Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Viking on May 15, 2014, 03:34:51 PM
-
Trying to avoid drive-by posting here. ATF may have dun goofed up. Of course, they could just decide otherwise as soon as this is brought to their attention. What does APS think?
http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/05/14/did-atfs-determination-on-nics-checks-open-the-door-for-manufacture-of-new-machineguns-for-trusts/
Summary & more comments, reblogging first link here: http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/05/foghorn/atf-may-accidentaly-thrown-open-machine-gun-registry/
-
The ATF may have accidentally stepped on their collective johnson, but that doesn't mean they will uphold a mistake they made in our favor.
They have no constitutional backing for making laws anyway, they need to be all fired.
-
The ATF may have accidentally stepped on their collective johnson, but that doesn't mean they will uphold a mistake they made in our favor.
They have no constitutional backing for making laws anyway, they need to be all fired.
This.
They'll stop allowing any transfers to trusts before interpreting this the way we want.
-
Yup.
Don't ever expect we'll see an error in our favor from those guys. =|
-
Every once in a while there's a fellow who thinks he's found a dot or jot or comma in the law that lets it be interpreted in some way forcing the government to completely alter its practices (sometimes, but not always, in a way that's totally different from how the lawmaker obviously intended).
This never actually works out for said fellow.
-
Quite often said fellow never intends to do it himself but rather encourage someone else to. Ala the penguins crowding the edge of the ocean
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Well, we can see if the ATF allows the transfer of the "new" mini-gun.
[popcorn] [popcorn]
-
The real question is whether or not the flag in the courtroom where the first person to try this gets sent to pound me in the ass prison has gold fringe or not. Cause that totally invalidates it you guys.
-
Ennnhhhh. At this point all they did was fill out a form and mail it in with a check. Like I said: [popcorn]
-
Ennnhhhh. At this point all they did was fill out a form and mail it in with a check. Like I said: [popcorn]
The BATFE has a delightfully archaic, red-ink "DISAPPROVED" stamp. It looks like this:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv282%2Fnick1911%2Fatf-disapproval_zpsf073ef0d.jpg&hash=92196b7df4b6afe13154f23997595f626f014e37)
The gentleman in question with a mini-gun registration in the works? I believe he will get to experience it first hand.
-
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 :angel:), 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?
-
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 :angel:), 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)
-
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)
Ayep. Logically speaking, that should end run Hughes Amendment and open the door for new full autos. Reality is, BATFE will rule that they can have their cake and eat it too. NICS for trusts and no new transferable MGs either.
-
Ayep. Logically speaking, that should end run Hughes Amendment and open the door for new full autos. Reality is, BATFE will rule that they can have their cake and eat it too. NICS for trusts and no new transferable MGs either.
Which will be (eventually) a good lawsuit, and actually, possibly a good way to bring up that their interpretation definitely violates equal protection (which is the flaw of the Hughes amendment).
If the ATF does a CYA rule, it formalizes that it IS not equal protection, and thus opens the door for a lawsuit, which is likely why that law firm wants to test it.
In a way, I kinda like this, it either negates the Hughes amendment or (if someone tries to new register a newly manufactured via form 1 and a trust) creates a situation that has standing to challenge the Hughes amendment, which wasn't possible before, as there wasn't a letter of the law way to attempt a form 1 that didn't conflict with the "person" aspect.
-
Guy submitted a Form 1 for new manufacture full auto under the "trusts aren't persons" rubric, ATF approved it! And then promptly said "oops never mind we didn't mean to send you that stamp." May be shaping up as a test case...
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1624460_ATF_ruling_may_have_accidentally_opened_door_to_new_machine_guns_PAGE_9_Form_1_APPROVED.html
-
Guy submitted a Form 1 for new manufacture full auto under the "trusts aren't persons" rubric, ATF approved it! And then promptly said "oops never mind we didn't mean to send you that stamp." May be shaping up as a test case...
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1624460_ATF_ruling_may_have_accidentally_opened_door_to_new_machine_guns_PAGE_9_Form_1_APPROVED.html
Cool. I lurves me some test cases.
-
Guy submitted a Form 1 for new manufacture full auto under the "trusts aren't persons" rubric, ATF approved it! And then promptly said "oops never mind we didn't mean to send you that stamp." May be shaping up as a test case...
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1624460_ATF_ruling_may_have_accidentally_opened_door_to_new_machine_guns_PAGE_9_Form_1_APPROVED.html
If I won the lottery, I'd troll the batfe with applications to manufacture machine guns and include a mechaical drawing of a shoestring or a spring.
-
Cheaper to buy a Congrecriter >:D
-
Sounds like at least 100 new stamps for full autos were issued then they tried to revoke them. Class action suit is in the works. F-troop is now responding with this when they deny Form 1's for new full auto.
THE FACT THAT AN UNINCORPORATED TRUST IS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DEFINITION OF "PERSON" UNDER THE GCA DOES NOT
MEAN THAT AN INDIVIDUAL MAY AVOID LIABILITY UNDER SECTION 922(O) BY PLACING A MACHINEGUN "IN TRUST."
CONSEQUENTLY, IN TERMS OF AN UNINCORPORATED TRUST, ATF MUST DISREGARD SUCH A NON-ENTITY UNDER THE GCA AND
CONSIDER THE INDIVIDUAL ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE TRUST TO BE THE PROPOSED MAKER/POSSESSOR OF THE
MACHINEGUN.
-
Sounds like at least 100 new stamps for full autos were issued then they tried to revoke them. Class action suit is in the works. F-troop is now responding with this when they deny Form 1's for new full auto.
"The hell with the law, we know whats we know!"
-
Here's an audio recording of the ATF ordering one of the people set to receive an approved Form 1 to return it. Lol, good luck with that ATF, homie will be returning it directly to his lawyer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s9GKoxnGcM&feature=youtu.be
-
Here's an audio recording of the ATF ordering one of the people set to receive an approved Form 1 to return it. Lol, good luck with that ATF, homie will be returning it directly to his lawyer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4s9GKoxnGcM&feature=youtu.be
Unfortunately Private Citizen Homie is now on the path to becoming Inmate Homie from a felony wiretapping conviction. Posting prima facie evidence on a social media site just saves the BATFE the inconvenience of gathering evidence. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Brad
-
Unfortunately Private Citizen Homie is now on the path to becoming Inmate Homie from a felony wiretapping conviction. Posting prima facie evidence on a social media site just saves the BATFE the inconvenience of gathering evidence. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
Brad
Under the laws of which state? Those laws and the laws recording LEOs performing their duties have opened up quite a bit the last few years.
Especially WRT the latter, courts have found very little to bar folk from recording LEOs while they are performing their duties.
Do you know of any confounding factors such as neither party being aware the recording was taking place?
-
State regs apply only to intrastate calls. In Texas, for example, it's okay for a call to be recorded if at least one party directly involved in the conversation is aware the recording is taking place. It's reasonable to presume this was an interstate call so federal wiretapping regs apply. They stipulate that all parties in the conversation must be made aware of the recording. Also, the relaxed recording of LEOs deals with IRL situations, not phone calls.
Recording/videotaping LEOs in real life = okay. Recording an interstate phone call, any phone call, without both parties being fully aware of the recording = felony.
Brad
-
Pretty sure he said in the thread Balog linked to that he was in a one party state, West Virginia is a one party state and Federal law requires consent of a single party. What felony did he commit?
-
Crossing state lines negates state call recording allowables. It's reasonable to presume the BATFE agent in the call was from their national headquarters in Washington, or a the very least a call center in a suburb. This places it under interstate (federal) regs.
Brad
-
Crossing state lines negates state call recording allowables. It's reasonable to presume the BATFE agent in the call was from their national headquarters in Washington, or a the very least a call center in a suburb. This places it under intrastate (federal) regs.
Brad
Federal only requires consent from one party: See (2)(c) & (2)(d) in 18 US Code 2511 here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511
-
Crossing state lines negates state call recording allowables.
Then what federal law did he break?
It's reasonable to presume the BATFE agent in the call was from their national headquarters in Washington, or a the very least a call center in a suburb.
He asked the guy to mail something to him addressed to West Virginia. Could just be a mail processing point, but I think a more reasonable presumption was that the BATFEman was in WV.
This places it under intrastate (federal) regs.
Even stipulating that, Federal regs only require consent of one party, so I'm still not seeing the beef.
-
Federal only requires consent from one party: See (2)(c) & (2)(d) in 18 US Code 2511 here: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2511
Good change, that. Used to be a severe PITA if you wanted to document a call.
Unfortunately the guy in the youtube link didn't give any notifcation of the recording so he still faces felony wiretapping charges should the BATFE decide to get pissy about it.
*edit to add* Strike that. The caller counts as the informed party so fed requirements are met.
Brad
-
Now that we've established that "one part consent" means just that...
Here's where to go to join the class action if you got an approved Form 1 for new MG that was then rescinded.
http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/09/11/did-atf-approve-your-making-of-a-new-machinegun-and-then-rescind-it-contact-us-to-discuss/
-
Another lawyer jumping on the badn wagon for class action, let's hope a really solid and competent attorney gets on board and picks the right case to push forward with. I specify good attorney because the jackwagon below is repeating the lie about the Akins Accelerator being approved then not approved. Akins was a damned con man who got one design approved then sold a completely different one that was not approved.
Good Morning,
Okay, so a while back the ATF said that a trust is NOT A Person.
BUT . . . 922 says that a "Person" may not make a Machine gun.
Then several trusts submitted form 1's to make Machine guns.
At least one form 1 was approved.
Then the ATF calls this guy and says . . hey, a trust is not a person . . unless we want the trust to be a person . . but the trust isn't a person because we say its not . . unless you re talking about Machine guns . .then a trust is a person . .you following this?
so, you have to listen to this. It shows that the ATF really is making their interpretation of the laws up as they go along, to suit the outcome that they are politically inclined to obtain. Its not a nation of laws, but a nation ruled by government agencies that make it up as they go along.
If you think about this . . it should scare the hell out of you.
So, think about this: The Sig MPX lawsuit in which the ATF ruled that there muzzle brake was really a suppressor and refused to let them sell it as a muzzle brake . . all the while allowing OSS to sell their muzzle brake which is an integral part of their silencer.
Or the Adkins Accelerator . . . the sliding spring loaded stick that ATF approved and then after the investors spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, the ATF reversed its approval.
There is a reason that the ATF has a horrible reputation. they make the EPA look like rocket scientists.
So, if you have had a form 1 for a machine gun approved by the ATF. Contact me ASAP!
seancody@houstonattorney.org
-
I picked up on the AA reference, too. Hopefully he doen't make the legal rep team.
Brad
-
This is all pissing in the wind.
The feds hold all of the cards in the legal realm.
Until gun owners start organizing (I don't mean piling into the NRA clown car) and doing mass civil disobedience, there will be discussions 20 years from now on who will be the test case for selling a firearm to a friend or family member without going through a NICS check, filing a 4473, giving a blood sample, and paying $200 tax to the BATFE for the 'permission' to transfer a firearm. None of this now or in the future is even constitutional.
If we can get a million people, heck, 100,000 people to start making fully automatic and suppressed machine guns in their basements or garage, what is the BATFE going to do about it?
-
This is all pissing in the wind.
The feds hold all of the cards in the legal realm.
Until gun owners start organizing (I don't mean piling into the NRA clown car) and doing mass civil disobedience, there will be discussions 20 years from now on who will be the test case for selling a firearm to a friend or family member without going through a NICS check, filing a 4473, giving a blood sample, and paying $200 tax to the BATFE for the 'permission' to transfer a firearm. None of this now or in the future is even constitutional.
I get where you're coming from, but over the past fifteen or so years the gun community has made astronomical strides. Mostly at the state level, I'll allow, but some at the federal level. Things are not just stagnating, they are improving. If you told me in 1999 that the AWB would sunset, every state in the union would have some sort of carry permit and six states will move partially or completely toward constitutional carry (and that similar legislation will be in the works for 17 other states besides), AR-15s could be bought in some WalMarts, gun manufacturers would be federally protected from misuse of their products, and the Supreme Court would rule that firearms are an individual right, I'd have laughed right in your face. Thankfully, my pessimism turned out to be wrong.
-
I get where you're coming from, but over the past fifteen or so years the gun community has made astronomical strides. Mostly at the state level, I'll allow, but some at the federal level. Things are not just stagnating, they are improving. If you told me in 1999 that the AWB would sunset, every state in the union would have some sort of carry permit and six states will move partially or completely toward constitutional carry (and that similar legislation will be in the works for 17 other states besides), AR-15s could be bought in some WalMarts, gun manufacturers would be federally protected from misuse of their products, and the Supreme Court would rule that firearms are an individual right, I'd have laughed right in your face. Thankfully, my pessimism turned out to be wrong.
Yes, but...
If a person were raped 3x a day and were to negotiate with the attacker to get it down to 2 rapes/day, they would have made astronomical gains, and they would only be 2/3 as violated as before.
Asking for and paying for the priveledge of self-preservation is at least nice to have now, but its still asking for and paying for the priveledge of a natural right. That sits really wrong with me.
-
To me what's the most interesting is the "100 initial approvals" number.
If that's true, no way in HELL the examiners in the WV office would all just independently decide the "trust argument" invalidates the 992(o) Hughes Amendment to the '86 FOPA. The examiners, and more importantly some level of the ATF management decided collectively "Well shucks, they got us!" and approved those stamps.
Once.. twice... five times on accident? Sure. But not 100 stamps for post-86 MG's on F1's. That's... Just... Not... Gonna... Happen... It was a policy decision to do that.
Then later on they got cold feet and changed their mind, or from higher up the hammer came down.
I think at least some of the ATF believes/believed that they had to chose between rule 41p -OR- allowing post-'86 MG's on trusts.
Personally, I want to win it all, who wouldn't? But I think deep-sixing 41p and the requirement to get CLEO sign-off on F1 and F4 trust applications is more important, and would be damn happy with just that. The Obama/Holder admin people who dreamed this up know full well that the population is weighted towards urban/suburban areas and the non-signing CLEO's who's jurisdiction they live in, and was intentional to choke off as many NFA applications as possible.
The Hughes Amendment was a horrid dirty trick to be sure, but rule 41p is the new one, the fresh one, and triage demands that be defeated first.
-
Yes, but...
If a person were raped 3x a day and were to negotiate with the attacker to get it down to 2 rapes/day, they would have made astronomical gains, and they would only be 2/3 as violated as before.
Asking for and paying for the priveledge of self-preservation is at least nice to have now, but its still asking for and paying for the priveledge of a natural right. That sits really wrong with me.
I understand where you are coming from and I (and many other here I would bet) have the same frustration. However, they didn't do it all in one stroke. It took 60 years, from the '34 GCA to get to their highwater mark of the '94 AWB. Thing is, since then, they have suffered defeat, after defeat, after defeat. I never thought I'd see CCW in Illinois, but it's here. And we came damn close to FOID carry. We are winning court case, after court case, after court case. Even in California !!!
Even after Sandy Hook, the anti's weren't (and haven't been) able to get anything passed. Yes, Obama signed a bunch of EO's, but they pretty much did nothing. There was no AWB, or Universal background checks. In fact 3 Dems in Colorado got the boot for voting for those in that state. And it looks like the governor that signed off on those bills will get the boot as well.
It's frustrating. But "Going All In", you generally lose. Look at what those "open rifle carry" *expletive deleted*tards in Texas did. They've turned private businesses into battlegrounds. Now instead of fighting what we want to fight for, we waste precious time and resources fighting to let restaurants and retail stores allow carry (per state law) in their stores. One of the major rules of warfare is "Never let your enemy pick the terrain or ground you will fight upon." And Momnonsenseberg is picking the terrain, Kroger and Panera for now, who knows what stores will be next. It's not a fight we should be fighting. But we have to fight everywhere.
-
Another lawyer jumping on the badn wagon for class action, let's hope a really solid and competent attorney gets on board and picks the right case to push forward with. I specify good attorney because the jackwagon below is repeating the lie about the Akins Accelerator being approved then not approved. Akins was a damned con man who got one design approved then sold a completely different one that was not approved.
Also, any lawyer who can't properly use there and their isn't a good one.
-
Also, any lawyer who can't properly use there and their isn't a good one.
Your right ;)
-
Your right ;)
Damn you, damn you to hell. :)
-
Your right ;)
:rofl:
-
And if someone leaves you a voicemail it is not subject to the same regulation that you recording a phone call is.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Also, any lawyer who can't properly use there and their isn't a good one.
Used to work for a lawyer, who was a senior attorney in a decent sized legal department for a multinational megacorp. She once told me that about half of being even a decent lawyer was a fanatical attention to spelling and grammar. Apparently, even a coma in the wrong place can cause a world of legal hurt.
This is a lady didn't even blink at the concept of giving me a corporate amex card with virtually no limit and telling me to repo a hundred million plus aircraft, yet she'd pathologically scour even routine documents for minor spelling/grammar issues.
-
Apparently, even a coma in the wrong place can cause a world of legal hurt.
A malpractice suit at the least, I would imagine.
-
A malpractice suit at the least, I would imagine.
What about a semi-coma, where you know what's going on and can't do anything about it ???
-
What about a semi-coma, where you know what's going on and can't do anything about it ???
You are lawless with your puns.
-
Trying to suss out the details, but there's a possibility that 922(o) was only held as constitutional as long as the ATF or any other branch of the treasury refused to collect taxes on post-'86 MG's, if they've issued 100+ stamps... =D
Now this could be complete bull, but I'm throwing it out there just in case it has legs.
-
This is a lady didn't even blink at the concept of giving me a corporate amex card with virtually no limit and telling me to repo a hundred million plus aircraft
Wait wait wait.
Slow down, back up. I want to hear that story.
-
Trying to suss out the details, but there's a possibility that 922(o) was only held as constitutional as long as the ATF or any other branch of the treasury refused to collect taxes on post-'86 MG's, if they've issued 100+ stamps... =D
Now this could be complete bull, but I'm throwing it out there just in case it has legs.
Now that would be sweet. And funny as all hell.
I would pay money to see the look on Watts' and Bloomberg's faces should that come to pass...
-
Now that would be sweet. And funny as all hell.
I would pay money to see the look on Watts' and Bloomberg's faces should that come to pass...
I don't know that it would be a huge deal to them.
1. The anti's and MSM have for a LONG time been deliberately confusing the non-gun public that semi-automatic military styled rifles are fully-automatic already. Making a stink now runs the risk of exposing the falsehoods. "Wait... whut? Thems M4's yous always on da news bitch'n 'bout n the schools gettin shot up, they's aren't automatics?"
2. Because of the confusion, sensationalism, and fear-mongering, the anti and fence-sitting public already thinks full autos are "legal" and "common".
3. Despite the floodgates being opened on NFA due to the shrinking dollar vs. the $200 tax, and the Internet getting people educated on the process, it's still a tiny fraction of the total gun purchases/transfers in America each year. And even with the education and more dealers than ever willing to walk you through the process, the extra $200 the forms, making a trust or CLEO sign-off, and the wait is still a huge barrier to entry to all but the most fervent gun-nuts. Take away the tax, and I bet 90%+ of the "go to Cablea's once a year" type of gun buyer would still never bother.
IMO, those who have willfully tried to mess with the NFA on the Federal level, namely Hughes with (what he thought would be) the poison-pill amendment to the '86 FOPA, and now Obama/Holder with 41p. Which I personally believe was the one quick and easy, or so they thought, way they could claim they did some "gun control by executive order" and keep the press off Obama's back about it.
Either way, the anti-gun activity targeted at the NFA, what little there is, has always kind of been a backhanded swipe at a small consolation prize. I don't think NFA has ever been mainstream enough to make it a major gun control target. We have to step outside our worldview from the Internet gun boards and realize that it's just not on the radar for the majority of pro or anti-RKBA people.
-
Everyone needs to understand that this needs to be dealt with through the lens of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). So far, I haven't found anyone who understands this. It will not be quick and all the i's need to be dotted and t's crossed. If an action is brought prematurely and an adverse decision results,....well, we don't need to go there. There may be a few people that have additional remedies, including if they actually made a firearm in reliance on the approved form. This may open up a separate venue of forfeiture to deal with these issues; which, quite honestly, I like more than a straight APA claim. The problem is that there are very few firearms attorneys across the US that have any experience with the NFA, let alone understand what is required under the APA and in this matter.
Joshua Prince, Esq.
Firearms Industry Consulting Group
a Division of Prince Law Offices, P.C.
646 Lenape Rd
Bechtelsville, PA 19505
888-313-0416
-
Still time to efile a Form 1 for your trust, get turned down, and gain standing for the upcoming suits.
http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2014/09/what-to-do-if-the-atf-rejects.html
-
At least 2 people received stamps and approved form 1's and made legal, approved post 86 non-sample machine guns before BATFEIEIO changed its mind. Very interesting times we live in.
-
At least 2 people received stamps and approved form 1's and made legal, approved post 86 non-sample machine guns before BATFEIEIO changed its mind. Very interesting times we live in.
Oh, this is going to get really interesting now.......
-
How long did it take for them to get their stamps approved? Aren't they still taking something like 6+ months?
-
I don't know that it would be a huge deal to them.
1. The anti's and MSM have for a LONG time been deliberately confusing the non-gun public that semi-automatic military styled rifles are fully-automatic already. Making a stink now runs the risk of exposing the falsehoods. "Wait... whut? Thems M4's yous always on da news bitch'n 'bout n the schools gettin shot up, they's aren't automatics?"
2. Because of the confusion, sensationalism, and fear-mongering, the anti and fence-sitting public already thinks full autos are "legal" and "common".
3. Despite the floodgates being opened on NFA due to the shrinking dollar vs. the $200 tax, and the Internet getting people educated on the process, it's still a tiny fraction of the total gun purchases/transfers in America each year. And even with the education and more dealers than ever willing to walk you through the process, the extra $200 the forms, making a trust or CLEO sign-off, and the wait is still a huge barrier to entry to all but the most fervent gun-nuts. Take away the tax, and I bet 90%+ of the "go to Cablea's once a year" type of gun buyer would still never bother.
IMO, those who have willfully tried to mess with the NFA on the Federal level, namely Hughes with (what he thought would be) the poison-pill amendment to the '86 FOPA, and now Obama/Holder with 41p. Which I personally believe was the one quick and easy, or so they thought, way they could claim they did some "gun control by executive order" and keep the press off Obama's back about it.
Either way, the anti-gun activity targeted at the NFA, what little there is, has always kind of been a backhanded swipe at a small consolation prize. I don't think NFA has ever been mainstream enough to make it a major gun control target. We have to step outside our worldview from the Internet gun boards and realize that it's just not on the radar for the majority of pro or anti-RKBA people.
Yes the $200 tax isn't that big of a deal anymore. But real barrier to entry is the $20,000 and up pricetags on most machine guns. If 922(o) the Hughes amendment went away, then AR-15 manufacturer's now can put in "da switch", charge a few extra bucks, and Gun shops would have a new market open to them. Team up with a lawyer to do the Trust paperwork and for ~$500 ($200 tax plus $300 in legal fees) more then a regular AR you can buy a machine gun. How many people would jump at that chance "Buy 'em while their legal folks !!!" Plus that would be a great Obama Legacy - The president that made machine guns legal again !!!
I have hopeful, happy dreams. =D
-
The main deal seems to be the wait and the loathsome bureaucracy.
...then again it's harder to get an air gun where I live.
-
The main deal seems to be the wait and the loathsome bureaucracy.
...then again it's harder to get an air gun where I live.
Mainly the wait. The paperwork and bureaucracy is fairly mild.
-
At least 2 people received stamps and approved form 1's and made legal, approved post 86 non-sample machine guns before BATFEIEIO changed its mind. Very interesting times we live in.
What I read is that 1 of those was sent a rejection, then BATFEIEIO (I like that) screwed up and sent an approval afterwards, then realized the mistake and called and demanded that the approval be returned for destruction as soon as it shows up in the mail.
-
What I read is that 1 of those was sent a rejection, then BATFEIEIO (I like that) screwed up and sent an approval afterwards, then realized the mistake and called and demanded that the approval be returned for destruction as soon as it shows up in the mail.
At least a hundred folks were approved, then they started denying after that.
-
Mainly the wait. The paperwork and bureaucracy is fairly mild.
And I'll admit even that is dropping. I just got a correction letter today on a Form 1 to SBR my Wiselite Arms Sterling Sporter back to something that appears like an original Sterling.
Apparently my "S's" and my "5's" in my toddler scrawl are a little too close for comfort. I can't blame the NFA examiners, I had to go check the firearm myself to be sure. :laugh:
I sent in the Form 1 on June 26th.
Generally your approved stamp is coming in 2-3 weeks after the corrections are returned. Considering my first F1 to turn my Draco AK pistol into a SBR took 14 months from the beginning of April 2012, to the end of May 2013, that's a big change.
My cynical pessimist side just thinks they're "clearing the decks" for rule 41p next spring. My optimistic side wonders if the ATF would hire all that staff just to fire them in a year. (the assistants might be temps, but the new examiners are full time fed.gov employees...)
-
Maybe the ATFEIO is getting caught up. My suppressor took 10 months with my Trust.