The Door Opens to New Machine Guns?

Kirk Freeman

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
7   0   0
Mar 9, 2008
44,905
113
Lafayette, Indiana

K_W

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
8   0   0
Aug 14, 2008
5,275
48
Indy / Carmel
But even with a trust "a person" must still do the actual building of the gun on the trust's behalf, vs a machine gun in existence prior to the 1986 ban
 

Light

Marksman
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Sep 9, 2012
637
18
Near Fort Wayne
But even with a trust "a person" must still do the actual building of the gun on the trust's behalf, vs a machine gun in existence prior to the 1986 ban

Yes but I don't believe that an individual who is part of the trust, who is making a machinegun on behalf of the trust would violate that ruling.
Since it is being made for the trust, and you are part of the trust, there is no transfer from yourself to the trust.
Since you are part of the trust, and it is for the trust, as soon as you made it, it would be owned by the trust.
(IANAL of course)

So you think they are going to redefine the law, or simply overturn that definition Kirk?
 

revance

Expert
Rating - 88.9%
8   1   0
Jan 25, 2009
1,295
38
Zionsville
These laws are so freaking stupid.

A friend of mine bought a full auto converted AR way back when for less than $400 (plus tax stamp). I hate him for it.
 

HoughMade

Grandmaster
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Oct 24, 2012
30,932
149
Valparaiso
So since no "person" can TRANSFER or possess, let's assume the trust is not a "person". So, because a trust is not a "person" they say it can possess a "new" NFA firearm because they are prohibited only to "persons". Great! Um... from what non-person will the trust get the gun?

Corporations, partnerships, etc. are "persons". Since a "person" cannot transfer, then a trust cannot get a "new" NFA firearm from an individual, partnership or corporation. That leaves other trusts as "non-persons". ...But where did that other trust get the NFA firearm? It had to be pre '86 because, again, no "person" can TRANSFER.

My friends, if no one with the "new" NFA firearm can legally transfer it, even if a trust can possess it, it's a right without meaning.

...oh a a trust manufacturing? Without any person being involved? This, I gotta see.
 

ekg98

Plinker
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Jun 25, 2008
94
6
What if the lower was put on the schdule A as a title 1 firearm. Just a normal rifle. Then the form 1 was submitted for a MG?

I guess you would have to figure what type of possession theyre talking about. Legal or physical.
 
Last edited:

Hoosierman

Marksman
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Jul 1, 2013
461
18
What if the lower was put on the schdule A as a title 1 firearm. Just a normal rifle. Then the form 1 was submitted for a MG?

I guess you would have to figure what type of possession theyre talking about. Legal or physical.
In that case the firearm has already been "transferred". Seems legit to me, lol. I'm getting me a trust.
 

hondatech2k2

Shooter
Rating - 98.2%
55   1   0
Jul 10, 2011
816
18
Greenwood
I have a better idea....lets remove all firearms regulations, other than those baring criminals from possession, and abolish the ATF while we are at it. That would make more sense.
 

Light

Marksman
Rating - 100%
5   0   0
Sep 9, 2012
637
18
Near Fort Wayne
I have a better idea....lets remove all firearms regulations, other than those baring criminals from possession, and abolish the ATF while we are at it. That would make more sense.

Blood in the streets!!!! :runaway:

Honestly though, first we need to get the "sporting clause" removed, then repeal the NFA, before removing the 4473 and such.
Then with nothing to check on, what purpose does the BATFE serve? :dunno:
 

HeadlessRoland

Shooter
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Aug 8, 2011
3,521
63
In the dark
So since no "person" can TRANSFER or possess, let's assume the trust is not a "person". So, because a trust is not a "person" they say it can possess a "new" NFA firearm because they are prohibited only to "persons". Great! Um... from what non-person will the trust get the gun?

Corporations, partnerships, etc. are "persons". Since a "person" cannot transfer, then a trust cannot get a "new" NFA firearm from an individual, partnership or corporation. That leaves other trusts as "non-persons". ...But where did that other trust get the NFA firearm? It had to be pre '86 because, again, no "person" can TRANSFER.

My friends, if no one with the "new" NFA firearm can legally transfer it, even if a trust can possess it, it's a right without meaning.

...oh a a trust manufacturing? Without any person being involved? This, I gotta see.

But theoretically, would this open the door up to transfers from LEAs/NatGov agencies?
 

HeadlessRoland

Shooter
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Aug 8, 2011
3,521
63
In the dark
I have a better idea....lets remove all firearms regulations, other than those baring criminals from possession, and abolish the ATF while we are at it. That would make more sense.

Criminals will still possess firearms. By keeping that loophole in there, you're just propping the door open for future abuses.
 

engineerpower

Shooter
Rating - 100%
30   0   0
Jun 1, 2008
585
18
State of Boone
But theoretically, would this open the door up to transfers from LEAs/NatGov agencies?

In what fantasy do you see .GOV transferring firearms to the lowly public? Instead of surplussing firearms and ammo, they simply destroy public property out of spite and mismanagement.

The only ones that get the guns, ammo, trucks, tanks, DD's, etc. are the local and regional agencies. Not to use against us, I'm sure...
 

Leadeye

Grandmaster
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Jan 19, 2009
30,055
113
.
Having enjoyed the "golden age" of Class 3 77-84, I remember feeling like machine guns were at market saturation back in 84. Everybody raced to turn out new stuff but it really didn't sell very quickly. I don't think anybody could have foreseen the demand we have today back then.
 

Products discussed on INGO

Top Bottom