Did the ATF Open the Door for Manufacture of New Machineguns for trust?

[AnthonyCumia]

Technically does not the law say that ATF can not spend any money on registering any machine guns that are post 86 for individuals? It does not say that machine guns made after 86 are illegal for civilians, just that ATF can't spend money on transferring them. If they screw up and sent out a stamp you could argue that they screwed up but the money has been spent and can not be unspent therefore the gun is registered?

I have not read the entire thread so sorry if I went over something that has been stated already.

Read the first page that should clear it up, trust me this is a great suit.

[oberstgreup]

Technically does not the law say that ATF can not spend any money on registering any machine guns that are post 86 for individuals? It does not say that machine guns made after 86 are illegal for civilians, just that ATF can't spend money on transferring them. If they screw up and sent out a stamp you could argue that they screwed up but the money has been spent and can not be unspent therefore the gun is registered?

No, the law says it is illegal for any person to transfer or possess a machine gun, with exceptions for governmental entities and for machine guns that were lawfully possessed before May 19, 1986. (18 U.S.C. § 922(o).) There are no other exceptions and no provision for ATF to grant exceptions or licenses to own post-86 machine guns. It does not say illegal to possess unless you have a stamp, it says illegal to possess, period. The stamp pertains to the NFA which is a different statute.

The lawsuit argues that since ATF ruled that a trust is not a "person" for purposes of this statute, but a trust is capable of owning a machine gun under the NFA, the statute above does not prohibit a trust from possessing a post-86 MG. Or alternately, that the 2nd Amendment does not allow Congress to ban machine guns, or the Commerce Clause does not give Congress the authority to ban machine guns, or the plaintiff's due process rights were violated when ATF issued a stamp then wanted to revoke it. The court said nice try but no on all counts - the 2nd Amendment does not protect the possession of MGs by private persons, the possessor of an MG for purposes of the above statute is the individual, not the trust, and therefore such possession is barred by statute, and the the fact that ATF erroneously issued a stamp does not mean it created a right for the plaintiff to own a machine gun in violation of federal law. No one with any legal training or experience ever expected that the court would rule otherwise.

[AnthonyCumia]

We are in court April 4th.

Pray.

[DragonDoc]

Definitely pray. With Scalia out of the picture we have no clue how this will turn out.