're not a person. Quote HistoryQuoted:
it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun You, the person, are an agent or trustee of the trust, but that doesn't mean you're not a person. I'm not sure of the answer regarding person vs trust, but you could still submit the Form 1. The Form 1 is an application to make it. Essentially it is your permission slip. So, you could have permission to build it (possess the stamp), but not actually manufacture/use/blah blah. Keep that Form 1 handy in case you ever move elsewhere where MG is legal. You don't violate WA law unless you build it. It isn't against WA law to have permission to build it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 8:28:09 PM EDT
[#5]
anyone file a form 1 yet
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:15:42 PM EDT
[#6]
Is this what you are thinking? http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2014/09/atf-approves-some-form-1-to-ma.html
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:45:15 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is this what you are thinking? http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2014/09/atf-approves-some-form-1-to-ma.html Yes. If the legal battle goes our way we may indeed be able to form 1 MGs by filing them through a Trust. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/16/2014 9:53:44 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You, the person, are an agent or trustee of the trust, but that doesn't mean you're not a person. Quote HistoryQuoted:
it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun You, the person, are an agent or trustee of the trust, but that doesn't mean you're not a person. Is there an exemption for FFLs? ETA: It still doesn't seem that open and shut. Not that I want to be a test subject. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 12:45:41 AM EDT
[#9]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 1:08:12 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote History(b) A person, including an employee of such person if the employee has undergone fingerprinting and a background check, who or which is exempt from or licensed under federal law, and engaged in the production, manufacture, repair, or testing of machine guns, short-barreled shotguns, or short-barreled rifles: If this did happen you would be. A. Exempt from current federal law (Hughes amendment) B. Manufacturing machine guns Would that be to weak of an argument to hold? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 1:41:56 PM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: In case you missed it. Do to a new determination on Trusts newly manufactured machine guns may be a reality. Now it is my understanding that we are not allowed to own MGs in this State as a person. How does Washington State determine Trusts? Does this new ATF determination impact us? Thread explaining all of it The supposed loophole, which the ATF has backtracked from, doesn't actually do anything useful... Even if the ATF gave a trust a stamp (and didn't rescind it, like they did every one that was sent out due to this angle, to-date), it's still likely going to be illegal for *trustees* (who are legal people) to posess/shoot the gun associated with the stamp.... So your trust would be able to own a gun, that could only be handled by a SOT... Not much help... Hughes would still apply to the trustees because they are 'people' but not covered by the 3rd exception.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 9:09:40 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The supposed loophole, which the ATF has backtracked from, doesn't actually do anything useful... Even if the ATF gave a trust a stamp (and didn't rescind it, like they did every one that was sent out due to this angle, to-date), it's still likely going to be illegal for *trustees* (who are legal people) to posess/shoot the gun associated with the stamp.... So your trust would be able to own a gun, that could only be handled by a SOT... Not much help... Hughes would still apply to the trustees because they are 'people' but not covered by the 3rd exception.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
In case you missed it. Do to a new determination on Trusts newly manufactured machine guns may be a reality. Now it is my understanding that we are not allowed to own MGs in this State as a person. How does Washington State determine Trusts? Does this new ATF determination impact us? Thread explaining all of it The supposed loophole, which the ATF has backtracked from, doesn't actually do anything useful... Even if the ATF gave a trust a stamp (and didn't rescind it, like they did every one that was sent out due to this angle, to-date), it's still likely going to be illegal for *trustees* (who are legal people) to posess/shoot the gun associated with the stamp.... So your trust would be able to own a gun, that could only be handled by a SOT... Not much help... Hughes would still apply to the trustees because they are 'people' but not covered by the 3rd exception.... But how would trustees be any different than employees of SOT's? Both are people, who by virtue of their status as employees/trustees are something more. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 9:33:14 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: But how would trustees be any different than employees of SOT's? Both are people, who by virtue of their status as employees/trustees are something more. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: In case you missed it. Do to a new determination on Trusts newly manufactured machine guns may be a reality. Now it is my understanding that we are not allowed to own MGs in this State as a person. How does Washington State determine Trusts? Does this new ATF determination impact us? Thread explaining all of it The supposed loophole, which the ATF has backtracked from, doesn't actually do anything useful... Even if the ATF gave a trust a stamp (and didn't rescind it, like they did every one that was sent out due to this angle, to-date), it's still likely going to be illegal for *trustees* (who are legal people) to posess/shoot the gun associated with the stamp.... So your trust would be able to own a gun, that could only be handled by a SOT... Not much help... Hughes would still apply to the trustees because they are 'people' but not covered by the 3rd exception.... But how would trustees be any different than employees of SOT's? Both are people, who by virtue of their status as employees/trustees are something more. Because a SOT (and employees) have a federal license & are thus acting 'under the authority of the United States'. There are 2 exemptions to 922(o) - 'Authority of the United States' and 'lawfully posessed before the date this subsection takes effect'. Post-86 weapons must fall under the 'Authority of the United States' section - which means government owned-and-issued, or SOT, or it's illegal. Unlike an FFL/SOT, NFA stamps don't count as 'Authority of the United States' - if they did, then 922(o) would not have banned anything... And if the FFL/SOT did not fit the 'Authority' exemption, then they would not be allowed to have posties... |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/17/2014 9:39:17 PM EDT
[#14]
P.S. I'd post that in the GD thread, but (a) I'd get accused of party-pooping by the usual suspects, and (b) I can't post in GD...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 3:10:03 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there an exemption for FFLs? ETA: It still doesn't seem that open and shut. Not that I want to be a test subject. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun You, the person, are an agent or trustee of the trust, but that doesn't mean you're not a person. Is there an exemption for FFLs? ETA: It still doesn't seem that open and shut. Not that I want to be a test subject. There is for FFL's with SOT's. They can have a SBR, SBS, MG, etc under their business license. For MG, they can purchase "transferable", and "preMay" MG without a "love letter". MG made after May '86, need a letter (love letter) from the chief of police (from any location) to purchase a specific MG. Note that all of the transfers must be still approved by the ATF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/18/2014 11:47:24 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There is for FFL's with SOT's. They can have a SBR, SBS, MG, etc under their business license. For MG, they can purchase "transferable", and "preMay" MG without a "love letter". MG made after May '86, need a letter (love letter) from the chief of police (from any location) to purchase a specific MG. Note that all of the transfers must be still approved by the ATF. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: it is unlawful for any person to manufacture, own, buy, sell, loan, furnish, transport, or have in possession or under control, any machine gun You, the person, are an agent or trustee of the trust, but that doesn't mean you're not a person. Is there an exemption for FFLs? ETA: It still doesn't seem that open and shut. Not that I want to be a test subject. There is for FFL's with SOT's. They can have a SBR, SBS, MG, etc under their business license. For MG, they can purchase "transferable", and "preMay" MG without a "love letter". MG made after May '86, need a letter (love letter) from the chief of police (from any location) to purchase a specific MG. Note that all of the transfers must be still approved by the ATF. All of that falls under exemption (A) - Authority of the United States... Non-FFL/LE/MIL ownership is covered by exemption (B), which only applies to pre-May guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/23/2014 4:41:14 PM EDT
[#17]
What you need to do is start a small city, designate yourself the Chief of Police and then start buying select fire weapons in the name of the department.
|
|
|
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.
