User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 4:30:59 PM EDT
[#1]
Is this for all states or only WI, the post does not make this clear.
ETA: just did a quick perusal of the ATF webpage and did not see anything there (altho this does not mean anything with the ATF) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 5:09:06 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted:
Is this for all states or only WI, the post does not make this clear. ETA: just did a quick perusal of the ATF webpage and did not see anything there (altho this does not mean anything with the ATF) It's for all MGs changing hands either within WI or coming into WI. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 5:16:27 PM EDT
[#3]
Well thats a shitty deal. Any idea what leads this decision?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 5:26:35 PM EDT
[#4]
This does't make sense...
Why would this position apply only to WI? What's the basis?? A post-86 dealer sample gun would require a letter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 5:27:59 PM EDT
[#5]
Would this not have to be a state decision for it to apply only to our state? If so then why is the ATF involved they are feds.
Something is not adding up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 5:35:18 PM EDT
[#6]
Prebans, do you need to get a letter for every one or just a letter stating that it is legal for you to own such?
What if the CLEO won't give you one? Also, did the ATF just pull this out of their ass? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 5:36:41 PM EDT
[#7]
Is this something specifically requested by a CLEO in your jurisdiction to the ATF?
This reeks of rectal extraction. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 5:50:11 PM EDT
[#8]
I take it all earlier purchases (prior to 02/14/11) were grandfathered in...
This is CRAZY! V OUT |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 5:57:59 PM EDT
[#9]
fuck the atf.
they better not pull this shit when i buy a 40mm |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 7:23:57 PM EDT
[#10]
Is there memorandum or letter on this anywhere?
What caused them to take this direction? This directly effects my interests.... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/17/2011 7:42:54 PM EDT
[#11]
this best not apply to suppressors& SBR's. i just sent in papers for my first SBR
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 4:42:19 AM EDT
[#12]
Uhm, guys..?
I only found out about this YESTERDAY after ATF closed for the day–– and the policy change happened on MONDAY. My PM box has been whacked with OMGWTF??! PMs and someone woke me out of bed last night when they called asking OMGWTF??! ATF still isn't open for another hour, and reaching the right person off the bat isn't always easy. I am calling in when they open because this affects me as much as it does you. I'll post what I know, when I know it. I have an inkling of what's up, but I want it 100% confirmed before I potentially disseminate false information. In the mean time, please stand by. 
Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 7:17:02 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted:
ATF still isn't open for another hour, and reaching the right person off the bat isn't always easy. I am calling in when they open because this affects me as much as it does you. I'll post what I know, when I know it. I have an inkling of what's up, but I want it 100% confirmed before I potentially disseminate false information. I have a feeling I do as well. Not that it will do them any good, but a reminder that the law they're looking at specifically says the CLEO signoff applies ONLY to MGs that have been converted to fire non-lethal minions in pistol calibers (despite legislative intent, that's how the exact wording works out – see below) would be good. For those following along at home, or not following at all: One of those odd vagaries in WI law: SBRs/SBSs have a place in WI law that is in line with the NFA (section 941.28), as do silencers (941.298). MGs have their own special wording (sections 941.25 & 26) that makes no sense and is open to interpretation because of an additional section of law (941.27) that modifies the MG statutes. IIRC, the MG section of the law predates the whole allowance of NFA items complying with "the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872" that applies to the others. The legislative intent was for CLEO signoff (941.25 & 26), but how one section is worded makes it apply only to very specific items: 941.27(2)
(2) Exceptions. Sections 941.25 and 941.26 shall not prohibit or interfere with the manufacture for, and sale of, machine guns to the military forces or the peace officers of the United States or of any political subdivision thereof, or the transportation required for that purpose; the possession of a machine gun for scientific purpose, or the possession of a machine gun not usable as a weapon and possessed as a curiosity, ornament or keepsake; or the possession of a machine gun other than one adapted to use pistol cartridges for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive. The highlighted part makes all the difference. A re-reading of the statute stripped to its essential elements for our purpose would look like this: {The CLEO signoff/authorization as contained in} ...Sections 941.25 and 941.26 shall not prohibit or interfere with... the possession of a machine gun other than one adapted to use pistol cartridges for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive.
Silly, but that's the letter of the law. Words have meaning, and the legislature (along with the BATFE) should be aware of it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 7:38:24 AM EDT
[#14]
I thought they were pushing for no cleo sign off and just a letter of notification. Then they go 360 and pull this shit wtf
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 8:14:07 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
/snip In the mean time, please stand by.
Mike Standing by to stand by... 
I know when you find out whats going on you'll post it. Thank You. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 9:16:58 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Uhm, guys..? I only found out about this YESTERDAY after ATF closed for the day–– and the policy change happened on MONDAY. My PM box has been whacked with OMGWTF??! PMs and someone woke me out of bed last night when they called asking OMGWTF??! ATF still isn't open for another hour, and reaching the right person off the bat isn't always easy. I am calling in when they open because this affects me as much as it does you. I'll post what I know, when I know it. I have an inkling of what's up, but I want it 100% confirmed before I potentially disseminate false information. In the mean time, please stand by.
Mike Could have been worse. There might have been a few "BBQ"s thrown in there.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 4:48:39 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Uhm, guys..? I only found out about this YESTERDAY after ATF closed for the day–– and the policy change happened on MONDAY. My PM box has been whacked with OMGWTF??! PMs and someone woke me out of bed last night when they called asking OMGWTF??! ATF still isn't open for another hour, and reaching the right person off the bat isn't always easy. I am calling in when they open because this affects me as much as it does you. I'll post what I know, when I know it. I have an inkling of what's up, but I want it 100% confirmed before I potentially disseminate false information. In the mean time, please stand by.
Mike Could have been worse. There might have been a few "BBQ"s thrown in there.
I shut off my phone. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 5:01:33 PM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
ATF still isn't open for another hour, and reaching the right person off the bat isn't always easy. I am calling in when they open because this affects me as much as it does you. I'll post what I know, when I know it. I have an inkling of what's up, but I want it 100% confirmed before I potentially disseminate false information. I have a feeling I do as well. Not that it will do them any good, but a reminder that the law they're looking at specifically says the CLEO signoff applies ONLY to MGs that have been converted to fire non-lethal minions in pistol calibers (despite legislative intent, that's how the exact wording works out – see below) would be good. For those following along at home, or not following at all: One of those odd vagaries in WI law: SBRs/SBSs have a place in WI law that is in line with the NFA (section 941.28), as do silencers (941.298). MGs have their own special wording (sections 941.25 & 26) that makes no sense and is open to interpretation because of an additional section of law (941.27) that modifies the MG statutes. IIRC, the MG section of the law predates the whole allowance of NFA items complying with "the licensing and registration requirements under 26 USC 5801 to 5872" that applies to the others. The legislative intent was for CLEO signoff (941.25 & 26), but how one section is worded makes it apply only to very specific items: 941.27(2)
(2) Exceptions. Sections 941.25 and 941.26 shall not prohibit or interfere with the manufacture for, and sale of, machine guns to the military forces or the peace officers of the United States or of any political subdivision thereof, or the transportation required for that purpose; the possession of a machine gun for scientific purpose, or the possession of a machine gun not usable as a weapon and possessed as a curiosity, ornament or keepsake; or the possession of a machine gun other than one adapted to use pistol cartridges for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive. The highlighted part makes all the difference. A re-reading of the statute stripped to its essential elements for our purpose would look like this: {The CLEO signoff/authorization as contained in} ...Sections 941.25 and 941.26 shall not prohibit or interfere with... the possession of a machine gun other than one adapted to use pistol cartridges for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive.
Silly, but that's the letter of the law. Words have meaning, and the legislature (along with the BATFE) should be aware of it. As usual, FMD hits the nail squarely on the head. II spoke with the examiner holding my transfers this morning. He stated that his superiors reviewed WI law and "found that they had been doing things wrong for a LONG time." WI law, as FMD cited, has a provision for pistol caliber MGs needing a state permit. The trouble is that no such permit has ever existed. The law has been quietly ignored. My SUSPICION is that one of two things happened: 1. The new ATF Director, the former head of the Chicago field office and the one everybody has been warning you about (AND the guy who gave me trouble some years ago), ordered a review of all laws in all states. 2. Some fool wrote a letter asking for clarification of WI's law. Unfortunately, each is equally possible. Any how, that's the scoop. All MGs (and only MGs) must have a CLEO signoff OR a CLEO letter authorizing possession. Trusts and LLCs/Incs are not exempt, SOTs are not exempt, and C&R holders are not exempt. The only way to avoid a letter is to do a personal transfer with a sign-off. Now, why ALL MGs versus only pistol caliber MGs? Good question. My examiner didn't know either, he was just following his marching orders. I was in a conference call with a retired SOT and two current SOTs. Apparently this also came up seven years ago but the issue was dropped. The consensus is that the only way to fix this is to change the statute to exempt ALL papered MGs. However, this requires action in Madison and we all know what's going on up there. I personally think a letter from our AG to ATF could nix the issue, but it may not last if we get a new AG and ATF does the same crap another seven years down the road. My prediction is that this issue will continue into the foreseeable future. At this time, if you have an unfriendly CLEO, you will NOT be able to purchase a new MG. Mike PS. I specifically did NOT bring up existing MGs by non-letter holders. That's a sleeping dog that ought to be left to be at this time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 5:35:04 PM EDT
[#19]
Traver from Chicago is not yet the Director or did I miss something? I think he was re-nominated in January but still no go.
Not to say that his hands aren't in this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 5:44:22 PM EDT
[#20]
Quoted:
Traver from Chicago is not yet the Director or did I miss something? I think he was re-nominated in January but still no go. Not to say that his hands aren't in this. The official organization chart is almost never the true organizational chart in any organization. 
Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 6:40:03 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Quoted: Traver from Chicago is not yet the Director or did I miss something? I think he was re-nominated in January but still no go. Not to say that his hands aren't in this. The official organization chart is almost never the true organizational chart in any organization. Mike Understood.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2011 8:29:48 PM EDT
[#22]
Sounds like a good time to get Walker to change the laws......
As soon as the cowardly lions return from oz with their courage (brains are too much to ask) |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 4:25:06 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
I personally think a letter from our AG to ATF could nix the issue This sounds like an achievable, temporary fix. How do we make this happen? Collectively or as individuals? For those who wish to continue adding assets to a trust, I presume the letter needs to say something like, "I permit Trustee John Doe to add machine gun assets to the ABC Trust." Trying to explain all this to a CLEO and getting the right verbiage for the ATF sounds like a total pain in the ass. I realize it may be premature to ask, but do we have an idea if one umbrella letter could cover all present and future trust MGs or if a separate letter is needed for each MG we want to obtain? I also realize we want to leave alone the question of MGs already obtained without this letter but we also need to pre-emptively think this one throgh as well. This may be something worth running past a gun lawyer. I'm just tring to brainstorm here... |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 4:49:10 AM EDT
[#24]
I obtained my trust through David Goldman's website, www.guntrustlawyer.com. David is quite knowledgable, interested and pro-active regarding NFA transfers in general, and of course, NFA trusts in particular. I have emailed him regarding this thread and will phone him if I don't hear back soon.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 5:08:45 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
I obtained my trust through David Goldman's website, www.guntrustlawyer.com. David is quite knowledgable, interested and pro-active regarding NFA transfers in general, and of course, NFA trusts in particular. I have emailed him regarding this thread and will phone him if I don't hear back soon. This may be a new one on him if he hasn't seen my note up about it on Bowers. But unless you had it done on or after 02/14/2011, there's no way he (or ANYBODY) would've known. At this time, your Trust is good for all civilian-legal NFA. Unfortunately, you'll still need a letter or a signature from your CLEO for MGs. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 5:25:31 AM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
I obtained my trust through David Goldman's website, www.guntrustlawyer.com. David is quite knowledgable, interested and pro-active regarding NFA transfers in general, and of course, NFA trusts in particular. I have emailed him regarding this thread and will phone him if I don't hear back soon. My trust was also drafted by him. I will also contact him. I will pass along what I find out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 5:39:16 AM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
I obtained my trust through David Goldman's website, www.guntrustlawyer.com. David is quite knowledgable, interested and pro-active regarding NFA transfers in general, and of course, NFA trusts in particular. I have emailed him regarding this thread and will phone him if I don't hear back soon. This may be a new one on him if he hasn't seen my note up about it on Bowers. But unless you had it done on or after 02/14/2011, there's no way he (or ANYBODY) would've known. At this time, your Trust is good for all civilian-legal NFA. Unfortunately, you'll still need a letter or a signature from your CLEO for MGs. Mike My intention in contacting Goldman is to get his recommendation on what if any action we should take, individually or collectively, such as contacting the WI AG, the NRA ILA, or whomever. I'm sure he also is in dark about this and will need to get the facts before making recommendation. Bruce |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 11:40:13 AM EDT
[#28]
Tag.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 2:50:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Does anyone know if Waukesha County CLEO will sign?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 3:32:07 PM EDT
[#30]
Disregard this post.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2011 5:57:29 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
Does anyone know if Waukesha County CLEO will sign? Yup. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2011 6:03:12 PM EDT
[#32]
From my cold dead hands!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2011 7:59:36 PM EDT
[#33]
what is the states definition of a MG?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2011 3:42:46 AM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
what is the states definition of a MG? 941.27 941.27 Machine guns. 941.27(1) (1) Definition. In ss. 941.25 and 941.26, "machine gun" means any of the following: 941.27(1)(a) (a) Any weapon that 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. 941.27(1)(b) (b) The frame or receiver of any weapon described under par. (a) or any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a weapon described under par. (a). 941.27(1)(c) (c) Any combination of parts from which a weapon described under par. (a) can be assembled if those parts are in the possession or under the control of a person. 941.27(2) (2) Exceptions. Sections 941.25 and 941.26 shall not prohibit or interfere with the manufacture for, and sale of, machine guns to the military forces or the peace officers of the United States or of any political subdivision thereof, or the transportation required for that purpose; the possession of a machine gun for scientific purpose, or the possession of a machine gun not usable as a weapon and possessed as a curiosity, ornament or keepsake; or the possession of a machine gun other than one adapted to use pistol cartridges for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2011 7:34:17 AM EDT
[#35]
yes trawicki will sign he requests two things to sign you must have a safe or safe room or some way of securement of your firearms and you must have some sort of security you do not need adt you can have a simple motion detector that makes noise as to alert you someone is at your safe. he will send a deputy out to confirm this then no problems after that
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2011 12:20:03 PM EDT
[#36]
I just spoke with David Goldman from www.guntrustlawyer.com. Forgive me if I don't relay this information correctly...I'm doing my best! Form 3 is for tax free transfer between dealers or as a transfer in an inheritance situatioin. It is always a transfer between individuals, and not a trust or LLC, by definition, and therefore requires a CLEO write-off. The remedy is to do the transfer on a Form 4 and use a trust (or LLC). He was unaware of any changes in policy by ATF towards Wisconsin.
He also invited the person (Mike) who had the initial queston to give him a call if he has questions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2011 12:30:55 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
I just spoke with David Goldman from www.guntrustlawyer.com. Forgive me if I don't relay this information correctly...I'm doing my best! Form 3 is for tax free transfer between dealers or as a transfer in an inheritance situatioin. It is always a transfer between individuals, and not a trust or LLC, by definition, and therefore requires a CLEO write-off. The remedy is to do the transfer on a Form 4 and use a trust (or LLC). He was unaware of any changes in policy by ATF towards Wisconsin. He also invited the person (Mike) who had the initial queston to give him a call if he has questions. I think you did mix it up a wee bit. A Form 3 is never used by an individual. As for inheritance, ATF regularly changes their mind. Last I heard it was a Form 5 for that. From what prebans is saying, it does not matter any longer what form it is on; it requires CLEO approval. One can only imagine that 5320.20's may be subject to that same scrutiny
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2011 4:07:12 PM EDT
[#38]
Based on conversing with him before, if you have the free time Mike (I know, I know), I think that would be a worthwhile conversation. You can educate the lawyer and he can do some extra digging on our collective behalf. Probably won't change anything but extra boots on the ground are always good.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2011 9:02:24 AM EDT
[#39]
This is going further down the rabbit hole than I suspected. Last night at the Waukesha County Friends of the NRA Dinner (and congrats again to D.C. of Green Bay, WI!), I had a pow-wow with some "highly placed" individuals in the gun rights world and in state government.
This situation is going to continue to be a major problem for all concerned. It effectively halted ALL WI MG transfers that don't have a sign-off or don't include a permission letter from their CLEO. This includes SOTs. (The only exemption is for law enforcement.) Bottom line–– your trusts and your LLCs are meaningless for MG purchases without a signoff or a permission letter from your CLEO while standard personal signoffs are still okay. Today I am drafting a letter to some state government decision-makers regarding the problem, how it affects lawful commerce in Wisconsin, and how it can be resolved. These letters will be sent to the "highly placed" individuals mentioned above for review, comments, editing, etc. These folks know state government and know how to SUCCESSFULLY approach the right people. It is not yet the time for a strong frontal assault. Hopefully we never get to that point. I want to stress that ANYTHING we can accomplish here is, at best, a temporary patch. The only REAL fix is through legislation. I'm sorry for being vague, but this is NOT a secure forum by any stretch of the imagination. Mike |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2011 8:24:27 AM EDT
[#40]
I sent in a Form 4 as a trust purchase of a MG on 1/12, the form went out to the reviewer 2/15, and the form was assigned a "problem" status 3/10. the forms were returned to me last week informing of the need to have a CLEO sign off or CLEO letter of approval for a WI MG purchase. I spoke with the reviewer for clarification. The CLEO sign off/letter applies equally to individuals and for trusts. A new letter/signoff needs to be produced fo rEACH Form 4 for individuals. So, no advantage to the letter route for individuals. However, dealers only need a one time letter of approval from a CLEO and they are good to go...forever. The reviewer said that the BATF studied the WI law for some time and that the BATF is only trying to operate consistant with state admittedly vague laws.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2011 9:12:38 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
I sent in a Form 4 as a trust purchase of a MG on 1/12, the form went out to the reviewer 2/15, and the form was assigned a "problem" status 3/10. the forms were returned to me last week informing of the need to have a CLEO sign off or CLEO letter of approval for a WI MG purchase. I spoke with the reviewer for clarification. The CLEO sign off/letter applies equally to individuals and for trusts. A new letter/signoff needs to be produced fo rEACH Form 4 for individuals. So, no advantage to the letter route for individuals. However, dealers only need a one time letter of approval from a CLEO and they are good to go...forever. The reviewer said that the BATF studied the WI law for some time and that the BATF is only trying to operate consistant with state admittedly vague laws. They need to re-read the laws. 941.27(2) (2) Exceptions. Sections 941.25 and 941.26 shall not prohibit or interfere with the manufacture for, and sale of, machine guns to the military forces or the peace officers of the United States or of any political subdivision thereof, or the transportation required for that purpose; the possession of a machine gun for scientific purpose, or the possession of a machine gun not usable as a weapon and possessed as a curiosity, ornament or keepsake; or the possession of a machine gun other than one adapted to use pistol cartridges for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive. Neither of my machine guns have been adapted to use pistol cartridges for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive. I am sure Prebans knows far more about this than I do, but if I were in your shoes, I would be very tempted to seek legal advise. It seems that they are unlawfully prohibiting you from obtaining a firearm that is legal in WI. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2011 9:23:05 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I sent in a Form 4 as a trust purchase of a MG on 1/12, the form went out to the reviewer 2/15, and the form was assigned a "problem" status 3/10. the forms were returned to me last week informing of the need to have a CLEO sign off or CLEO letter of approval for a WI MG purchase. I spoke with the reviewer for clarification. The CLEO sign off/letter applies equally to individuals and for trusts. A new letter/signoff needs to be produced fo rEACH Form 4 for individuals. So, no advantage to the letter route for individuals. However, dealers only need a one time letter of approval from a CLEO and they are good to go...forever. The reviewer said that the BATF studied the WI law for some time and that the BATF is only trying to operate consistant with state admittedly vague laws. They need to re-read the laws. 941.27(2) (2) Exceptions. Sections 941.25 and 941.26 shall not prohibit or interfere with the manufacture for, and sale of, machine guns to the military forces or the peace officers of the United States or of any political subdivision thereof, or the transportation required for that purpose; the possession of a machine gun for scientific purpose, or the possession of a machine gun not usable as a weapon and possessed as a curiosity, ornament or keepsake; or the possession of a machine gun other than one adapted to use pistol cartridges for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive. Neither of my machine guns have been adapted to use pistol cartridges for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive. I am sure Prebans knows far more about this than I do, but if I were in your shoes, I would be very tempted to seek legal advise. It seems that they are unlawfully prohibiting you from obtaining a firearm that is legal in WI. When was 941.27 enacted? Sounds to me like it was written against Thompsons during the Depression, because of all the activity going on in Chicago, and the mobsters using WI as a hideout/vacation spot? I see reference dates for these sections from the 1970's on into the 2000's, but I believe these are probably re-affirmation or re-enactment dates when 941.27 got minor edits, or was subsumed in other larger sections of the state code. If not, and it really did start in the 70's, perhaps it's a knee-jerk about the presence of MAC-10 style guns, and Uzi's, and the FA TEC-9's that were supposedly turning up in crime? 
But a plain reading to me sounds like any rifle caliber machine gun, like an M-16, or a BAR or whatnot you don't need CLEO for a trust to me. Just for UZI's, MP-5's and the like. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2011 9:29:22 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
When was 941.27 enacted? Sounds to me like it was written against Thompsons during the Depression, because of all the activity going on in Chicago, and the mobsters using WI as a hideout/vacation spot? I see reference dates for these sections from the 1970's on into the 2000's, but I believe these are probably re-affirmation or re-enactment dates when 941.27 got minor edits, or was subsumed in other larger sections of the state code. If not, and it really did start in the 70's, perhaps it's a knee-jerk about the presence of MAC-10 style guns, and Uzi's, and the FA TEC-9's that were supposedly turning up in crime?
But a plain reading to me sounds like any rifle caliber machine gun, like an M-16, or a BAR or whatnot you don't need CLEO for a trust to me. Just for UZI's, MP-5's and the like. There are plenty of pistol caliber MG's in WI. They key words you are looking for are "ADAPTED". Not designed...created...manufactured... but ADAPTED. So, say you want to convert (Convert. Verb. Definition: Change; adapt) your M16 to shoot 9mm. If you were doing so for a purpose that was manifestly not aggressive or offensive, it would be illegal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2011 9:32:16 AM EDT
[#44]
I agree the WI MG law probably pre-dated the NFA and was designed to keep the tommygun carrying Chicago riff-raff out of pure Wisconsin. Given the multi-caliber capabilities of many modern weapons I suspect the pistol caliber part becomes unenforcable and irrevalent. The bottom line here is that the BATF has studied the WI law, had a lot of difficulty interpreting it (as per the NFA reviewer) and came up with this ruling. I expect it will stand until WI passes a more rational and understandable law.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2011 9:35:02 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
I agree the WI MG law probably pre-dated the NFA and was designed to keep the tommygun carrying Chicago riff-raff out of pure Wisconsin. Given the multi-caliber capabilities of many modern weapons I suspect the pistol caliber part becomes unenforcable and irrevalent. The bottom line here is that the BATF has studied the WI law, had a lot of difficulty interpreting it (as per the NFA reviewer) and came up with this ruling. I expect it will stand until WI passes a more rational and understandable law. IANAL, but....what about contacting the State AG to clarify the meaning of such law.....much in the way that the AG clarified that open carry is indeed legal, and not "disorderly". |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2011 9:45:06 AM EDT
[#46]
As per the NFA reviewer, the ATF tries to make its policies consistant with state laws, which often does require them to interpret poorly written and vague laws. I would question if a state AG deciding that HIS interpretation is such and so would be good enough for the ATF, given that AGs come and go with elections. Just my guess though. Far be it for me to speak for ATF!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2011 9:47:15 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
As per the NFA reviewer, the ATF tries to make its policies consistant with state laws, which often does require them to interpret poorly written and vague laws. I would question if a state AG deciding that HIS interpretation is such and so would be good enough for the ATF, given that AGs come and go with elections. Just my guess though. Far be it for me to speak for ATF! Perhaps. Perhaps not. Either way, it is lovely how the ATF can "reinterpret" state laws as they see fit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2011 11:08:30 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I agree the WI MG law probably pre-dated the NFA and was designed to keep the tommygun carrying Chicago riff-raff out of pure Wisconsin. Given the multi-caliber capabilities of many modern weapons I suspect the pistol caliber part becomes unenforcable and irrevalent. The bottom line here is that the BATF has studied the WI law, had a lot of difficulty interpreting it (as per the NFA reviewer) and came up with this ruling. I expect it will stand until WI passes a more rational and understandable law. IANAL, but....what about contacting the State AG to clarify the meaning of such law.....much in the way that the AG clarified that open carry is indeed legal, and not "disorderly". I don't think that will be helpful.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2011 11:28:10 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
There are plenty of pistol caliber MG's in WI. They key words you are looking for are "ADAPTED". Not designed...created...manufactured... but ADAPTED. So, say you want to convert (Convert. Verb. Definition: Change; adapt) your M16 to shoot 9mm. If you were doing so for a purpose that was manifestly not aggressive or offensive, it would be illegal. IANAL, but.... When I read it, it appears obvious that punctiation is missing and it is poorly structured. The net effect is that it says..... (2) EXCEPTIONS. ........the possession of a machine gun..... for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive....other than one adapted to use pistol cartridges "
What this is interpreted by myself to mean is that Chief LEO is only required for pistol caliber machine guns AND those possessed for a purpose manifestly aggressive or offensive" Since the word "adapted" is not defined, it could be interpreted to mean any machine gun chambered in a pistol cartridge regardless of what purpose it is intended for. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/5/2011 12:32:43 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
When was 941.27 enacted? Sounds to me like it was written against Thompsons during the Depression, because of all the activity going on in Chicago, and the mobsters using WI as a hideout/vacation spot? I see reference dates for these sections from the 1970's on into the 2000's, but I believe these are probably re-affirmation or re-enactment dates when 941.27 got minor edits, or was subsumed in other larger sections of the state code. If not, and it really did start in the 70's, perhaps it's a knee-jerk about the presence of MAC-10 style guns, and Uzi's, and the FA TEC-9's that were supposedly turning up in crime?
But a plain reading to me sounds like any rifle caliber machine gun, like an M-16, or a BAR or whatnot you don't need CLEO for a trust to me. Just for UZI's, MP-5's and the like. There are plenty of pistol caliber MG's in WI. They key words you are looking for are "ADAPTED". Not designed...created...manufactured... but ADAPTED. So, say you want to convert (Convert. Verb. Definition: Change; adapt) your M16 to shoot 9mm. If you were doing so for a purpose that was manifestly not aggressive or offensive, it would be illegal. ADAPTED... you're right. What the hell is that even supposed to mean? A BAR rechambered in .45ACP? 
If 941.27 does have it's original passage date in the 1920's or 30's then I'll say that it probably is fall-out over Chicago/prohibition/Tommy Guns, but damn if that isn't lousy wording. I guess from a 1920's standpoint the SMG was still kind of a novel concept, WWI had the general public used to BAR's, the Hotchkiss, Maxim's and the 1916 etc., but the Thompson was still a pretty new idea/development to them. So perhaps it's an "adaptation" of the original "idea" (as they saw it) of what a machine gun was. Just weird. 
|
|
|
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.
