Armory Sponsor
Posted: Yesterday 3:11:43 PM EDT
|
Cross post from the big thread. Well, Fuck. I gotta go back on what I said, and back to Form 4s. I spoke to the customers who already took possession and all are cool with filling out a Form 4 for their suppressors. With my background I should have thought of this first, but I got caught up in the excitement. Civil liability coverage only responds as normal when the insured is following the law. Transferring a $0 tax suppressor without a Form 4 is breaking the law. Sure, you cant be punished for it but any lawyer will tell you the NFA laws are still in place. Criminally you have nothing to worry about if you are a dealer or buyer of a suppressor without a Form 4 regarding the transfer. The manufacturers transferring suppressors on form 3s to their dealers, that they are encouraging to sell on 4473s have nothing to worry about either. The FFLs selling those suppressors are fucked if any of those suppressors are used in a way which results in harm or death. Scenario - FFL sells a suppressor to a guy on a 4473, no form 4. That guy sells it to his neighbor who puts it on the pistol he uses to kill his girlfriend. The Lawyers from the Brady bunch reach out to the estate of the dead bitch and find out where the gun and silencer came from. When they see the silencer was illegally sold by the FFL, that FFL is a named defendant in the wrongful death lawsuit. The FFL turns it over to their insurance who denies coverage because the suppressor was sold illegally. The FFL is now personally responsible for tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and a possible judgment they can never afford. The PLCAA isn't going to apply to an illegal sale. Until the actual law changes, or insurance companies specifically tell FFL it's ok to break this law to make a sale that they are insured - - any dealer selling on a 4473 is insane. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By DogtownTom: So federal court decisions are invalid?  They dont change law, they just protect you from enforcement when you break that law. The law is still on the books, and that's what what the insurance companies use as the standard for coverage approval or denial. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: They dont change law, they just protect you from enforcement when you break that law. Originally Posted By bigbore: Originally Posted By DogtownTom: So federal court decisions are invalid? They dont change law, they just protect you from enforcement when you break that law. Court decisions render laws invalid pretty frequently. That's because the Constitution gives the courts that authority. It doesn't give the courts the right to erase a law. Often called "zombie laws" the law books are filled with invalid statutes or regulations that the courts have rendered moot, unenforceable, invalid and otherwise dead. Only the legislature can remove a law. For sure, a future court decision might reverse an earlier court decision, but that doesn't make the current decision any less valid. Roe v Wade for example, removed the federal constitutional protection for abortion. It also brought back dormant, pre-1973 abortion bans in dozens of states. Those women who had abortions 1973-2022 could not be prosecuted for having had their abortion during that period. You think the insurance companies are going to go back and bill 'em? The law is still on the books, and that's what what the insurance companies use as the standard for coverage approval or denial. Yeah, no. Case law is called case law for a reason. Thinking that just because a law or regulation is "still on the books" it remains valid is a serious error. |
Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
|
Originally Posted By DogtownTom: Yeah, no. Case law is called case law for a reason. Thinking that just because a law or regulation is "still on the books" it remains valid is a serious error. Maybe, but my insurance company told me in not covered regardless. Call your agent and ask if you are covered. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
Don't let the join date fool you... here since '97
Joined:
May 2014
Posts:
7389
EE: 100% (24)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By DogtownTom: Yeah, no. Case law is called case law for a reason. Thinking that just because a law or regulation is "still on the books" it remains valid is a serious error. |
www.HansohnBrothers.com
|
Originally Posted By HansohnBrothers: That may be, but insurance companies can, and will, do whatever they need to protect themselves. I am curious what your insurance underwriter has to say. I asked for more specific clarification from my agent today. If I'm looking at this from an insurance company attorney POV, it's understandable that they would deny a non Form 4 claim. A judge declared the transfer unconstitutional(for some), but the ATF is still actively prosecuting people for not transferring on a Form 4. If the ATF is still enforcing a law, that's the law/procedure they would cover. I googled, but I cant find any reference to case law where a judge ruled something unconstitutional, yet the government still has full authority to enforce that same law. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
Don't let the join date fool you... here since '97
Joined:
May 2014
Posts:
7393
EE: 100% (24)
VA, USA
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: I asked for more specific clarification from my agent today. If I'm looking at this from an insurance company attorney POV, it's understandable that they would deny a non Form 4 claim. A judge declared the transfer unconstitutional(for some), but the ATF is still actively prosecuting people for not transferring on a Form 4. If the ATF is still enforcing a law, that's the law/procedure they would cover. I googled, but I cant find any reference to case law where a judge ruled something unconstitutional, yet the government still has full authority to enforce that same law. |
www.HansohnBrothers.com
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: I asked for more specific clarification from my agent today. If I'm looking at this from an insurance company attorney POV, it's understandable that they would deny a non Form 4 claim. A judge declared the transfer unconstitutional(for some), but the ATF is still actively prosecuting people for not transferring on a Form 4. If the ATF is still enforcing a law, that's the law/procedure they would cover. Originally Posted By bigbore: I asked for more specific clarification from my agent today. If I'm looking at this from an insurance company attorney POV, it's understandable that they would deny a non Form 4 claim. A judge declared the transfer unconstitutional(for some), but the ATF is still actively prosecuting people for not transferring on a Form 4. If the ATF is still enforcing a law, that's the law/procedure they would cover. ATF doesn't prosecute the case, the US Attorneys Office does. If DOJ is actively prosecuting such a case, its likely that violation occurred before the decision in Silencer Shop Foundation vs ATF. Do you have a link to such a case? The federal court injunction is specific to who is covered. If an NFA transfer occurs between parties not covered, then a Form 4 is still required. I googled, but I cant find any reference to case law where a judge ruled something unconstitutional, yet the government still has full authority to enforce that same law. Because it can't. Even if the court decision is overturned by a higher court, it was lawful until overturned. It may also be affected decades later by cases unrelated to the original case. I posted the best example above.....Roe v Wade. SCOTUS ruled in 1973 that laws banning abortions were unconstitutional. Many states (like mine) never removed those laws from our state statutes. When our current Supreme Court revisited abortion in Dobbs v Jackson, it ruled that there is no constitutional right to an abortion, allowing those state laws to become valid again. |
Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
|
Originally Posted By HansohnBrothers: Right. In the past, when a judge ruled something unconstitutional, it applied to everyone, not just the plaintiffs. We are in uncharted territory. Unconstitutional, but only for some, wtf? Remember US vs Thompson Center Arms Co? In 1972, SCOTUS ruled in favor of TC, but the DOJ held for nineteen years that it only applied to that particular firearm.....that one particular firearm. Federal law did not change. It took ATF nineteen years to change regulations via ATF Ruling 2011-4 - Pistols Configured from Rifles; Rifles Configured from Pistols |
Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE
|
Originally Posted By DogtownTom: ATF doesn't prosecute the case, the US Attorneys Office does. If DOJ is actively prosecuting such a case, its likely that violation occurred before the decision in Silencer Shop Foundation vs ATF. Do you have a link to such a case? The federal court injunction is specific to who is covered. If an NFA transfer occurs between parties not covered, then a Form 4 is still required. Because it can't. Even if the court decision is overturned by a higher court, it was lawful until overturned. It may also be affected decades later by cases unrelated to the original case. I posted the best example above.....Roe v Wade. SCOTUS ruled in 1973 that laws banning abortions were unconstitutional. Many states (like mine) never removed those laws from our state statutes. When our current Supreme Court revisited abortion in Dobbs v Jackson, it ruled that there is no constitutional right to an abortion, allowing those state laws to become valid again. This that and the other... The legal team at Lockton Affinity is working on an official statement regarding how they will handle coverage. They didn't say when it will be done, but that will settle the confusion and set the record for all their customers. |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
|
Originally Posted By bigbore: The legal team at Lockton Affinity is working on an official statement regarding how they will handle coverage. They didn't say when it will be done, but that will settle the confusion and set the record for all their customers. Let's hope that their official statement is more timely than the ATF's. |
Heller II - Challenging DC's bans on semi-automatic rifles, large-capacity ammunition feeding devices, and its onerous and expensive handgun registration process. http://www.HellerFoundation.org/
|
Originally Posted By Bubbles: Let's hope that their official statement is more timely than the ATF's. The longer it takes, the better I feel about my concern. This means they too have to think about it.... |
I'm no good at telling people what they want to hear when I dont believe it myself :)
Armory Sponsor