New MGs for Trusts?

Machineguns, assault rifles, subguns, SBRs, etc. Photos, questions, discussion. General talk.

Moderators: mpallett, bakerjw

Post Reply
User avatar
BISHOP
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1014
Joined: Sun Mar 01, 2009 1:58 am
Location: New England
Contact:

New MGs for Trusts?

Post by BISHOP » Sun May 18, 2014 8:56 pm

I am sure this has been posted before because this is a cutting edge forum, but just in case......

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014 ... ns-trusts/


BISHOP
The Rusty wire, that holds the cork, that keeps the anger in, gives way.....

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: New MGs for Trusts?

Post by Bendersquint » Sun May 18, 2014 10:13 pm

BISHOP wrote:I am sure this has been posted before because this is a cutting edge forum, but just in case......

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014 ... ns-trusts/


BISHOP
Been posted several times.

ndcajun
Member
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Apr 12, 2014 5:38 pm

Re: New MGs for Trusts?

Post by ndcajun » Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:02 am

I hadn't seen this so thanks for reposting it.... yesterday......as the trustee for my gun trust.... I bought a Daniel Defense MK18 short barrel and an m4 2000 suppressor.... I'd love to have the ability do that with a brand new full auto!

66427vette
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1873
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 3:14 pm

Re: New MGs for Trusts?

Post by 66427vette » Sat Jul 26, 2014 10:07 am

Wishful thinking.

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: New MGs for Trusts?

Post by Bendersquint » Sat Jul 26, 2014 3:54 pm

66427vette wrote:Wishful thinking.
+100

raymond-
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 134
Joined: Wed Jun 07, 2006 12:38 am
Location: Seattle, WA

Re: New MGs for Trusts?

Post by raymond- » Sat Jul 26, 2014 9:07 pm

Prince Law outfit has a proven track record of OMG, embellishing, and creating headlines which draw users to their site or reposting their "you heard it here, first!" breaking news articles.
raymond-
47º34'n 122º18'w

User avatar
Bluewidowr1
Member
Posts: 43
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2011 11:05 pm
Location: T-town UT

Re: New MGs for Trusts?

Post by Bluewidowr1 » Thu Sep 18, 2014 4:00 pm

Did you guys see that several people submitted for form 1 MG's and on 9/10/14 at least one was approved with several others also claiming approved.

I stole this next part from arfcom

1. ATF ruled that a trust is not a person as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a) and the Gun Control Act (GCA).
2. Since ATF holds that an unincorporated trust is not a “person” under the GCA, the prohibition on the transfer or possession of machineguns as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(1) and 18 U.S. Code § 922(o) cannot apply to unincorporated trusts.
3. Numerous (See Footnote #1) trustees submitted Form 1 applications to build new machine guns.
4. ATF approved the applications and sent out stamps (See Footnote #2).
5. On or around 9/10/14, ATF began calling trustees that received stamps demanding that they be returned, or in the case of eForms, updating their online status from Approved to Disapproved. Those that were called were told they had to return the stamp.
6. Attorneys are working on it now and are preparing the first two lawsuits.

Footnotes:
1. Current estimates put the number of trusts that applied somewhere in the low hundreds. Unfortunately, there is no 100% accurate count that is publicly available.
2. Some stamps were received as early as the first week of August 2014. Others have not been received yet.

DarkPhoenix
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:24 pm
Location: Sc

Re: New MGs for Trusts?

Post by DarkPhoenix » Thu Sep 18, 2014 5:57 pm

Pipe dream of a blogger. He forgets that the BATFE is judge, jury and executioner.

danb35
Silent Operator
Posts: 71
Joined: Fri Sep 27, 2013 9:22 am

Re: New MGs for Trusts?

Post by danb35 » Fri Sep 19, 2014 12:18 pm

DarkPhoenix wrote:Pipe dream of a blogger. He forgets that the BATFE is judge, jury and executioner.
No, a United States District Judge will be the judge, and there will be neither a jury nor an executioner. The problem (that I don't see a solution to, unless it can be successfully argued that the Hughes Amendment was never legally passed in the first place) is that, though a trust may not be a "person" under the GCA, an individual indisputably is. And, the only way my trust can make or possess an MG is for some individual to physically make and/or possess it. So, while they might not be able to successfully prosecute my trust, they can definitely prosecute me.

I'd love to be wrong here, but I haven't heard one of the lawyers behind this explain how they think they're going to get around this problem.

DarkPhoenix
Senior Silent Operator
Posts: 119
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2012 12:24 pm
Location: Sc

Re: New MGs for Trusts?

Post by DarkPhoenix » Fri Sep 19, 2014 7:00 pm

danb35 wrote:
DarkPhoenix wrote:Pipe dream of a blogger. He forgets that the BATFE is judge, jury and executioner.
No, a United States District Judge will be the judge, and there will be neither a jury nor an executioner. The problem (that I don't see a solution to, unless it can be successfully argued that the Hughes Amendment was never legally passed in the first place) is that, though a trust may not be a "person" under the GCA, an individual indisputably is. And, the only way my trust can make or possess an MG is for some individual to physically make and/or possess it. So, while they might not be able to successfully prosecute my trust, they can definitely prosecute me.

I'd love to be wrong here, but I haven't heard one of the lawyers behind this explain how they think they're going to get around this problem.
Figuratively speaking obviously. To quout the Matrix: "But they are the gatekeepers. They are guarding all the doors, they are holding all the keys." While the lawsuit may find that the BATFE was wrong and that new MG's were legal due to this issue, in the end the BATFE will likely end up changing the wording to correct the issue. Still no new MG's. It will be interesting to follow the story.

New inexpensive MG's would be awesome, but certainly not holding my breath.

User avatar
L1A1Rocker
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 3578
Joined: Wed Feb 21, 2007 7:40 pm
Location: Texas Hill Country

Re: New MGs for Trusts?

Post by L1A1Rocker » Sat Sep 20, 2014 12:34 pm

Does anyone think Heller might have some bearing on this? Specifically:
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have lim-
ited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.
http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/up ... 7-2901.pdf

Post Reply