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

[DragonDoc]

Now I have a headache. Where is my Tylenol.

[Velcro]

Koshinn, thank you brother.

Home from deployment in like a week...def looking into it!


Velcro

[Koshinn]

I'm on my way to my dealer to sign a Form 4 on a new can that just arrived ... I am going to try this very thing.

The worst that can happen is you submit your form 4 to the atf and they reject it, causing you lost time waiting, some printer paper, an envelope, and a postage stamp.

But if they deny your trust, you can appeal it and with the argument made by Josh Prince, perhaps win in federal court.

[Koshinn]

Koshinn, thank you brother.

Home from deployment in like a week...def looking into it!


Velcro

Welcome back (preemptively)!

I think I'll try it out in a month or so too when I get out of the mil and PCS back home.

[Koshinn]

No. There is a flaw in the logic but I'm too tired & brain burnt to attempt to explain it. It has something to do with there still has to be a person to handle the machinegun, trust or no trust

It actually does work out the way the article says, theoretically.

"Handling" a machine gun is not "possession" of a machine gun. For example, if you go to Las Vegas and pay money to shoot a post-86 sample, you are not in possession of that machine gun, for if you were, you'd be committing a felony. The business is still in legal possession of the machine gun, you're just using it.

Similarly, a trust is a legal entity that can own things. The NFA restricts owning of NFA items unless you paid a tax first. The Hughes Amendment bans ownership and transfer of machine guns by people, but doesn't define a trust as a person. Therefore, trusts are not banned from transfer and are not banned from possession of machine guns, but still must pay a tax to be transferred one.

No one is technically banned from making a machine gun besides paying a tax for it, but as soon as you make it, you'd be commiting a felony for possession of a machine gun... unless you're acting under and behalf of a trust.

[tb-av]

... the ATF produced a letter stating that the "empty volume of air" created by drilling a hole in the receiver of a registered machine gun receiver was a "new machine gun" ...

I'll bet whomever wrote that lived in a condo.

[edvin70]

The worst that can happen is you submit your form 4 to the atf and they reject it, causing you lost time waiting, some printer paper, an envelope, and a postage stamp.

But if they deny your trust, you can appeal it and with the argument made by Josh Prince, perhaps win in federal court.

No dice with my local dealer, no inventory.

[CleverNickname]

No dice with my local dealer, no inventory.

No need, if this interpretation flies then manufacture would be covered in addition to transfers, so just submit a form 1. Since you can manufacture guns on a form 1 from scratch (not just convert title I guns) you don't even have to dedicate a title I gun to lay around waiting for the ATF's response.

That said, the ATF will not approve this, short of a court order telling them to. So if you really think this will work then you'll need more than $200 for a lawyer to sue the ATF when your form gets rejected. If you don't have 6 figures+ for a lawyer to take this on then I suggest finding a group willing to get donations and coordinate a lawsuit. But you submiting a form 1 and giving the ATF a $200 loan for a year does nothing.

[OMEGA9000]

I wonder if current MG owners would fight this and try to push legislation since their investment would probably tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Koshinn]

I wonder if current MG owners would fight this and try to push legislation since their investment would probably tank.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If they do, they can't claim to be pro-2a ever again.