While I cannot use Westlaw for non-clients, here are some things I've found on Google for you.

Originally Posted by
DreadPirateMoyer
You said you're not a lawyer, but you sure make an awful lot of strong legal claims in this thread. Care to provide citations of law and/or especially legal precedent for literally everything in the quoted post?
The multiple defenses you could pose are:
A transfer under the authority of the United States or any department or agency thereof is an exception to the ban of machine guns by persons. 18 USC § 922(o)(2)(A). The ATF is an agency of the United States that is granted purvue over the NFA. (I don't want to dig into administrative law to prove that, you can take that on faith I'm sure). While it's not a guaranteed argument that a transfer by the ATF to your trust under 26 USC § 5812 qualifies as a transfer by the ATF to your trust under 18 USC § 922(o)(2)(A), it's a pretty damn good argument. Most juries would side with you on that one.
A trust is not banned from possession of a machine gun under 18 USC §§ 921 and 922(o). Trusts (and all persons) are banned from making/transferring machine guns (and silencers, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs, DDs, and explosives) unless approved by the ATF, which includes a tax. 26 USC §§ 5812, 5822. Similarly, trusts (and all persons) are banned from possessing NFA items transferred to him or made by him in violation of the NFA. 26 USC § 5861(b) and (c). If the Form 1 or 4 is approved, you've avoided the Title 26 laws and you have a strong (almost bullet-proof) argument that 18 USC § 922(o) simply doesn't apply to a trust as per the definition of "persion" in 18 USC § 921 that does not include a trust. Note that regarding the Title 26 laws, approval is only required upon making/transferring, it cannot be withdrawn at a later date to invalidate ownership.
There's a commerce clause jurisdiction challenge regarding a machine gun that you've "made" via Form 1 in your own current state. For the law to be validly applied, it must either regulate 1) channels of interstate commerce, 2) instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or 3) activities that substantially affect interstate commerce. US v Lopez, 514 US 549 (1995). If, again, you made it via Form 1, the only category it could apply to would be category 3, and that would be a very uphill battle for the prosecution to prove that a single MG lower substantially affects interstate commerce.
It'd be hard for them to nail you? They'd have to give you notice to let you destroy or transfer an illegally-owned MG? Illegal possession requires intent? Since when?
Citations please.
Whoever knowingly violates subsection (a)(6), (d), (g), (h), (i), (j), or (o) of section 922 shall be fined as provided in this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both. 18 U.S.C. § 924(a)(2). Besides that citation, mens rea has been a cornerstone of criminal law in the United States since forever, with very few exceptions (e.g. statutory rape, in many jurisdictions, is a crime that specifically does not require mens rea). Case law has upheld this essential piece of common law. Morissette v. US, 343 US 246 (1952).
So to answer your question, illegal possession has required intent since, essentially, the creation of the particular illegal possession laws.
Last edited by Koshinn; 05-21-14 at 11:57.
"I never learned from a man who agreed with me." Robert A. Heinlein
Bookmarks