Watson v. Holder - NFA 922(o), Unincorporated Trusts

clandestine said:

Ahh, I see. Its a sovereign citizen argument. I get it, no one has authority, even when they are tasked with that very job, they just shuffle paperwork. ATF cant seize property.

Click to expand...

Its not the sovereign citizen argument. Where in the law is the BATFE permitted to recind an approved stamp?

Inigoes said:

Its not the sovereign citizen argument. Where in the law is the BATFE permitted to recind an approved stamp?

Click to expand...

Ask Hal how well manufacturing post 86 worked out for him.
You could ask Randy but I believe he is still doing time.

Hal Goldstein, owner of The Armory, at 24 Defense St., off West Street at Solomons Island Road, along with Randoph Benjamin Rodman, owner of Silver Spring-based R&S Arms, and four Arizona men were charged with conspiring to commit fraud to possess and transfer machine guns in violation of the National Firearms Act, according to the 39-page indictment filed July 27.

The indictment alleges the men "harvested" serial numbers from older machine guns and welded those numbers onto pricier machine guns they had specially made. In doing this, investigators said they ducked the 1986 federal machine gun ban. The ban prohibits the possession or transferring of machine guns made after May 1986.

coopermania said:

Ask Hal how well manufacturing post 86 worked out for him.
You could ask Randy but I believe he is still doing time.

Hal Goldstein, owner of The Armory, at 24 Defense St., off West Street at Solomons Island Road, along with Randoph Benjamin Rodman, owner of Silver Spring-based R&S Arms, and four Arizona men were charged with conspiring to commit fraud to possess and transfer machine guns in violation of the National Firearms Act, according to the 39-page indictment filed July 27.

The indictment alleges the men "harvested" serial numbers from older machine guns and welded those numbers onto pricier machine guns they had specially made. In doing this, investigators said they ducked the 1986 federal machine gun ban. The ban prohibits the possession or transferring of machine guns made after May 1986.

Click to expand...

That is a different scenario, where the men were acting illegally.

This scenario, Form 1s were submitted to create MGs using trusts. Note: nothing has been created yet. The Form 1s were approved.

All of this because if an illegal amendement to FOPA. The amendment wasn't even amended properly, aside from it being an infringement. It would be nice to do away with this. At least to the point where we could introduce new weapons into the registry. If there was justice, then the ATF would have to provide imbursement to all of the mg owners who suddenly saw the value of their investments drop when new mg's start being introduced to the registry. That's a pipe dream though, or is it.

What would happen if we had a few different players in the game. What if we added one more liberty minded justice to SCOTUS and wound up with a President like Rand Paul. Combine that with a Republican Senate and we may be able to restore some rights around here.

Inigoes said:

It is illegal for a "person", the BATFE ruled administratively trusts are not people.

They kinda painted themselves into a corner technically.

Click to expand...

]


I have a trust and I submit it is not equipped to use the tools to build a rifle or the appendages to load or fire one. "A Person" has to do that.

1time said:

I have a trust and I submit it is not equipped to use the tools to build a rifle or the appendages to load or fire one. "A Person" has to do that.

Click to expand...

Corporations do not make anything on their own either, the people who are employed by it does.

Inigoes said:

Corporations do not make anything on their own either, the people who are employed by it does.

Click to expand...

Maybe I'm short on ATF laws and regulations. Are you saying if I start a corporation I can legally build machine guns for fun?

1time said:

Maybe I'm short on ATF laws and regulations. Are you saying if I start a corporation I can legally build machine guns for fun?

Click to expand...

Not for fun.

Colt, HK, FN, and others do it for commerce.

The BATFE has held the trusts are not people, that leaves you with a closely held corporation. The Supreme court has held the bill of rights applies also.

BATFE originally said the Akins Accelerators were fine, then changed their mind and required them to be surrendered. The only real question is what legal defense they will use to confiscate those stamps and any firearms in violation. They *will* get them back.

I don't see any good coming out of this, only a renewed focus on limiting what trusts can't do in regards to firearms.

Inigoes said:

Not for fun.

Colt, HK, FN, and others do it for commerce.

The BATFE has held the trusts are not people, that leaves you with a closely held corporation. The Supreme court has held the bill of rights applies also.

Click to expand...

Those companies cannot make machine guns because they are a corporation. They can make them because they are licensed manufacturers of machine guns for the purpose of sale/transfer to the US government or state or local law enforcement agencies. The "people" that work there are making the firearms legally. The people that are trustees in this case did not, regardless of the fact they received a stamp. I wish you were right, brother. But you are past grasping at straws.

Thats why there are 2 lawsuits. Hopefully, the court will see the the unconstitutionality. A dream, I know.

I would love to see the hughes amendment struck down as the next guy. This is the best hope since Farmer gave up by not going all the way to the Supreme Court.

It looks like I am going to be helping Steve (the lawyer) out with this. Just in a limited advisory capacity.

wolfwood said:

It looks like I am going to be helping Steve (the lawyer) out with this. Just in a limited advisory capacity.

Click to expand...

Interesting. We all wish you luck!




.

wolfwood said:

It looks like I am going to be helping Steve (the lawyer) out with this. Just in a limited advisory capacity.

Click to expand...

Well...you certainly have the backing of this community.

Pinecone said:

Not totally 2nd Amendment case. A LAW case.

The LAW says that a trust is not a person. The LAW says a PERSON cannot build a post 86 machine gun.

Click to expand...

Partially correct.

18 U.S.C. 44
§921. Definitions

(a) As used in this chapter—

(1) The term “person” and the term “whoever” include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.

However the lawyers and the lawyers in robes will illegally expand "trust" into the definition with weasel words along the lines of Trust, being a legal fiction, is included because corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, or joint stock companies are legal fictions. Or some similiar twisted language.

Your second sentence is a whole other discussion.

The second amendment does not discriminate on the basis of volume of fire or how modern the guns are. These "laws" should be overturned entirely.

crowleycr said:

The second amendment does not discriminate on the basis of volume of fire or how modern the guns are. These "laws" should be overturned entirely.

Click to expand...

You're right...But one of the most strict constructionist judges on the SCOTUS threw short barrel shotguns under the bus with no supporting evidence of not being suitable for self-defense. Evidence of military utility was needed in the Miller case for a judicial position on such weapons. This presumptively brings machine guns into this unprotected class of weapons. Many believe that he did so to appease Kennedy...That we will never know.

squirrels said:

Oh lord, here we go.

They are going to rule that it was a clerical error on the part of the NFA examiner. It is not "ex post facto" because the law was clear and on-the-books and ignorance of the law, by the builder or the NFA examiner, does not invalidate the law. The builder should have never applied, the examiner should have never approved, and even an erroneous approval by an examiner does NOT invalidate the law.

At best, the builder can hope to be reimbursed for the cost of time and materials fabricating the firearm (due process for deprivation of property), since they were misled by a government agency. But that's it.

The SC will not overturn 922(o) based on 2A because even majority opinion in Heller leaves room for restrictions on exceptional weapons, and machine guns (mostly due to NFA '86) are not "in common use" in the civilian market, and are not suitable for "self-defense" uses, which is what Heller was about.
...

Click to expand...

This.

A mistake by an examiner does not bootstrap an illegal act into a lawful one. I don't like that law, but I like the idea of singular, low-level government employees being able to circumvent federal felony laws by saying, "oops" even less.

Heck, think of the possibilities: a permit to build an unlicensed nuclear reactor in a residential neighborhood; or even the ever-elusive "license to kill". Or even worse yet: cancelling free ice-cream Friday nationwide.

HauptsAriba said:

All of this because if an illegal amendement to FOPA. The amendment wasn't even amended properly, aside from it being an infringement. ...

Click to expand...

This is one of those oft-repeated tales in the gun community that I think is valuable to look at in detail, so that we don't make the same mistakes again. I learned some lessons from it (and other near-farcical experiences).

The Hughes Amendment was passed on a voice vote where it can be clearly heard that the "noes" outweighed the "yays". Then the Democrat (Charlie Rangel) in charge declared it "passed". Yet there is nothing illegal about that.

Why?

Because they didn't pass a law. They were using House procedural rules to move an amendment to a bill (note: not a law) that had yet to receive the constitutionally-mandated vote to pass it along in order to make it a law.

Did it violate House rules? Sure looks like it. But it's not "illegal" to break the rules that the House creates for themselves - they can write words on paper (the bill) any way they want. It would only be illegal if they cheated on the actual constitutionally-mandated vote on the bill text.

So that's the first lesson I take form this: in the parliamentary process amendments are important, but votes on them are controlled by contrived process, not law. They can violate the process, and only have more process to remedy the violation. Courts are not going to look at the sausage making machine - they can only deal with the stuff it spits out (law). Internal shenanigans have to be dealt with inside the machine.

But here is the real lesson I take: the House GOP let them get away with it. A lot of GOPers went home to slam the "sham vote", and to swear they fought the good fight. Hell, they even yelled out their opposition in committee! But they passed the bill anyway, and nobody batted an eyelash. Committee votes are frequently the most important, because that is where big things happen. But there is a lot of theater in front of the public. Everything is typically decided long before the vote, and all that is needed is the final procedural vote. It's rare that a committee outcome comes down to the final vote. But it happens.

The fact is that the GOP passed the bill with the Hughes Amendment attached - then Ronald Reagan proudly signed the bill and made it law.

That's the final lesson I learned: don't trust any of these guys. They like their theater almost as much as they like to tell you how to live.


Going forward we can use what we know. The upcoming Congress is all GOP, and will probably push some kind of gun bill for the red-meat crowd. Don't trust it. It might pass, but it won't survive veto. It's only theater.

If the GOP is serious about something (reciprocity, etc.) they will attach it as an amendment to a bill that Obama must sign (EPA funding, etc.). Anything less and they are playing us for fools.

lol had an amusing thought that Mark Levin caused. Apparently last week there was an article talking about how Republicans should use the so called "Obama Non-enforcement" doctrine (basically if Obama disagrees with a law, he doesn't enforce it and instructs that Dept to not enforce it) when there was next a Republican president. Can you imagine the howling if a conservative president decided to tell the BATF, " I don't agree with the NFA, it is unconsitutional so stop enforcing it."