Post-86 Machineguns legal for Trusts?

[rtruhn]

If this ends up being a thing ... Man. I'd buy an M1 carbine, another G19, another Engage E4, and Form 1 MG convert them all. I'd also consider converting my JRC. Happy (switch) days are here again!

Not to mention the SIG 9mm PDW-type pistol if it ever gets approved...

 

[campns]

I'm going to fill out a Form 1 for a M.G. tonight for one of my PSA Lowers. I'm not worried about the rejection.

Chad,

when you fill out that form are you going to include plans or are you just going to submit the form 1 in the Caveat that this is what your going to do to your PSA lower.

And if i'm reading this right you have to have a current NFA trust for this all to work, Right?

 

[clandestine]

Chad,

when you fill out that form are you going to include plans or are you just going to submit the form 1 in the Caveat that this is what your going to do to your PSA lower.

And if i'm reading this right you have to have a current NFA trust for this all to work, Right?

I will submit blueprints for the conversion (Drilling Auto Sear hole in Lower). Use I have a NFA Trust setup by GunTrustLawyer.com and Doug Warfel.

 

[smdub]

It would have been legal to build when they approved them. I would imagine it would be hard to justify confiscating/destroying private property that was approved by the ATF. They would probably grandfather them.

You haven't read much on the ATFs history have you? Oh geez. I needed that laugh today. Good one Dr

 

[teratos]

Not what they did with the Akins Accelerator...

True. Bastards.

 

[A1Uni]

Sigh....it is indeed wonderful to ponder, like that feeling you get when you are holding a Mega Millions lottery ticket and dreaming about what you would do with your winnings if your number came up, but I'll shave off my (and it took years to grow ) beard if a single MG gets legally produced and past ATF scrutiny via this loophole.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

I will submit blueprints for the conversion (Drilling Auto Sear hole in Lower). Use I have a NFA Trust setup by GunTrustLawyer.com and Doug Warfel.

Just thought of it, but you were the one saying an approved ATF form approved by MSP and the ATF did not mean you were not breaking laws. Its funny you were so against the idea with SBRs but all over the MGs... the law was on your side with SBRs and the intent of the law is against you with the MGs...

You haven't read much on the ATFs history have you? Oh geez. I needed that laugh today. Good one Dr

The Akins disaster was them reversing themselves on an approval letter, not an approved form 4 or 1 or 2. Back in 86 they had manufactures send in form 2s, which are notifications of manufacture, on things like AK47 sears. The ATF did pull these. However any that were installed in guns and sold were allowed to stay in the system. So if you can get an approved form back, there is a very good chance you will be grandfathered in rather then fight to take your property. That said I do think I remember hearing of a case where a Form 1 for a MG got approved post 86 by mistake, new examiner or something... then it was pulled later... put I can't remember for sure. Might have to look for that case.

 

[clandestine]

Just thought of it, but you were the one saying an approved ATF form approved by MSP and the ATF did not mean you were not breaking laws. Its funny you were so against the idea with SBRs but all over the MGs... the law was on your side with SBRs and the intent of the law is against you with the MGs...




The Akins disaster was them reversing themselves on an approval letter, not an approved form 4 or 1 or 2. Back in 86 they had manufactures send in form 2s, which are notifications of manufacture, on things like AK47 sears. The ATF did pull these. However any that were installed in guns and sold were allowed to stay in the system. So if you can get an approved form back, there is a very good chance you will be grandfathered in rather then fight to take your property. That said I do think I remember hearing of a case where a Form 1 for a MG got approved post 86 by mistake, new examiner or something... then it was pulled later... put I can't remember for sure. Might have to look for that case.

Yup, I did say that. BATFE can make mistakes and they do. Doesn't mean I will benefit because they didn't know State Law.

Never said I was going to drill the lower nor did I say the Form 1 means its OK to build it based on MD Law or Federal Law. First hurdle is to see if it passes ATF scrutiny. Then I would consult an Attorney on how to proceed from there.

 

[ericoak]

Actually people messed up Form 1s in the past and the ATF has still allowed them.

For instance, people had real HK receivers but registered the Sear and I believe some people also registered Uzi receivers even though the bolt should have been the part they registered. The ATF approved them and they are legal to this day.

 

[HT4]

http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/05/1...or-manufacture-of-new-machineguns-for-trusts/

I will not reproduce for Copyright reasons, but that is certainly interesting. I would love to see how ATF works that out.

Some good reading in this guy's blog... I don't agree with everything he says, but rarely do I read a blog and think "I'd like to go have a beer with this guy."

 

[DC-W]

I'm definitely paying attention.

 

[NateIU10]

Some good reading in this guy's blog... I don't agree with everything he says, but rarely do I read a blog and think "I'd like to go have a beer with this guy."

Joshua Prince is a legitimately cool guy, my boss and he are good friends.

My sticking point seems to be this: Say a Trust is allowed to Form 1 a Machinegun, as they are not a person as defined by the GCA. The Approved Form 1 comes back. The Trustee converts the firearm into a machinegun on behalf of the trust. If we go by the logic of the letter, is a trustee, as an individual, still prohibited from possession of the machinegun not registered before the effective date of the subtitle? I have more reading to do, but it is certainly an interesting one. It would be a heck of a thing if the trust could legally make the machinegun, but no person could physically possess the thing.

 

[CypherPunk]

I love this guy .. no really I have meet him a few times at various gun shows and HE IS DEFINITELY ONE OF US

Hopefully he will be helping the community with several upcoming projects.

 

[OrbitalEllipses]

Joshua Prince is a legitimately cool guy, my boss and he are good friends.

My sticking point seems to be this: Say a Trust is allowed to Form 1 a Machinegun, as they are not a person as defined by the GCA. The Approved Form 1 comes back. The Trustee converts the firearm into a machinegun on behalf of the trust. If we go by the logic of the letter, is a trustee, as an individual, still prohibited from possession of the machinegun not registered before the effective date of the subtitle? I have more reading to do, but it is certainly an interesting one. It would be a heck of a thing if the trust could legally make the machinegun, but no person could physically possess the thing.

As a layman this is what I anticipate, given how certain other things have played out with gov't regulation before. "Yeah, the trust can make it...but it's not legal for anyone to possess it" sounds like exactly the way to exist between the lines of GCA and this opinion about trusts not being persons.

 

[clandestine]

I looked at some laws and think I'm going to hold off doing the M.G. on a F1. I think I'm going to send a letter of my findings to the Director or the BATFE so he can rule on this matter.

Its the right thing to do.


ha ha

 

[teratos]

I looked at some laws and think I'm going to hold off doing the M.G. on a F1. I think I'm going to send a letter of my findings to the Director or the BATFE so he can rule on this matter.

Its the right thing to do.


ha ha

You bastard. Screwing me over again.....

 

[bobthefisher]

Joshua Prince is a legitimately cool guy, my boss and he are good friends.

My sticking point seems to be this: Say a Trust is allowed to Form 1 a Machinegun, as they are not a person as defined by the GCA. The Approved Form 1 comes back. The Trustee converts the firearm into a machinegun on behalf of the trust. If we go by the logic of the letter, is a trustee, as an individual, still prohibited from possession of the machinegun not registered before the effective date of the subtitle? I have more reading to do, but it is certainly an interesting one. It would be a heck of a thing if the trust could legally make the machinegun, but no person could physically possess the thing.

Yeah, that's how I'm reading it, and I'm sure you're not alone. However, we'll never know until we try. Hell, I'm in it just to see a machinegun denial form, I'll frame it on my wall to remind me of our governmental oppression!

 

[clandestine]

Typing Letter now....

Postage is ready for licking....

 

[NateIU10]

Typing Letter now....

Postage is ready for licking....

WAIT! Make sure you ask about the importability of 7.62x54r!

 

[teratos]

You can't talk to me like that! Im a paying customer.

You'll pay alright, mister.