Page 12 of 27 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast
Results 111 to 120 of 264

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

  1. #111
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,571
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Well...... wouldn't that be something.

  2. #112
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    1,571
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    I'm in disbelief that they approved it. But, still cool. Very cool.

  3. #113
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    2,185
    Feedback Score
    26 (100%)
    Apparently BATFE is dumber than even I thought they were.

    I do wonder what if any statutory authority exists for revoking a tax stamp once granted. I'd almost bet a crisp $100 bill that there is nada...

  4. #114
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    NoVA
    Posts
    3,190
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by nova3930 View Post
    I do wonder what if any statutory authority exists for revoking a tax stamp once granted.
    Remember who we're dealing with- That's actually to the ATF's advantage.

    If I were holding one, I'd be concerned about the door coming off the hinges tonight and having to document the origin of every 922(r) part in my builds, contact the "keeper of records" for every pornographic image in my cache, measure the depth of the engraving on my SBRs, provide my income tax records for the lastX years...

    Oh, and since we have state machine gun registration, I doubt VA would let me register it anyway...

  5. #115
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Northern UT
    Posts
    4,023
    Feedback Score
    66 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    Um... yeah... I'll send that right back to you fukktards... Just let me make copies to have on my when I'm blasting away in the desert with my MG.
    Thats the funny thing, even if it does get overturned and he has a copy of the approved stamp what LEO is going to check and see if its valid? That is if atf doesnt require proof that the new machine gun is destroyed.
    Last edited by VIP3R 237; 09-12-14 at 15:55.
    I paint spaceship parts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Failure2Stop View Post
    Stippled Glocks are like used underwear; previous owner makes all the difference in value.

  6. #116
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    SW UT
    Posts
    315
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by JulyAZ View Post
    http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...ne-gun-form-1/


    It got APPROVED!!!!

    Then atf asked for it back...let's see how this turns out
    Some examiner (or maybe ex-examiner) at BATF got his/her ass severely chewed for that.

  7. #117
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    66
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by Koshinn View Post
    Judges, for the most part, have one overriding goal even if they won't admit it: They don't want to be overruled by the next higher court.

    Not following the plain as day wording of the law is sure fire way to get overruled.
    You are correct, but where you are mistaken is in thinking that the plain meaning of a statute to a judge or lawyer is the same as the plain meaning to someone without a legal background.

    Trust me, there is no loophole here and no court will interpret the statutes so as to create one. I'd love to see it happen but it won't. And even if it did, Congress would probably just pass a new statute closing it. Or maybe just ban private ownership of machine guns altogether. Machine guns get even less love than "semiautomatic assault weapons" from people who don't own one.

    As for the language of the statute, the problem with this loophole is that the administrative ruling in question specifies that when the firearm is transferred to the individual acting on behalf of the trust, for purposes of the GCA the transfer is treated as being to the individual, not the trust. That means that the transfer and possession of a post-96 MG is barred by § 922(o), because for purposes of Title 18, chapter 44 (the GCA), the transfer or possession is considered to be by the individual, even if for purposes of Title 26 (the NFA) the transferee or maker is the trust.

    The interpretation you're looking for is that the omission of trusts from the GCA definition of "person" in § 921(a)(1) means that any firearm owned by a trust is exempt from all the provisions of the GCA, but that is not what the ATF opinion says or how courts would interpret the statute. The interpretation ATF gave it is that the existence of the trust is simply ignored for GCA purposes. The best you'd get from a court on this issue is that ATF was mistaken and trusts do fall under the definition of "person" in § 921(a)(1). More likely they would follow the ATF interpretation and consider the individual to be the transferee/possessor for GCA purposes.

    This wouldn't be affected by the issue of a tax stamp. The tax stamp affects the legality of transfer or possession under the NFA, not under the GCA. Nothing in the NFA creates an exception to any of the requirements of the GCA, and there is no statutory authority for ATF to waive the prohibitions in the GCA. The stamp doesn't mean it's legal for you to possess the firearm, it just shows that you have complied with the tax provisions and therefore it is not illegal under the NFA for you to possess it. It's effectively the same as if the NFA Branch slipped up and accidentally issued a stamp to a felon, the stamp would not negate the § 922(g) ban on felons possessing firearms, nor of course any state laws prohibiting such possession.

  8. #118
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    1,901
    Feedback Score
    27 (97%)
    I pity the fool who thinks he can get away with building a full auto firearm and using this "loophole" to make it "legal."

  9. #119
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Vegas
    Posts
    6,717
    Feedback Score
    5 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by oberstgreup View Post
    You are correct, but where you are mistaken is in thinking that the plain meaning of a statute to a judge or lawyer is the same as the plain meaning to someone without a legal background.

    Trust me, there is no loophole here and no court will interpret the statutes so as to create one. I'd love to see it happen but it won't. And even if it did, Congress would probably just pass a new statute closing it. Or maybe just ban private ownership of machine guns altogether. Machine guns get even less love than "semiautomatic assault weapons" from people who don't own one.

    As for the language of the statute, the problem with this loophole is that the administrative ruling in question specifies that when the firearm is transferred to the individual acting on behalf of the trust, for purposes of the GCA the transfer is treated as being to the individual, not the trust. That means that the transfer and possession of a post-96 MG is barred by § 922(o), because for purposes of Title 18, chapter 44 (the GCA), the transfer or possession is considered to be by the individual, even if for purposes of Title 26 (the NFA) the transferee or maker is the trust.

    The interpretation you're looking for is that the omission of trusts from the GCA definition of "person" in § 921(a)(1) means that any firearm owned by a trust is exempt from all the provisions of the GCA, but that is not what the ATF opinion says or how courts would interpret the statute. The interpretation ATF gave it is that the existence of the trust is simply ignored for GCA purposes. The best you'd get from a court on this issue is that ATF was mistaken and trusts do fall under the definition of "person" in § 921(a)(1). More likely they would follow the ATF interpretation and consider the individual to be the transferee/possessor for GCA purposes.

    This wouldn't be affected by the issue of a tax stamp. The tax stamp affects the legality of transfer or possession under the NFA, not under the GCA. Nothing in the NFA creates an exception to any of the requirements of the GCA, and there is no statutory authority for ATF to waive the prohibitions in the GCA. The stamp doesn't mean it's legal for you to possess the firearm, it just shows that you have complied with the tax provisions and therefore it is not illegal under the NFA for you to possess it. It's effectively the same as if the NFA Branch slipped up and accidentally issued a stamp to a felon, the stamp would not negate the § 922(g) ban on felons possessing firearms, nor of course any state laws prohibiting such possession.
    I have no energy to keep debating this point since I'd just be repeating myself. I do have a legal background and it makes sense to me.
    "I never learned from a man who agreed with me." Robert A. Heinlein

  10. #120
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    GA
    Posts
    3,704
    Feedback Score
    43 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by markm View Post
    Um... yeah... I'll send that right back to you fukktards... Just let me make copies to have on my when I'm blasting away in the desert with my MG.
    I won't be surprised if every one of the applicants gets a visit from their friendly local ATF agent, possibly with a warrant in hand to inspect the lower identified on the Form 1.

Page 12 of 27 FirstFirst ... 2101112131422 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •