• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

TurtleDude said:
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
Click to expand...

Trusts provide better opportunities to protect law abiding citizens. When a LEO signs off on a class III weapon, only the person on the paperwork can legally touch the weapon. You can't take said firearm to a range and let your family/friends handle it. The difference is those named on a trust may handle the firearm including firing it.

LEO sign off is a sham.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1064548329 said:
Trusts provide better opportunities to protect law abiding citizens. When a LEO signs off on a class III weapon, only the person on the paperwork can legally touch the weapon. You can't take said firearm to a range and let your family/friends handle it. The difference is those named on a trust may handle the firearm including firing it.

LEO sign off is a sham.
Click to expand...

that is not true at all. I routinely shoot Machine guns owned by other people
 
TurtleDude said:
that is not true at all. I routinely shoot Machine guns owned by other people
Click to expand...

I have as well, and we swap weapons from time to time at the range. I'll take your word for the legality, but given the fact that this usually involves only twenty or thirty rounds fired per weapon at the range, I'm not deeply concerned either way. I guess it depends on the definition of possess or whatever. It gets tiring that such issues continue to come up, and I haven't read the paperwork in a few years now.
 
humbolt said:
I have as well, and we swap weapons from time to time at the range. I'll take your word for the legality, but given the fact that this usually involves only twenty or thirty rounds fired per weapon at the range, I'm not deeply concerned either way. I guess it depends on the definition of possess or whatever. It gets tiring that such issues continue to come up, and I haven't read the paperwork in a few years now.
Click to expand...

ranges in Ohio often have machine guns for people to rent under the supervision of range officers

THe knob Creek machine gun shoot in KY features Owners of machine guns allowing others to shoot them. Trust me, I know the laws on this subject
 
TurtleDude said:
ranges in Ohio often have machine guns for people to rent under the supervision of range officers

THe knob Creek machine gun shoot in KY features Owners of machine guns allowing others to shoot them. Trust me, I know the laws on this subject
Click to expand...

We had (past tense) a similar range here until last year. Nearby home owners complained. I can't say that I blame them - but the range was once remote. Home building in the adjacent areas in recent years has eliminated that remote aspect.
 
humbolt said:
We had (past tense) a similar range here until last year. Nearby home owners complained. I can't say that I blame them - but the range was once remote. Home building in the adjacent areas in recent years has eliminated that remote aspect.
Click to expand...

all of the ranges I know in Cincinnati area that have mgs for rent are indoor range

some anti gun ninnies complained that the noise from one newer range bothered them. So I have my kid blast away with a 762 NATO as I walked around the outside of the range. I could hardly hear anything and the Ninnies lived on the other side of a busy I-71 Interstate highway plus 500 or so yards

gun haters whine no matter what.
 
TurtleDude said:
all of the ranges I know in Cincinnati area that have mgs for rent are indoor range

some anti gun ninnies complained that the noise from one newer range bothered them. So I have my kid blast away with a 762 NATO as I walked around the outside of the range. I could hardly hear anything and the Ninnies lived on the other side of a busy I-71 Interstate highway plus 500 or so yards

gun haters whine no matter what.
Click to expand...

The nice thing about the range that closed was that it offered 600 yard targets. The one I frequent only goes to 300, which is enough, but I have rifles that are made to fire accurately at a much greater distance, as do many others. I have no doubt that for some families the idea that a range is nearby is scary. Of course, that there might be hunters nearby during the seasons doesn't seem to phase them. That's irrational, but there's no use attempting to dissuade such people. Arms fire is vastly more controlled on a range than it can be in the hands of an individual hunter.

The range that closed, while well situated, had a topography that didn't subdue noise. It could be heard for miles. Too bad. They did have their annual machine gun shoot, with miniguns and various weapons available to rent. The K's were popular.
 
AmericanSpartan said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't doubt we'll get the registry reopened, I just wonder what the cost of tax stamp will be increased to.
 
Jerry said:
I don't doubt we'll get the registry reopened, I just wonder what the cost of tax stamp will be increased to.
Click to expand...

Only Congress can do that and they will not...Trust me we have a shot, worse case is we lose and we are back to where we are now...No new machines guns.
 
If I ever need a machine gun I will become a member of the Mexico drug cartel. I hear our government will be giving away thousands soon.

It will be called much faster and more furious.:lol:
 
Jerry said:
Right, just like Congress will not pass a law infringing on the right to keep and bear arms, which is what the whole GCA is.
Click to expand...

Well that is what you get when you elect fools and traitors.
 
I honestly don't get the opposition to machine guns. Firstly, they're ****ing cool, and secondly, they're of far less utility for committing crimes than a pistol or shotgun. If I were going to shoot up a school, one of these would be the best choice.

beta-glock-33.jpg
 
spud_meister said:
I honestly don't get the opposition to machine guns. Firstly, they're ****ing cool, and secondly, they're of far less utility for committing crimes than a pistol or shotgun. If I were going to shoot up a school, one of these would be the best choice.

beta-glock-33.jpg
Click to expand...

Come again?
 
AmericanSpartan said:
Only Congress can do that and they will not...Trust me we have a shot, worse case is we lose and we are back to where we are now...No new machines guns.
Click to expand...

That is not the way politics works. The only reason congress will not is firearm organisations are to tired or stupid to make a public noise, objecting, demanding and ensuring those who vote against are looking for employment elsewhere.

Anyone who relies on the goodwill of politicians is under political control and suffering from the delusion of politicians as the master.

This is an easy fight to win, a court case will be harder as it is generally not subject to public opinion. If we are to bone idle to help ourselves why should anyone else?
 
Crimefree said:
That is not the way politics works. The only reason congress will not is firearm organisations are to tired or stupid to make a public noise, objecting, demanding and ensuring those who vote against are looking for employment elsewhere.

Anyone who relies on the goodwill of politicians is under political control and suffering from the delusion of politicians as the master.

This is an easy fight to win, a court case will be harder as it is generally not subject to public opinion. If we are to bone idle to help ourselves why should anyone else?
Click to expand...

The old guard still thinks we can win by being on the defensive...Which ignores history and reality.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom