Us appeals court in Philadelphia gun trust ruling?

[MAUSER202]

A friend who is a lawyer texted me the the US court of appeals in Philadelphia ruled against gun trusts. I have not hear anything in the news. I texted him back and have not heard from him. Does anyone have info on this?

[PatrioticDisorder]

A friend who is a lawyer texted me the the US court of appeals in Philadelphia ruled against gun trusts. I have not hear anything in the news. I texted him back and have not heard from him. Does anyone have info on this?

http://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/152859p.pdf

Google search found this in like 2 seconds, it appears the case was whether or not a trust could own a machine gun, the courts slapped that down. It's not really ruling against gun trusts, but my disclaimer is I am not an attorney.

[jack crab]

Persons can't possess machine guns. Trusts aren't persons. Therefore, trusts can possess machine guns.

ATF initially allowed it but later recalled their mistake.

CoA says "No." A person must act for a trust. As soon as a person possesses a machine gun to act for the trust, the person is in violation.

What is more generally interesting is how legislatures are banning classes of firearms, and the court's uphold the ban on the grounds that the banned firearm is not in common use by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. The federal government freezes the machine gun registry in 1986 and now says that machine guns aren't in common use. Open the registry and see how common use it is.

The same thing happened in the Kolbe case out of Maryland. The trial judge upheld the ban on cosmetic features and magazine capacity because the described firearms and magazine weren't in common use as measured against use in self-defense or ownership of all other firearms. At least the CoA reversed the ruling.

All of this highlights the importance more shooting sports such as the NRA America's Rifle Match. If we can get the numbers up, it will be more difficult to say the AR's aren't in common use for lawful purposes.

[yoni]

If I read the document correctly, Watson used his trust to try and get approval to manufacture a machine gun. Under the law as it stands his request should not have been approved. (not saying I support the law)

By mistake it was approved, so he manufactured a M16.

ATF said oops we made a mistake, you must surrender the M16.

He surrendered the M16 and then went after the government using the argument that his trust can own the M16.

I see the problem is that he manufactured a new machine gun and that for better or worse is against the law.

Maybe someday somebody will cancel the freeze on new machineguns for civilians. But if I remember correctly it was frozen by George the first as a Presidential executive order. So I am guessing it would take an other President to over ride the order.

[Benito]

If I read the document correctly, Watson used his trust to try and get approval to manufacture a machine gun. Under the law as it stands his request should not have been approved. (not saying I support the law)

By mistake it was approved, so he manufactured a M16.

ATF said oops we made a mistake, you must surrender the M16.

He surrendered the M16 and then went after the government using the argument that his trust can own the M16.

I see the problem is that he manufactured a new machine gun and that for better or worse is against the law.

Maybe someday somebody will cancel the freeze on new machineguns for civilians. But if I remember correctly it was frozen by George the first as a Presidential executive order. So I am guessing it would take an other President to over ride the order.

I'm sure Hillary will listen to reason and the Constitution and score another win for the 2A.

[MAUSER202]

Thanks, when I looked yesterday I couldn't find it.

[VelveteenMole]

If I read the document correctly, Watson used his trust to try and get approval to manufacture a machine gun. Under the law as it stands his request should not have been approved. (not saying I support the law)

By mistake it was approved, so he manufactured a M16.

ATF said oops we made a mistake, you must surrender the M16.

He surrendered the M16 and then went after the government using the argument that his trust can own the M16.

I see the problem is that he manufactured a new machine gun and that for better or worse is against the law.

Maybe someday somebody will cancel the freeze on new machineguns for civilians. But if I remember correctly it was frozen by George the first as a Presidential executive order. So I am guessing it would take an other President to over ride the order.

Hughes amendment to the FOPA of 1986 under Reagan is what closed the registry on new machine guns. Under Bush 41's direction the ATF established criteria, based on "assault weapon" features, upon which to deny importation of weapons under the "sporting purposes" authority established by the GCA of 1968, no EO was required.