////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

This thread got the ball rolling on Hollis v. Holder, for current news and developments on the Post '86 Machine Gun Lawsuits, visit Nolo's thread:
Hollis v. Holder, Watson v. Holder

To donate to the legal fund, follow this link to the Heller Foundation:
https://hellerfoundation.org/donate-now/




////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Posted: 5/14/2014



Read about it here:

http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/05/14/did-atfs-determination-on-nics-checks-open-the-door-for-manufacture-of-new-machineguns-for-trusts/

I know it's a long shot, but this could have seriously implications.

ETA 5/15/14:

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 Act 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





ETA: 5/21/14


The Firearm Blog ran an article on this a few days ago:

Prince Law Asserts: ATF Opens the Door for New Machine Guns in Trusts?






***Four months of Silence.***  

***No one heard any new developments on this until September.***






ETA :  9/10/14


On Page 9 a Form 1 came back approved for a new Machine Gun.  Jaqufrost was quickly contacted by the ATF saying he has to send back the stamp.

This thing is growing legs and will probably go to court.  Stand by, because we will surely need contributions to a legal fund if it goes to court.

All things considered,  this looks like a realistic opportunity at taking back out rights to Machine Guns.  If this fight starts moving forward,  it's going to take a monumental amount of commitment to see it through.  Hold fast, everyone.  We're going to need all hands on deck for this one.




ETA: 9/11/14


The audio of the ATF call on page 18 (thanks Jaqufrost):







ETA: 9/12/14



FAQ - - for the tl;dr crowd
(Started by Undefined, edited by Orpheus762x51)


What’s happening?

1. ATF ruled that a trust is not a person as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a) and the Gun Control Act (GCA).
2. 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.
3. Numerous (See Footnote #1) trustees submitted Form 1 applications to build new machine guns.
4. ATF approved the applications and sent out stamps (See Footnote #2).
5. On or around 9/10/14, ATF began calling trustees that received stamps demanding that they be returned, or in the case of eForms, updating their online status from Approved to Disapproved. Those that were called were told they had to return the stamp. (See Footnote #3 for audio of one such call)
6. Attorneys are working on it now...

Footnotes:
1. Current estimates put the number of trusts that applied somewhere in the low hundreds. Unfortunately, there is no 100% accurate count that is publicly available.
2. Some stamps were received as early as the first week of August 2014. Others have not been received yet.
3. Jaqufrost's call from the ATF:


























Does this mean if I have a trust I can get Form 1s approved to build machine guns?

No. BATFE is no longer sending out approvals. Your application will be rejected.


Should I submit a Form 1 through a trust right now?

Yes.  As of right now, the ATF is aware of what is going on with these Form 1s.  Your submission will likely be rejected, however it would add you to a class of trustees who have standing against the ATF in the event of future legal action.  Even though your Form 1 application will likely be denied, it would be helpful to submit a Form 1.


What should I do if I was one of the trustees that submitted a Form 1 and received approval?

Presto97sl summed it up pretty well (see below). I would add that you should contact NoloContendere via IM and at [email protected] as he is a rally point right now for coordinating and tracking efforts on this issue.
Here is what Nolo wants, in this particular order:
1) if you received an approval and subsequent to that approval manufactured And then had a disapproval.
2) if you received an approval and then were denied.
3) if you filed a form 1 and were denied.




What can the rest of us do to help?

1. Keep the thread bumped.
2. Submit a Form 1 to manufacture a machine gun through a trust.
3. Stand by.

Where can I send donations?

Nowhere, yet! There will be a time and place for that, but no one wants to start collecting money until we know how and where it will be spent. Plaintiffs are discussing options with attorneys right now. Attorneys are working on a plan right now. As soon as funding is needed, it will be requested (after getting Strykers approval). Until then, be patient.

So the OP has an approved Form 1 and a machine gun?

No.  Orpheus762x51 started this thread and is keeping Arfcom updated on the situation.  Jaqufrost did receive an approval on his Form 1, then the ATF subsequently demanded that it be returned.  Undefined, NoloContendere, I_am_Dan, and a few others in this thread are just plain awesome.

How do I Submit a Form 1?

For paper Forms:   Complete Guide of how to complete a Form 1

For eForms:   Visual guide: How to fill out a Form 1 using EFORMS





ETA:  9/13/14


The die has been cast on Page 36.





So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.  
One of the first machine guns produced in civilian hands in nearly thirty years...
With ATF approval.



Yes.  You heard right.


A machine gun.  


Manufactured after 1986.


With ATF Form 1 approval.  



Is in the WILD!!!





Also, this issue has been making it's way around the internet in the form of several articles in just a couple days:

The Firearm Blog: ATF Approves Post-86 Machine Gun Form 1

The Firearm Blog: BATFE Phone Call Asking For Return of Approved Trust Form 1

The Truth About Guns: ATF Just Approved the First New Civilian Machine Gun in 28 Years. By Accident.

NFA Gun Trust Lawyer Blog: ATF Approves some Form 1 to Make Machine Guns by a Gun Trust and then Rescinds the Approval

Prince Law Offices, P. C. : Did ATF Approve Your Making of a New Machinegun and Then Rescind It? Contact Us To Discuss






ETA: 9/15/14  



A side note to anyone anticipating a "run" on auto parts:


***disclaimer***

This is NOT advice on what to do/aquire, this is only a brief insight that I have gained through my examination of ATF policy, manufacturer behavior, and the laws as written and interpreted.

/disclaimer


In the case of the AR15, BATFE considers a machine gun to be "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger" (taken from 26 USC 5845 (b)).

Now, there has been determination letters over the years that state anything from mere possession of auto parts is illegal possession of a machine gun, all the way up to it's not a machine gun unless it explicitly meets the definition in 26 USC 5845.

The safest play is not to mess with auto parts.

That being said, mechanically speaking, a M16 trigger assembly, by itself, will not make an AR15 fire automatically. You still need a sear and a M16 selector.

Whether or not that puts your rifle in the "readily restored/readily convertable" catagory, I have no idea. I know there was some case back in the 30's or 40's where BATFE essentially came out and said "if it can be made to fire full auto after 8 hours in a machine shop, it's readily convertable"  

Some savvy machinists later demonstrated that a simple sub machine gun could be made from raw bar stock in less time, and everyone laughed at the ATF.

All that being said, there are examples out there of early Colt SP1s, pre AWB ARs, and others that essentially use all the M16 FCG parts, minus the sear and selector, and I don't see ATF hauling off the undoubtedly thousands of people who have rifles with that combination of parts.

Also, I know that when Geissele was making their commemorative John Noveske triggers, those were select fire
trigger groups. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that everyone who bought and used the Noveske SSF triggers either owns a pre-86 transferable or are committing a felony?  

Negative Ghost Rider.

I have no idea how many people out there are using M16 trigger groups in their ARs, but I would be willing to say with confidence, the answer is "more than you think".

However, if you do like the dumb ass in Wisconsin and put a M16 trigger, BCG, and selector in your AR, go find some shitty ammo combination that makes it slam fire 3-5 round bursts, and then brag about it while shooting it at your local range.... better pepper your angus






ETA: 9/16/14


An excerpt from page 59, according to Nolo, it looks like this issue may have the potential to strike at the heart of the NFA:




Be patient everyone.  This is going to take time, money, and faith.



ETA 9/18/14:

According to NoloContendere on page 66,  at least 2 lawsuits are in the works already.

Keep your heads high everyone, the ball is rolling.



ETA 10/7/14:

From Page 82:





ETA 10/10/14:


The legal team is now accepting donations!


http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk









ETA 10/11/14:

NoloContendere's Freedom of Information Act request:






ETA 10/14/14:


Today I started sharing the donation link on twitter.

#Stop922o
Take back our #2A right to machine guns! http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk?pc=tw_f_m





ETA 10/31/14:   Last one out, get the lights!


I'll keep this short and sweet.  This will be my last update to this thread.

NoloContendre has started a new thread on the lawsuit targeted at 922(o) here:

http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1681489_Hollis_v__Holder___Lawsuit_over_922_o___NFA_and_various_other_items.html&page=1


Gentlemen, it has been an honor and a pleasure posting with you over the past few months.

Regardless of the outcome, the reward, or where this journey will take us, know this: There is victory in our resolve.

Many doubt us, indeed many demonize us, but today we just fired a righteous shot across the bow of those who continue to restrict our liberty.

Onward to victory!


Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.

-Thomas Jefferson

LOL, they're not gonna let that happen.

In before ATF does a no knock on OP.

I wonder if I could get a quick loan for a minigun.

That's a stretch

I don't see it happening.





Prince Law is the Massad Ayoob of the NFA world.

Should I hug my dag now?

There's a significant difference between what the letter of the law and its rulings might seem to state, and how they're actually going to be applied in the real world.

Sadly, I don't think ATF is going to buy it this time.

I didn't think it was that much of a stretch. We all know the ATF doesn't play by any set of rules, though.

 

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?

Would be cool, but it's not going to happen.

And besides, their logic is that a trust could manufacture a new machine gun. How the hell does a trust do that?  It doesn't.
You manufacture a machine gun and put it into the trust and you were the one that illegally manufactured it, not the trust.

True, but one has to wonder what would happen if they were suddenly inundated with Form 1s citing this as the reason.

Granted,  no good would come out of it.... and it would probably make NFA transfers slow down even more.

FPNI
But it be funny as hell to find a sympathetic judge that used their logic.  

I do know I do not want to be the test cast

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.

ATF to peasants. Psyc LOLZ

Not so sure about that.

When you Form 1 an item, you engrave it with the trust, not the actual person who did the work.

Using a manufacturer as an example, Colt doesn't engrave their Title I firearms with "Bob from CT" on the side.  They put the "manufacturer" name "Colt."

I think a trust filing a Form I would be the actual manufacturer, not the trustee, or owner of the trust.

One Vulcan Cannon, please.

ATF probably did this knowingly so they could backdoor machine guns onto the registry for liberal elites.

Logic, reason, the US Constitution, and rule of law mean jack shit to the BATFE.

Hasn't there been some "special" cases where people were allowed to register new machine guns?

It's not.  Just like a trust, corporations aren't "people" either.

Charlie Wilson's krink. Kind of, form 10ed but he kept it in his possession. Being a congressman has its perks I guess

Alright. Who's going to submit a Form 1?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

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?

If someone was willing to carry this issue to the end, I'll go on record as being willing to pitch in for someone to Form I a Sten kit or something.

No, you're the first one to ever think about that.

I hear Obama supports new machine guns

The alternatives are not pleasant:

A.  Don't obtain the item.
B.  Make it illegally and deal with the potential for criminal charges, loss of rights due to felony charges, etc.

If neither of the above is acceptable to you, you know what you have to do.

Dang!  That's gonna cost me some money.

But theoretically could a trust Form 10 a new-manufacture MG and possess it within the trust?


NM.. I just read the ATF Form 10-- Government Entity.
I wasn't familiar with that particular form.


ETA:  Is a congressman really a "government entity?"  I am not familiar with this case.

This is exciting.

Maybe exciting for a big let down?

Dunno, CEO?  COO?

Someone try it and post up what happens.  Really, all they can do is say "no" and if the right legal type takes it on it could go somewhere.

FPNI.



The ATFE allowing new machine guns?



That's almost as likely as the Libertarian Party winning the White House in 2016.



 

Tempted to form 1 one of my AR lowers as an MG tomorrow.

Yes, the letter is just an advisory opinion.  BATFE can, and has, rescinded opinions provided in them.

I don't think so.  The definition is in the 1968 GCA.  It would take an act of congress to change it.  This definitely opens a lot of doors real wide.  No matter what, I see this going to court.  I don't know how it's going to turn out but I think DOJ and ATF really fucked up this time.

Do you have the cash to sue when it is denied?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

The person from the ATF they are talking about, Helen Koppe was did my first compliance inspection.

Filling out my form 1 now.

You like sophistry?

Then this likely only forces them to choose to either back off of their position on trusts as being non-persons-- although I am sure they are trying to figure out how to have their cake and eat it as we speak.

So post-1986 machine guns can be transferred to my corporation?  Sweet.

Let us know how well it works put for you!

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.

I wouldn't call it a technicality... technically.

Everything is lawful, by default, in the USA unless there is a specific law making it illegal.  

I hate the notion of 'loophole' or 'technicality' when it comes to laws. It always makes it seem like someone is trying to skirt 'the law', as if the corrupt legislatures that pass most of this drivel actually have the Constitutional authority to enact such draconian garbage.

In any case.... anything to stick it in the eye of Ronald Reagan's corpse over the '86 ban.

Probably not going to pan out but damn interesting...

Not particularly.  And I'm not entirely sure I see where you are going with that.

Taking a stab, however, I have no issues operating from a technical oversight (in their desired outcome of the opinion) in the reasoning of an entity whom exists to use technical nitpicking to exert their will.

That goose and gander type stuff.

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.  

Well, when I say "technicality," I mean one in their line of reasoning.  The opinion was framed for a desired outcome-- BATFE oversight and control.  The consequences of that opinion were/ are possibly more far-reaching than they anticipated.