Now I have a headache. Where is my Tylenol.
Now I have a headache. Where is my Tylenol.
Doc Williams
U.S. Army Combat Medic/Flight Medic Retired
1987 - 2013
Flight Medic Class 4-95
http://www.dustoff.org/
Koshinn, thank you brother.
Home from deployment in like a week...def looking into it!
Velcro
"surrounded Hell, Now we can just shoot in every direction" - Chesty Puller
VELCRO
.....but what do I know, I'm just a FK'N Armorer!
The worst that can happen is you submit your form 4 to the atf and they reject it, causing you lost time waiting, some printer paper, an envelope, and a postage stamp.
But if they deny your trust, you can appeal it and with the argument made by Josh Prince, perhaps win in federal court.
Last edited by Koshinn; 05-16-14 at 09:49.
"I never learned from a man who agreed with me." Robert A. Heinlein
It actually does work out the way the article says, theoretically.
"Handling" a machine gun is not "possession" of a machine gun. For example, if you go to Las Vegas and pay money to shoot a post-86 sample, you are not in possession of that machine gun, for if you were, you'd be committing a felony. The business is still in legal possession of the machine gun, you're just using it.
Similarly, a trust is a legal entity that can own things. The NFA restricts owning of NFA items unless you paid a tax first. The Hughes Amendment bans ownership and transfer of machine guns by people, but doesn't define a trust as a person. Therefore, trusts are not banned from transfer and are not banned from possession of machine guns, but still must pay a tax to be transferred one.
No one is technically banned from making a machine gun besides paying a tax for it, but as soon as you make it, you'd be commiting a felony for possession of a machine gun... unless you're acting under and behalf of a trust.
Last edited by Koshinn; 05-16-14 at 10:28.
"I never learned from a man who agreed with me." Robert A. Heinlein
No need, if this interpretation flies then manufacture would be covered in addition to transfers, so just submit a form 1. Since you can manufacture guns on a form 1 from scratch (not just convert title I guns) you don't even have to dedicate a title I gun to lay around waiting for the ATF's response.
That said, the ATF will not approve this, short of a court order telling them to. So if you really think this will work then you'll need more than $200 for a lawyer to sue the ATF when your form gets rejected. If you don't have 6 figures+ for a lawyer to take this on then I suggest finding a group willing to get donations and coordinate a lawsuit. But you submiting a form 1 and giving the ATF a $200 loan for a year does nothing.
I wonder if current MG owners would fight this and try to push legislation since their investment would probably tank.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Bookmarks