ATF accidentally allowing newly manufactured machineguns?

[Viking]

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/

[brimic]

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.

[cordex]

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.

[Nick1911]

Yup.

Don't ever expect we'll see an error in our favor from those guys. 

[MicroBalrog]

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.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

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

[Scout26]

Well, we can see if the ATF allows the transfer of the "new" mini-gun.


 

[Balog]

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.

[Scout26]

Ennnhhhh.  At this point all they did was fill out a form and mail it in with a check.    Like I said: 

[Nick1911]

Ennnhhhh.  At this point all they did was fill out a form and mail it in with a check.    Like I said: 

The BATFE has a delightfully archaic, red-ink "DISAPPROVED" stamp.  It looks like this:




The gentleman in question with a mini-gun registration in the works?  I believe he will get to experience it first hand.

[CypherNinja]

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?

[birdman]

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)

[RevDisk]

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.

[birdman]

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.

[Balog]

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

[birdman]

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.

[brimic]

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.

[sanglant]

Cheaper to buy a Congrecriter 

[Balog]

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.

[roo_ster]

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!"

[Balog]

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

[Brad Johnson]

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

[roo_ster]

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?

[Brad Johnson]

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

[cordex]

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?