The fight to reopen the machine gun registry begins [W:43]

[AmericanSpartan]

What’s happening?

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. (See Footnote #3 for audio of one such call)
6. Attorneys are working on it now...

NFA cases: Hollis v. Holder; Watson v. Holder - another attorney announced for our team p.30 - Page 1 - AR15.COM

Well the ATF has done us a favor, lets make the best of it.

We could see the registry reopen and a liberty expended upon.

 

[Declan]

Obama has specifically mentioned going after gun trusts and he is right to do so.

 

[TurtleDude]

Obama has specifically mentioned going after gun trusts and he is right to do so.

and why is that given there is no evidence whatsoever that automatic weapons owned legally by trusts have been used in any crimes

here is why Obama wants to go after trusts

under the unconstitutional NFA, someone who wants to own a machine gun has to get the PERMISSION of the local law enforcement agency chief-either a sheriff, a Chief of Police or the Coroner. if that LE Official doesn't grant the request, there is nothing the would be owner can do to force the official to act. no matter what sort of clean record the would be owner has, a LE O can arbitrarily deny that permission

but there is a way around: it is to create a corporation or a trust to own the weapon. lots of people I know who live in anti gun cities have done this

obama wants to get rid of this so assholes in LE (i.e. mostly democrats but some republicans like former Ohio Hamilton county Sheriff Si Leis wouldn't approve class three paperwork either) can prevent people from owning class three weapons

 

[Declan]

and why is that given there is no evidence whatsoever that automatic weapons owned legally by trusts have been used in any crimes

here is why Obama wants to go after trusts

under the unconstitutional NFA, someone who wants to own a machine gun has to get the PERMISSION of the local law enforcement agency chief-either a sheriff, a Chief of Police or the Coroner. if that LE Official doesn't grant the request, there is nothing the would be owner can do to force the official to act. no matter what sort of clean record the would be owner has, a LE O can arbitrarily deny that permission

but there is a way around: it is to create a corporation or a trust to own the weapon. lots of people I know who live in anti gun cities have done this

obama wants to get rid of this so assholes in LE (i.e. mostly democrats but some republicans like former Ohio Hamilton county Sheriff Si Leis wouldn't approve class three paperwork either) can prevent people from owning class three weapons

I know how they work and the more machine guns that default into contraband status the better.

 

[TurtleDude]

I know how they work and the more machine guns that default into contraband status the better.

that is because you are a gun banner. you want to ban all guns. I want gun banners to disappear from this world. you cannot make a rational argument for your position. rather, as a progressive you see gun owners as opposed to your politics and you support gun bans to harass your political enemies

 

[Declan]

that is because you are a gun banner. you want to ban all guns. I want gun banners to disappear from this world. you cannot make a rational argument for your position. rather, as a progressive you see gun owners as opposed to your politics and you support gun bans to harass your political enemies

I can make a perfectly rational argument for my position. Your bias informs your logic in a different way so anything that you do not agree with is "dishonest" or "illogical." In the mean time, ending gun trusts will keep idiots who think they are pulling a slick one on the government from getting themselves or their family members convicted of a federal felony when they screw up their internet cut and paste from a "sample gun trust".

 

[TurtleDude]

I can make a perfectly rational argument for my position. Your bias informs your logic in a different way so anything that you do not agree with is "dishonest" or "illogical." In the mean time, ending gun trusts will keep idiots who think they are pulling a slick one on the government from getting themselves or their family members convicted of a federal felony when they screw up their internet cut and paste from a "sample gun trust".

uh you have no clue what you are talking about. the entire purpose of the trust is to own a class III weapon in cities where the chief of police won't sign off on the paperwork

what are you talking about in terms of a felony

remember, I was a DOJ attorney for 24 years. I was charged with handling these issues because I was expert on this law

so tell me do you think someone with a felony would create a trust and then be caught holding a machine gun?

 

[EMNofSeattle]

I can make a perfectly rational argument for my position. Your bias informs your logic in a different way so anything that you do not agree with is "dishonest" or "illogical." In the mean time, ending gun trusts will keep idiots who think they are pulling a slick one on the government from getting themselves or their family members convicted of a federal felony when they screw up their internet cut and paste from a "sample gun trust".

You clearly possess no working knowledge on the subject.

Obama "cracking down" on gun trusts was pure political theater. And was not an improvement to Public Safety in the least. Not one I repeat one legally registered machine gun has been used in a crime since at least the late 70s. Also please link the number of convictions for people who've gotten a gun trust wrong. Most truster a established using lawyers

 

[AmericanSpartan]

Obama has specifically mentioned going after gun trusts and he is right to do so.

No, he is not.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

I know how they work and the more machine guns that default into contraband status the better.

Why? You have no right to make that choice for other people.

You just can not stand people owning such tools for self defense again people who would usurp their rights.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

I can make a perfectly rational argument for my position. Your bias informs your logic in a different way so anything that you do not agree with is "dishonest" or "illogical." In the mean time, ending gun trusts will keep idiots who think they are pulling a slick one on the government from getting themselves or their family members convicted of a federal felony when they screw up their internet cut and paste from a "sample gun trust".

You can not make a argument. How many times has that happened? Never, and even when it does you can not punish other people for the actions of other people.

 

[AmericanSpartan]

uh you have no clue what you are talking about. the entire purpose of the trust is to own a class III weapon in cities where the chief of police won't sign off on the paperwork

what are you talking about in terms of a felony

remember, I was a DOJ attorney for 24 years. I was charged with handling these issues because I was expert on this law

so tell me do you think someone with a felony would create a trust and then be caught holding a machine gun?

You clearly possess no working knowledge on the subject.

Obama "cracking down" on gun trusts was pure political theater. And was not an improvement to Public Safety in the least. Not one I repeat one legally registered machine gun has been used in a crime since at least the late 70s. Also please link the number of convictions for people who've gotten a gun trust wrong. Most truster a established using lawyers

Be careful you are using facts...

This is more proof that gun grabbers just want to ban, ban, ban...

 

[TurtleDude]

Why? You have no right to make that choice for other people.

You just can not stand people owning such tools for self defense again people who would usurp their rights.

once again, its another case of a far left winger wanting to harass people he perceives as being hostile to "progressive" ideals

in the 24 years I worked for DOJ there was not a single case of a machine gun being legally transferred to someone who was a "felon" or such a trust being created by a felon. you see, the ATF still does a background check and that includes those who are owners or beneficiaries of the trust. the only purpose of the trust or a corporation owning the weapon is to get around malicious refusal of anti gun law enforcement officials at the STATE level to sign the ATF paperwork

the original purpose of that in the 1934 requirement was so a sheriff or C of Police could veto someone they knew was a mobster from getting a MG even if the mobster had a clean record. nowadays records are far easier to search and that "safety valve" has no legitimacy. indeed if someone can buy a pistol or rifle legally, there is absolutely no reason for a cop to refuse to sign the paperwork. but many do and thus the trust avenue

 

[AmericanSpartan]

once again, its another case of a far left winger wanting to harass people he perceives as being hostile to "progressive" ideals

in the 24 years I worked for DOJ there was not a single case of a machine gun being legally transferred to someone who was a "felon" or such a trust being created by a felon. you see, the ATF still does a background check and that includes those who are owners or beneficiaries of the trust. the only purpose of the trust or a corporation owning the weapon is to get around malicious refusal of anti gun law enforcement officials at the STATE level to sign the ATF paperwork

the original purpose of that in the 1934 requirement was so a sheriff or C of Police could veto someone they knew was a mobster from getting a MG even if the mobster had a clean record. nowadays records are far easier to search and that "safety valve" has no legitimacy. indeed if someone can buy a pistol or rifle legally, there is absolutely no reason for a cop to refuse to sign the paperwork. but many do and thus the trust avenue

So as a DOJ lawyer, what is your take on these two cases?

What are the odds of winning?

 

[TurtleDude]

So as a DOJ lawyer, what is your take on these two cases?

What are the odds of winning?

well given the Hughes amendment was not properly passed
given the reasons for its "passage" was an illegitimate desire to derail a bill that caused a scum bag asshole serious butt hurt
given Heller and Miller's holdings

it should be successful

 

[AmericanSpartan]

well given the Hughes amendment was not properly passed
given the reasons for its "passage" was an illegitimate desire to derail a bill that caused a scum bag asshole serious butt hurt
given Heller and Miller's holdings

it should be successful

How such are you on a scale of 1 to 10 that this should work?

 

[TurtleDude]

How such are you on a scale of 1 to 10 that this should work?

6-7 at the trial level

 

[AmericanSpartan]

6-7 at the trial level

Really?

I think you contact the lawyer of the case and offer any intel you might have.


So do you think it will go to SCOTUS? And what are the odds of passing at that level?

 

[TurtleDude]

Really?

I think you contact the lawyer of the case and offer any intel you might have.


So do you think it will go to SCOTUS? And what are the odds of passing at that level?

I don't know who the trial judge is

then the three judge panel that gets the appeal-it could be three people who support the constitution or it could be three clowns

too many variables

 

[AmericanSpartan]

I don't know who the trial judge is

then the three judge panel that gets the appeal-it could be three people who support the constitution or it could be three clowns

too many variables

What would you buy?

 

[TurtleDude]

What would you buy?

if the Hughes amendment was stricken? probably a Colt 9mm SMG since I have tons of mags
or a AR in 22-cheaper to shoot

 

[AmericanSpartan]

if the Hughes amendment was stricken? probably a Colt 9mm SMG since I have tons of mags
or a AR in 22-cheaper to shoot

My friend says he will form one a musket, he is not joking either...

Ammo companies will have to expend even more so to keep up demand.

 

[TurtleDude]

My friend says he will form one a musket, he is not joking either...

Ammo companies will have to expend even more so to keep up demand.

given the cost still and the fact that many states ban them I don't see all that big a demand on ammo. I can se people buying them as investments. what needs to happen is to get rid of the unconstitutional NFA and then select fire weapons would sell for the same price as semi auto versions-as they should be

 

[AmericanSpartan]

given the cost still and the fact that many states ban them I don't see all that big a demand on ammo. I can se people buying them as investments. what needs to happen is to get rid of the unconstitutional NFA and then select fire weapons would sell for the same price as semi auto versions-as they should be

In due time...I mean no one can make the point against sound suppressors...

 

[TurtleDude]

In due time...I mean no one can make the point against sound suppressors...

Ohio is close to legalizing them for hunting

the alleged reason for the NFA "ban" was to prevent poor people from poaching during the depression