Will Trump Roll back 41f?

[JohnnyE]

I don't have a problem with doing the finger prints myself. its getting the 4 others on my trust to go out and get them done in a timely manor.

You may want to talk with your trust attorney. Mine and others have advised me that you may reduce the trust down to a single beneficiary, fingerprint just the trustee who is also a beneficiary (you), to file a new form 4, and once the form 4 has been filed, (never mind getting the stamp from BATFE), add the other beneficiaries back on to the trust.

This may sound out-of-order, but I have been advised it is lawful.

 

[teratos]

The AG can issue an unlimited number of 90 day machine gun amnesty registration periods under the Gun Control Act of 1968. Its one stroke of a pen away too.

The 86 Hughes amendment would collapse if several million new NFA machine guns were registered into "Common Use". It would have no reason to exist anymore, and it would no longer be able to stand under Heller. It would be effectively dead. Its repeal would be a forgone conclusion.

I would so drill a 3rd hole in every AR I owned....

 

[rsideout]

I would so drill a 3rd hole in every AR I owned....

Same here. Along with about 10 HK sears.

 

[why2kmax]

You may want to talk with your trust attorney. Mine and others have advised me that you may reduce the trust down to a single beneficiary, fingerprint just the trustee who is also a beneficiary (you), to file a new form 4, and once the form 4 has been filed, (never mind getting the stamp from BATFE), add the other beneficiaries back on to the trust.

This may sound out-of-order, but I have been advised it is lawful.

My trust attorney said the same and my trust is now geared to be able to do this.

 

[jmike1487]

I looked and couldn't find anything in Md Law addressing silencers. Short barrel rifles and shotguns are specifically addressed. I feared silencers we're also.

I live in MD and own two legal SBRs.

 

[JPG]

I would so drill a 3rd hole in every AR I owned....

I would put a 4th for lasers

 

[1time]

I live in MD and own two legal SBRs.

No. you own 2 SBR under the exception that they are properly registered with the Fed. If SBR's were taken off the NFA registry I don't think you could own one Maryland.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

No. you own 2 SBR under the exception that they are properly registered with the Fed. If SBR's were taken off the NFA registry I don't think you could own one Maryland.

Catch 22s in law are not legal. If the Feds did not registered the guns, then MD could not legally require you have to have them federal registered. If the Fed were to stop any registration of SBRs, t would nullify the part of the MD law requiring it.

 

[1time]

Catch 22s in law are not legal. If the Feds did not registered the guns, then MD could not legally require you have to have them federal registered. If the Fed were to stop any registration of SBRs, t would nullify the part of the MD law requiring it.

Maybe you are right. So your opinion is if they are removed from the NFA than Md PS5-203 will disappear? Or just that you will win at the Supreme Court level in a few years?

 

[Matlack]

I would so drill a 3rd hole in every AR I owned....

It's not that simple, but I digress.

 

[IMBLITZVT]

Maybe you are right. So your opinion is if they are removed from the NFA than Md PS5-203 will disappear? Or just that you will win at the Supreme Court level in a few years?

There is plenty of law that is no longer enforceable. It does not disappear but they can't exactly enforce something that is impossible.

The Law says:

ง 5-203. Possession of short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun

(a) Prohibited. -- A person may not possess a short-barreled rifle or short-barreled shotgun unless:

(1) the person, while on official business is:....

(2) the short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle has been registered with the federal government in accordance with federal law.

(b) Burden of proof. -- In a prosecution under this section, the defendant has the burden of proving the lawful registration of the short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.

....

So you must register "in accordance with federal law". If the Federal law were no longer to allow/require registration, then you would be in accordance with federal law.

To be frank, these are the things people get all worked up about that never really matter! Just like the barrel length on a registered SBRs.... which is another story. I would not sweat it! Some stupid little catch 22 like this is not going to stop people in MD from getting a SBR.

 

[Melnic]

My question would be is he going to put more resources to get the paperwork/approvals back sooner?

 

[jollymon]

I don't have a problem with doing the finger prints myself. its getting the 4 others on my trust to go out and get them done in a timely manor.

Simple, take them off the trust, File , wait, Receive can, Add them to the Trust
It's your Trust,you can or subtract as you wish

 

[Hawkeye]

It's your Trust,you can or subtract as you wish

In general that's true, but it depends entirely on how the trust is written.

 

[CMOS]

I just saw a talk by a well-known firearms lawyer who said about 41f that it was fair, and that ATF got it right. He said, was it what he wanted? No. But he recognizes that he doesn't necessarily get what he would want, and that the ATF wants to do the background checks on potential bad guys, so there you have it. There are hundred of pages of published rationale behind the rule.
Given all that, I don't expect that to change. Besides, individuals no longer have to have CLEO.
Focus efforts elsewhere.

It is indeed false hope.

In order to change 41F, the ATF would have to do another regulatory change, with all the process involved in such a change. Yes, Trump could ask them to do this. But it wouldn't be an EO, and it would not be a short process.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[protegeV]

I just saw a talk by a well-known firearms lawyer who said about 41f that it was fair, and that ATF got it right. He said, was it what he wanted? No. But he recognizes that he doesn't necessarily get what he would want, and that the ATF wants to do the background checks on potential bad guys, so there you have it. There are hundred of pages of published rationale behind the rule.
Given all that, I don't expect that to change. Besides, individuals no longer have to have CLEO.
Focus efforts elsewhere.



Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

No

 

[CMOS]

Everyone knows the trust is just an alter ego for some dude with (usually lots of) guns. Why should it be treated differently? I think the weight of reality made the change inevitable.
What you really want is legislation that takes short barreled stuff and silencers out of the NFA entirely. Then let the ATF track the Super Evil machine guns around for eternity.

Sure doesn't seem like the loud sound of them caps going off in Baltimore is a real deterrent to crime. Would over-the-counter suppressors make Baltimore even worse???

No

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Pinecone]

My question is, why do they need fingerprints every time?

If the trustees do not change, why new fingerprints? My fingerprints don't change.