Can someone help with a couple of Form 1 questions

[khc3]

Forms have been approved with "Chicks dig it" and "For zombies."

My only question is why people put "investment?"

You only need to put one reason. As long as it's lawful, the form will be approved. It won't be any "more" approved with two reasons. The reason you state on your form doesn't limit your use of the firearm, nor does it allow you to do anything special.

It just seems silly to me to put something on there that could possibly be construed as an illegal activity.

The laws states, with regard needing a license:

"The term “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection"

[Iraqgunz]

khc3,

If I purchased a safe full of guns, waited two years and then sold them after prices went up, the oceans parted or zombies came to life I seriously doubt that anyone, least of BATFE is going to have a say in the matter. It's pretty simple. I had these guns in my safe that I wasn't using anymore, I needed the money and liquidated my collection. But, then again I don't get wrapped up in all the small details. I took the advice of those who made purchases before me and ran with it. YMMV.

[khc3]

khc3,

If I purchased a safe full of guns, waited two years and then sold them after prices went up, the oceans parted or zombies came to life I seriously doubt that anyone, least of BATFE is going to have a say in the matter. It's pretty simple. I had these guns in my safe that I wasn't using anymore, I needed the money and liquidated my collection. But, then again I don't get wrapped up in all the small details. I took the advice of those who made purchases before me and ran with it. YMMV.

But that's exactly the point: they have a form with your signature on it saying that you bought/made the gun in order to sell it for a profit later. With the urge to eliminate private sales ("close the gunshow loophole"), it's not impossible to envision a crackdown on dealing without a license. Plenty of people were prosecuted for that during the Clinton years, including a couple from my town whom I knew from my gun club.

Yes, you're right, the actual risk, as things stand right now, is very small, but any benefit to putting "investment" on there seems even smaller.

I guess I am just wondering if there is some reason to do that that I had not considered.

[Iraqgunz]

It's all good. I would love to know more about those prosecutions though. Especially because I have never heard of one case of anyone being prosecuted for something like that. And since the sale of private property is still protected (which is the real issue) I am not all that concerned. In order to be prosecuted you would have to come up on the radar screen and you would have to have alot of weapons.

But that's exactly the point: they have a form with your signature on it saying that you bought/made the gun in order to sell it for a profit later. With the urge to eliminate private sales ("close the gunshow loophole"), it's not impossible to envision a crackdown on dealing without a license. Plenty of people were prosecuted for that during the Clinton years, including a couple from my town whom I knew from my gun club.

Yes, you're right, the actual risk, as things stand right now, is very small, but any benefit to putting "investment" on there seems even smaller.

I guess I am just wondering if there is some reason to do that that I had not considered.

[khc3]

This couple WAS dealing without a license. They argued that they were selling their personal guns, but the prosecution used the fact that they had sold multiples of the same model gun and replenished inventory by buying more of the same model guns they sold.

It wasn't directly related to NFA, but I remember reading about quite a few prosecutions like that (and worse) during the Clinton years. There was quite a crackdown on "kitchen table" FFLs as well.

[Iraqgunz]

And in those exact cases you just mentioned that would seem to meet the definition. Not the one that I outlined above. The Clinton Years were a sad time for gun owners of that there can be no doubt.

This couple WAS dealing without a license. They argued that they were selling their personal guns, but the prosecution used the fact that they had sold multiples of the same model gun and replenished inventory by buying more of the same model guns they sold.

It wasn't directly related to NFA, but I remember reading about quite a few prosecutions like that (and worse) during the Clinton years. There was quite a crackdown on "kitchen table" FFLs as well.

[CarlosDJackal]

Just curious, why do you put "investment?"

Just another reason to help reinforce why I must own an NFA Item. I figured if I were to just say "collection" it is not beyond the realm of possibility that someone can decide that owning an NFA item for "hobby" reasons and declare that such hobbies are no longer legal (I know, it's a stretch).

But if I added "investment" then it falls under commerce. If you think about it, this is the only reason Class 3 Dealers are allowed to own post-1986 NFA Items. The ATF would probably not issue you an SOT if the reason you put for wanting such a license was because you want to amass a collection of NFA Items.

You'd probably be hard-pressed to find an NFA Dealer who was issued a license after the declared their justification for wanting one is for purposes of a Hobby (ie: collection).

I've heard of people entering "To kill Zombies" as their justification. While this seems like as good a reason as any to obtain an NFA Item; what's going to stop the ATF from demanding that those individuals turn in their NFA Item either because their justification is no longer legitimate (when was the last documented zombie attack?) or was never legitimate in the first place.

Unfortunately, the NFA Act of 1934 effectively identified specific categories of guns as controlled items (hence the $200 tax). By identifying these items as "investments", I figure I might have a chance to argue that they now fall under commercial items and maybe I might have a better chance of fighting any attempts to ban them because doing so amounts to impeding your right to participate in commercial ventures and investments.

That's just my thought process on why. Of course, I could be way off on this but I don't see how it could hurt.

[exkc135driver]

Forms have been approved with "Chicks dig it" and "For zombies."

My only question is why people put "investment?"

...

It just seems silly to me to put something on there that could possibly be construed as an illegal activity.

There is a difference between dealing and investing. Dealing is selling stock/inventory, and then acquiring more stock/inventory to sell, and repeating the process. The term "dealing" contemplates a more-or-less continuous pattern of behavior. If I buy something now for $5 with the hope/expectation that in 5 years it will be worth $20, that is an investment and is completely legal, even if the "something" is an NFA firearm. Whether it is necessary or advisable to include 'for investment purposes' on the Form 1/Form 4 is a matter of personal choice, but it is not illegal and it is not "dealing."

I would ask how you know that forms have been approved for the reasons you state, but I'm not sure I want to know the answer.

For most private owners, NFA items are big boys' toys. That doesn't mean that the process is a game. I think almost everyone takes it very seriously. If someone wants to play games with BATFE by asserting that his reason for acquiring an NFA weapon is because 'chicks dig it' or 'for zombies,' that's his business, but I think that (a) it demonstrates childish behavior and (b) that tweaking BATFE in that manner is stupid. But, if someone wants to demonstatre to BATFE that he is an idiot, it is his God-given right to do so.

I can't believe that BATFE would approve a Form 1/Form 4 for the reasons stated, but what do I know?

[khc3]

There is a difference between dealing and investing. Dealing is selling stock/inventory, and then acquiring more stock/inventory to sell, and repeating the process. The term "dealing" contemplates a more-or-less continuous pattern of behavior. If I buy something now for $5 with the hope/expectation that in 5 years it will be worth $20, that is an investment and is completely legal, even if the "something" is an NFA firearm. Whether it is necessary or advisable to include 'for investment purposes' on the Form 1/Form 4 is a matter of personal choice, but it is not illegal and it is not "dealing."

What is and is not "dealing" is not explicitly defined in statute; it would be whatever the USA convinces the jury it is.

I would ask how you know that forms have been approved for the reasons you state, but I'm not sure I want to know the answer.

LOL, not mine, just seen images of approved forms with those reasons on the net. I assumed they were legit, but who knows?

I have always just put "for personal collection."

For most private owners, NFA items are big boys' toys. That doesn't mean that the process is a game. I think almost everyone takes it very seriously. If someone wants to play games with BATFE by asserting that his reason for acquiring an NFA weapon is because 'chicks dig it' or 'for zombies,' that's his business, but I think that (a) it demonstrates childish behavior and (b) that tweaking BATFE in that manner is stupid. But, if someone wants to demonstatre to BATFE that he is an idiot, it is his God-given right to do so.

I can't believe that BATFE would approve a Form 1/Form 4 for the reasons stated, but what do I know?

I hear ya.

[scottryan]

I've heard of people entering "To kill Zombies" as their justification. While this seems like as good a reason as any to obtain an NFA Item; what's going to stop the ATF from demanding that those individuals turn in their NFA Item either because their justification is no longer legitimate (when was the last documented zombie attack?) or was never legitimate in the first place.

The ATF does not get to decide this matter. It would take an act of Congress to change this.

Tax stamps are shall issue.

Reason for ownership question on NFA forms is for statistical purposes.