User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/17/2014 1:25:34 PM EDT
[#1]
If the NFA opens up, there's going to be alot of folks who paid mega bucks for sears and such that are going to be PISSED!!!!
But once the shock they spent $15,000 on a paperweight wears off, I'm sure they will buy, buy, buy and be happy again!!! 
I always thought a good argument to get rid of the Hughes Act was that it makes MGs too expensive. Open up the NFA for the poor!! Politicians and Justices seem to look down on laws that result in reduced access of rights by the poor. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/18/2014 1:32:18 AM EDT
[#2]
I hope it happens. They shouldn't have any problem with it. Doubtful however.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 12:38:42 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The only way that one could get away with being to make this work is to establish you, yourself, in a way that ALL of your actions are performed on behalf of a trust. Or...you, yourself, could prove that your person are in fact a living trust. I'm not sure if that's even possible... I think the closest you could get is claiming you are an "agent" acting on behalf of the trust. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 1:38:18 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:So in effect, they can't legally transfer silencers to trusts until that gets sorted out.
Sorted out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 7:05:51 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the NFA opens up, there's going to be alot of folks who paid mega bucks for sears and such that are going to be PISSED!!!! But once the shock they spent $15,000 on a paperweight wears off, I'm sure they will buy, buy, buy and be happy again!!!
I always thought a good argument to get rid of the Hughes Act was that it makes MGs too expensive. Open up the NFA for the poor!! Politicians and Justices seem to look down on laws that result in reduced access of rights by the poor. Wrong. Most MG owners would gladly take the hit for the change to own more MGs at affordable prices, and transferables made post-86. I've had numerous conversations regarding that, and the consensus has been unanimous. I, for one, would gladly take the hit to be able to get several that are on my list, and I know I will never get. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 7:08:43 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the NFA opens up, there's going to be alot of folks who paid mega bucks for sears and such that are going to be PISSED!!!! But once the shock they spent $15,000 on a paperweight wears off, I'm sure they will buy, buy, buy and be happy again!!!
I always thought a good argument to get rid of the Hughes Act was that it makes MGs too expensive. Open up the NFA for the poor!! Politicians and Justices seem to look down on laws that result in reduced access of rights by the poor. I wouldn't care if mine went down in value. I spent money, I've had fun. I would like to have more without spending as much again. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 7:15:26 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wrong. Most MG owners would gladly take the hit for the change to own more MGs at affordable prices, and transferables made post-86. I've had numerous conversations regarding that, and the consensus has been unanimous. I, for one, would gladly take the hit to be able to get several that are on my list, and I know I will never get. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If the NFA opens up, there's going to be alot of folks who paid mega bucks for sears and such that are going to be PISSED!!!! But once the shock they spent $15,000 on a paperweight wears off, I'm sure they will buy, buy, buy and be happy again!!!
I always thought a good argument to get rid of the Hughes Act was that it makes MGs too expensive. Open up the NFA for the poor!! Politicians and Justices seem to look down on laws that result in reduced access of rights by the poor. Wrong. Most MG owners would gladly take the hit for the change to own more MGs at affordable prices, and transferables made post-86. I've had numerous conversations regarding that, and the consensus has been unanimous. I, for one, would gladly take the hit to be able to get several that are on my list, and I know I will never get. This. I don't own any, but what do you think a machine gun owner would rather have; a 35 year old Olympic M16 with 3 million rounds through it, or a brand new HK IAR? Or a SCAR? Or a M240? Or an AAC Honey Badger? Or a Colt M4A1? The list just starts there, I'm sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 7:24:52 PM EDT
[#8]
Tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 7:36:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the NFA opens up, there's going to be alot of folks who paid mega bucks for sears and such that are going to be PISSED!!!! . No we wont. If I could file as many form 1's as I want for MG's I'd have to call in to work and let them know I wouldnt be able to make it in for the next week. Too busy furiously masturbating to the thought of all the MG's I'd be about to make. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 7:43:40 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No we wont. If I could file as many form 1's as I want for MG's I'd have to call in to work and let them know I wouldnt be able to make it in for the next week. Too busy furiously masturbating to the thought of all the MG's I'd be about to make. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If the NFA opens up, there's going to be alot of folks who paid mega bucks for sears and such that are going to be PISSED!!!! . No we wont. If I could file as many form 1's as I want for MG's I'd have to call in to work and let them know I wouldnt be able to make it in for the next week. Too busy furiously masturbating to the thought of all the MG's I'd be about to make. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 7:45:07 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If the NFA opens up, there's going to be alot of folks who paid mega bucks for sears and such that are going to be PISSED!!!! But once the shock they spent $15,000 on a paperweight wears off, I'm sure they will buy, buy, buy and be happy again!!!
I always thought a good argument to get rid of the Hughes Act was that it makes MGs too expensive. Open up the NFA for the poor!! Politicians and Justices seem to look down on laws that result in reduced access of rights by the poor. As many others have said, this is bullshit. People pay big bucks because they fucking love machineguns, and they would gladly take a hit on their investment for more toys! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 7:46:36 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. I don't own any, but what do you think a machine gun owner would rather have; a 35 year old Olympic M16 with 3 million rounds through it, or a brand new HK IAR? Or a SCAR? Or a M240? Or an AAC Honey Badger? Or a Colt M4A1? The list just starts there, I'm sure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the NFA opens up, there's going to be alot of folks who paid mega bucks for sears and such that are going to be PISSED!!!! But once the shock they spent $15,000 on a paperweight wears off, I'm sure they will buy, buy, buy and be happy again!!!
I always thought a good argument to get rid of the Hughes Act was that it makes MGs too expensive. Open up the NFA for the poor!! Politicians and Justices seem to look down on laws that result in reduced access of rights by the poor. Wrong. Most MG owners would gladly take the hit for the change to own more MGs at affordable prices, and transferables made post-86. I've had numerous conversations regarding that, and the consensus has been unanimous. I, for one, would gladly take the hit to be able to get several that are on my list, and I know I will never get. This. I don't own any, but what do you think a machine gun owner would rather have; a 35 year old Olympic M16 with 3 million rounds through it, or a brand new HK IAR? Or a SCAR? Or a M240? Or an AAC Honey Badger? Or a Colt M4A1? The list just starts there, I'm sure. Off the top of my head: Glock 18 Several AR-15s Several AKs FAL M-14 MP-5 (or several trigger packs) 1919 BAR M-1 Carbine |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 7:50:07 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Off the top of my head: Glock 18 Several AR-15s Several AKs FAL M-14 MP-5 (or several trigger packs) 1919 BAR M-1 Carbine Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the NFA opens up, there's going to be alot of folks who paid mega bucks for sears and such that are going to be PISSED!!!! But once the shock they spent $15,000 on a paperweight wears off, I'm sure they will buy, buy, buy and be happy again!!!
I always thought a good argument to get rid of the Hughes Act was that it makes MGs too expensive. Open up the NFA for the poor!! Politicians and Justices seem to look down on laws that result in reduced access of rights by the poor. Wrong. Most MG owners would gladly take the hit for the change to own more MGs at affordable prices, and transferables made post-86. I've had numerous conversations regarding that, and the consensus has been unanimous. I, for one, would gladly take the hit to be able to get several that are on my list, and I know I will never get. This. I don't own any, but what do you think a machine gun owner would rather have; a 35 year old Olympic M16 with 3 million rounds through it, or a brand new HK IAR? Or a SCAR? Or a M240? Or an AAC Honey Badger? Or a Colt M4A1? The list just starts there, I'm sure. Off the top of my head: Glock 18 Several AR-15s Several AKs FAL M-14 MP-5 (or several trigger packs) 1919 BAR M-1 Carbine Hell, I'd even be Form 1ing my 1911s and my 10/22 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 7:52:02 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: LOL, they're not gonna let that happen. but I will think happy thoughts and hope it works  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 7:52:22 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wrong. Most MG owners would gladly take the hit for the change to own more MGs at affordable prices, and transferables made post-86. I've had numerous conversations regarding that, and the consensus has been unanimous. I, for one, would gladly take the hit to be able to get several that are on my list, and I know I will never get. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
If the NFA opens up, there's going to be alot of folks who paid mega bucks for sears and such that are going to be PISSED!!!! But once the shock they spent $15,000 on a paperweight wears off, I'm sure they will buy, buy, buy and be happy again!!!
I always thought a good argument to get rid of the Hughes Act was that it makes MGs too expensive. Open up the NFA for the poor!! Politicians and Justices seem to look down on laws that result in reduced access of rights by the poor. Wrong. Most MG owners would gladly take the hit for the change to own more MGs at affordable prices, and transferables made post-86. I've had numerous conversations regarding that, and the consensus has been unanimous. I, for one, would gladly take the hit to be able to get several that are on my list, and I know I will never get. we can test this theory..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 7:54:57 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
we can test this theory..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the NFA opens up, there's going to be alot of folks who paid mega bucks for sears and such that are going to be PISSED!!!! But once the shock they spent $15,000 on a paperweight wears off, I'm sure they will buy, buy, buy and be happy again!!!
I always thought a good argument to get rid of the Hughes Act was that it makes MGs too expensive. Open up the NFA for the poor!! Politicians and Justices seem to look down on laws that result in reduced access of rights by the poor. Wrong. Most MG owners would gladly take the hit for the change to own more MGs at affordable prices, and transferables made post-86. I've had numerous conversations regarding that, and the consensus has been unanimous. I, for one, would gladly take the hit to be able to get several that are on my list, and I know I will never get. we can test this theory..... I may be calling you.. You are a tempting fellow. The only thing that keeps me from doing it right now is the nagging feeling that being a "test case" may shine unfavorably in my pending Form 4 in progress. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 8:23:48 PM EDT
[#17]
machine guns are still banned at many state and county and city level
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 10:59:31 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
machine guns are still banned at many state and county and city level So are suppressors, SBRs, and 30 round magazines. What's your point? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/19/2014 11:02:46 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
machine guns are still banned at many state and county and city level Most states as long as you are in compliance with the Federal requirements you are good to go. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2014 12:55:08 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
machine guns are still banned at many state and county and city level So were sectarian prayers until a couple weeks ago. This thing has potential. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2014 1:05:23 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's a stretch Like the sig brace? Slidefire? Have some hope. Plus, maybe this is why they wanted to have CLEO's sign off on trusts? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2014 10:10:46 AM EDT
[#22]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2014 1:38:40 PM EDT
[#23]
What would happen if the ar15 lower was already put on the schedule A as a title 1 (normal rifle). Then had the form 1 register it as a MG? The weapon was in possession by a person but now since its on a schedule A the trust is in possession of it.
I guess you would have to figure out what type of possession they're talking about. Legal possession or physical possession. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2014 4:07:10 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What would happen if the ar15 lower was already put on the schedule A as a title 1 (normal rifle). Then had the form 1 register it as a MG? The weapon was in possession by a person but now since its on a schedule A the trust is in possession of it. I guess you would have to figure out what type of possession they're talking about. Legal possession or physical possession. The act of drilling the sear hole in the receiver is "manufacturing". The problem is not that the trust couldn't possess the post-86 machine gun, rather that the actual person who drills the hole might be committing a crime.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2014 4:34:00 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The act of drilling the sear hole in the receiver is "manufacturing". The problem is not that the trust couldn't possess the post-86 machine gun, rather that the actual person who drills the hole might be committing a crime. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: What would happen if the ar15 lower was already put on the schedule A as a title 1 (normal rifle). Then had the form 1 register it as a MG? The weapon was in possession by a person but now since its on a schedule A the trust is in possession of it. I guess you would have to figure out what type of possession they're talking about. Legal possession or physical possession. The act of drilling the sear hole in the receiver is "manufacturing". The problem is not that the trust couldn't possess the post-86 machine gun, rather that the actual person who drills the hole might be committing a crime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/21/2014 4:54:08 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: What would happen if the ar15 lower was already put on the schedule A as a title 1 (normal rifle). Then had the form 1 register it as a MG? The weapon was in possession by a person but now since its on a schedule A the trust is in possession of it. I guess you would have to figure out what type of possession they're talking about. Legal possession or physical possession. The act of drilling the sear hole in the receiver is "manufacturing". The problem is not that the trust couldn't possess the post-86 machine gun, rather that the actual person who drills the hole might be committing a crime. A single object can't be possessed by two different entities/individuals at the same time. Either the trust possesses it through the control of the trustee or it doesn't. If the item is owned by/registered to the trust and in control of the trustee, I don't see how it could possibly be construed to be in any other's possession.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2014 5:09:00 AM EDT
[#27]
I'll bump this for discussion.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2014 5:36:11 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
A single object can't be possessed by two different entities/individuals at the same time. Either the trust possesses it through the control of the trustee or it doesn't. If the item is owned by/registered to the trust and in control of the trustee, I don't see how it could possibly be construed to be in any other's possession. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I think the question is really whether the person and trust are separate possessors. IE, it's legal for the trust to be in possession, but not legal for any human to be in possession. The actual manufacture isn't what violates the law(assuming an approved form 1 for the trust), but the human that immediately comes into possession of a post 86 mg is in violation. A single object can't be possessed by two different entities/individuals at the same time. Either the trust possesses it through the control of the trustee or it doesn't. If the item is owned by/registered to the trust and in control of the trustee, I don't see how it could possibly be construed to be in any other's possession. I don't see how the trustee would be in violation of any law either, but say the ATF rules that trusts may make machine guns, but trustees may not possess them, then what's to stop a person from filing a Form 1 under the trust and then once approved, filing a Form 4 to transfer to themselves as an individual? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2014 5:48:53 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't see how the trustee would be in violation of any law either, but say the ATF rules that trusts may make machine guns, but trustees may not possess them, then what's to stop a person from filing a Form 1 under the trust and then once approved, filing a Form 4 to transfer to themselves as an individual? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the question is really whether the person and trust are separate possessors. IE, it's legal for the trust to be in possession, but not legal for any human to be in possession. The actual manufacture isn't what violates the law(assuming an approved form 1 for the trust), but the human that immediately comes into possession of a post 86 mg is in violation. A single object can't be possessed by two different entities/individuals at the same time. Either the trust possesses it through the control of the trustee or it doesn't. If the item is owned by/registered to the trust and in control of the trustee, I don't see how it could possibly be construed to be in any other's possession. I don't see how the trustee would be in violation of any law either, but say the ATF rules that trusts may make machine guns, but trustees may not possess them, then what's to stop a person from filing a Form 1 under the trust and then once approved, filing a Form 4 to transfer to themselves as an individual? That would be sneaky, unethical, and racist.... Obama approved!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2014 5:49:48 AM EDT
[#30]
So is there any news on this? I have a trust....would be pretty amazing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2014 6:49:22 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't see how the trustee would be in violation of any law either, but say the ATF rules that trusts may make machine guns, but trustees may not possess them, then what's to stop a person from filing a Form 1 under the trust and then once approved, filing a Form 4 to transfer to themselves as an individual? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the question is really whether the person and trust are separate possessors. IE, it's legal for the trust to be in possession, but not legal for any human to be in possession. The actual manufacture isn't what violates the law(assuming an approved form 1 for the trust), but the human that immediately comes into possession of a post 86 mg is in violation. A single object can't be possessed by two different entities/individuals at the same time. Either the trust possesses it through the control of the trustee or it doesn't. If the item is owned by/registered to the trust and in control of the trustee, I don't see how it could possibly be construed to be in any other's possession. I don't see how the trustee would be in violation of any law either, but say the ATF rules that trusts may make machine guns, but trustees may not possess them, then what's to stop a person from filing a Form 1 under the trust and then once approved, filing a Form 4 to transfer to themselves as an individual? It was still made after 1986 and thus couldn't be form 4'd to a person? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2014 7:56:57 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It was still made after 1986 and thus couldn't be form 4'd to a person? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I think the question is really whether the person and trust are separate possessors. IE, it's legal for the trust to be in possession, but not legal for any human to be in possession. The actual manufacture isn't what violates the law(assuming an approved form 1 for the trust), but the human that immediately comes into possession of a post 86 mg is in violation. A single object can't be possessed by two different entities/individuals at the same time. Either the trust possesses it through the control of the trustee or it doesn't. If the item is owned by/registered to the trust and in control of the trustee, I don't see how it could possibly be construed to be in any other's possession. I don't see how the trustee would be in violation of any law either, but say the ATF rules that trusts may make machine guns, but trustees may not possess them, then what's to stop a person from filing a Form 1 under the trust and then once approved, filing a Form 4 to transfer to themselves as an individual? It was still made after 1986 and thus couldn't be form 4'd to a person? Wouldn't it be easier to create your own political subdivision? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2014 8:18:36 AM EDT
[#33]
The legalese makes for interesting mental masturbation. However, I am not willing to be the test case to assert this interpretation.
The danger to lawful and law-abiding gunowners in America is that more and more we are seeing gun policy enforced via mob justice backed up by loud opinion and politically correct administrators NOT what our RIGHTS are or what the "laws" actually say. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2014 8:21:26 AM EDT
[#34]
I never saw this as holding water.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2014 8:22:12 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Um it doesn't matter because there are no laws any more. Only the ever fickle and dynamic interpretations of laws. Exactly, what the OP posted is not "law" it is an interpretation of regulations (nominally based on several laws) by unelected bureaucrats. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/20/2014 8:27:58 AM EDT
[#36]
In all fairness, your rights are only what you choose to exercise.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2014 2:37:16 PM EDT
[#37]
Has anyone that submitted had checks cashed, pending status or kickbacks yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2014 2:40:48 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm bumping this to keep it from archiving. Has anyone that submitted had checks cashed, pending status or kickbacks yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2014 2:48:50 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hell, I'd even be Form 1ing my 1911s and my 10/22 Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the NFA opens up, there's going to be alot of folks who paid mega bucks for sears and such that are going to be PISSED!!!! But once the shock they spent $15,000 on a paperweight wears off, I'm sure they will buy, buy, buy and be happy again!!!
I always thought a good argument to get rid of the Hughes Act was that it makes MGs too expensive. Open up the NFA for the poor!! Politicians and Justices seem to look down on laws that result in reduced access of rights by the poor. Wrong. Most MG owners would gladly take the hit for the change to own more MGs at affordable prices, and transferables made post-86. I've had numerous conversations regarding that, and the consensus has been unanimous. I, for one, would gladly take the hit to be able to get several that are on my list, and I know I will never get. This. I don't own any, but what do you think a machine gun owner would rather have; a 35 year old Olympic M16 with 3 million rounds through it, or a brand new HK IAR? Or a SCAR? Or a M240? Or an AAC Honey Badger? Or a Colt M4A1? The list just starts there, I'm sure. Off the top of my head: Glock 18 Several AR-15s Several AKs FAL M-14 MP-5 (or several trigger packs) 1919 BAR M-1 Carbine Hell, I'd even be Form 1ing my 1911s and my 10/22 +1 I'd form 1 everything. I can just imagine the letter from the ATF. Dear sir, we have received your form 1 request for your break action over and under shotgun. We were curious as to why you are form 1ing this shotgun? Because I can, that's why. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2014 2:52:36 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before ATF does a no knock on OP.
This. I won't be the test dummy. I'm too young for Club Federales. Now, when I'm eighty, broke and need health care, I'll sign up for Club Federales and its health plan. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2014 3:00:23 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I have seen that G18 Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. I have seen that G18 Captured enemy property becomes the property of the US Goverment. Every gift received by a US official is also the property of the US Government. Sometimes those officials are allowed to hold the item if it is deemed to have no intrinsic value by the GAO. President Bush also has a Secret Service detail. Federal agencies can request the use of captured enemy property / official gifts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2014 3:04:08 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think the question is really whether the person and trust are separate possessors. IE, it's legal for the trust to be in possession, but not legal for any human to be in possession. The actual manufacture isn't what violates the law(assuming an approved form 1 for the trust), but the human that immediately comes into possession of a post 86 mg is in violation. A single object can't be possessed by two different entities/individuals at the same time. Either the trust possesses it through the control of the trustee or it doesn't. If the item is owned by/registered to the trust and in control of the trustee, I don't see how it could possibly be construed to be in any other's possession. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
What would happen if the ar15 lower was already put on the schedule A as a title 1 (normal rifle). Then had the form 1 register it as a MG? The weapon was in possession by a person but now since its on a schedule A the trust is in possession of it. I guess you would have to figure out what type of possession they're talking about. Legal possession or physical possession. The act of drilling the sear hole in the receiver is "manufacturing". The problem is not that the trust couldn't possess the post-86 machine gun, rather that the actual person who drills the hole might be committing a crime. A single object can't be possessed by two different entities/individuals at the same time. Either the trust possesses it through the control of the trustee or it doesn't. If the item is owned by/registered to the trust and in control of the trustee, I don't see how it could possibly be construed to be in any other's possession. Yes it can. Marijuana can be constructively possessed by all occupants of a car that have access to it. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2014 3:12:18 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. I don't own any, but what do you think a machine gun owner would rather have; a 35 year old Olympic M16 with 3 million rounds through it, or a brand new HK IAR? Or a SCAR? Or a M240? Or an AAC Honey Badger? Or a Colt M4A1? The list just starts there, I'm sure. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If the NFA opens up, there's going to be alot of folks who paid mega bucks for sears and such that are going to be PISSED!!!! But once the shock they spent $15,000 on a paperweight wears off, I'm sure they will buy, buy, buy and be happy again!!!
I always thought a good argument to get rid of the Hughes Act was that it makes MGs too expensive. Open up the NFA for the poor!! Politicians and Justices seem to look down on laws that result in reduced access of rights by the poor. Wrong. Most MG owners would gladly take the hit for the change to own more MGs at affordable prices, and transferables made post-86. I've had numerous conversations regarding that, and the consensus has been unanimous. I, for one, would gladly take the hit to be able to get several that are on my list, and I know I will never get. This. I don't own any, but what do you think a machine gun owner would rather have; a 35 year old Olympic M16 with 3 million rounds through it, or a brand new HK IAR? Or a SCAR? Or a M240? Or an AAC Honey Badger? Or a Colt M4A1? The list just starts there, I'm sure. There are a few transferable M240s already. Although they run about $150,000 - $200,000 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2014 3:17:30 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted: There are a few transferable M240s already. Although they run about $150,000 - $200,000 Quote HistoryQuoted: SNIP There are a few transferable M240s already. Although they run about $150,000 - $200,000 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/11/2014 3:25:39 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Yes it can. Marijuana can be constructively possessed by all occupants of a car that have access to it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The act of drilling the sear hole in the receiver is "manufacturing". The problem is not that the trust couldn't possess the post-86 machine gun, rather that the actual person who drills the hole might be committing a crime. A single object can't be possessed by two different entities/individuals at the same time. Either the trust possesses it through the control of the trustee or it doesn't. If the item is owned by/registered to the trust and in control of the trustee, I don't see how it could possibly be construed to be in any other's possession. Yes it can. Marijuana can be constructively possessed by all occupants of a car that have access to it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2014 9:59:29 PM EDT
[#46]
Anyone get an approved/denied status yet?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/6/2014 11:14:49 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Anyone get an approved/denied status yet? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2014 1:15:25 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anyone get an approved/denied status yet? pm sent. Worst that will happen is they'll hold the money for a year and then send me a denied letter, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2014 1:20:09 AM EDT
[#49]
Has anyone submitted one since eForms came back online?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/7/2014 1:20:43 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
pm sent. Worst that will happen is they'll hold the money for a year and then send me a denied letter, right? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anyone get an approved/denied status yet? pm sent. Worst that will happen is they'll hold the money for a year and then send me a denied letter, right? Did you efile the F1? Those are going through pretty quickly!
|
|
|
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.
