Meh. Legal Eagle's logic fails in their own quotations. The ruling about trust transfers may have muddled the transfer issue a bit, but the possession side of things is still pretty clear.
Trust may or may not be able to have a MG transferred to it (doubt it ), but a person will still get nailed for possessing it.
ETA: Additionally, the legal definition of "firearm" varies between the GCA and the NFA for the purposes of each law or section of the Code. Does this guy really think the ATF won't say the definition of "person" does too?
The possession side is take into account. The trust owns it, its never "possessed" by a user. The same way you can rent an MG at a range.
Also, they aren't looking at transferring, but rather construction.
Who knows of it would work, the ATF will just change the rules, but their logic right now is sound.
GCA prohibits persons from possessing.
ATF says trusts aren't persons, thus require NICS on a person.
NFA says trusts can posses.
Basically, the "loophole" is because the ATF wants to non-legislatively require NICS on trusts, by saying they aren't "persons", and the MG legislation only prohibits "persons" (and doesn't have the language the NFA does that calls out other entities as equivalent to persons)