FN Herstal Firearms banner

1 - 20 of 21 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
876 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
I'll be sending my Form 1 tomorrow to convert my PS90 to select fire.....I can't wait to get a response back from the ATF trying to get out of the mess they caused.

Prince Law Offices, P.C.

Did ATF’s Determination on NICS Checks Open the Door for Manufacture of New Machineguns for Trusts?It isn’t often that I find myself giving advice that is more restrictive than ATF’s interpretations but it appears that ATF recently changed that dynamic when it held that an “unincorporated trust” was not a “person” under the Gun Control Act. Before I give you the answer to the question you’re pondering, let’s first review the background, issues and the law.
On June 21 2013, Dakota Silencer submitted a request to ATF seeking clarification, because of conflicting information it was being provided from different field offices (as they have multiple FFLs in multiple states), as to whether a National Instant Check System (NICS) check was required on the transfer of National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm registered to a trust on a Form 4. The specific question, as ATF framed it, was whether “a NICS check must be conducted on the person picking up the firearm on behalf of the trust.”
On March 17, 2014 (yes, almost a year later), Helen L. Koppe, Chief, Firearms Industry Programs Branch, responded. You can find a copy of the response here. ATF determined that “Unlike individuals, corporations, partnerships, and associations; unincorporated trusts do not fall within the definition of “person” in the GCA.” And therefore, as a result,
Because unincorporated trusts are not “persons” under the GCA, a Federal firearms licensee (FFL) cannot transfer firearms to them without complying with the GCA. Thus, when an FFL transfers an NFA firearm to a trustee or other person acting on behalf of a trust, the transfer is made to this person as an individual (i.e., not as a trust). As the trustee or other person acting on behalf of the trust is not the approved transferee under the NFA, 18 U.S.C. 5812, the trustee or other person acting on behalf of a trust must undergo a NICS check. The individual must also be a resident of the same State as the FFL when receiving the firearm.
So, ATF, trying to be cute and find a way to require NICS checks without Congressional action, declared trusts not to fit the definition of a “person” under the GCA. No big deal, especially for us in Pennsylvania, as Pennsylvania Instant Check System (PICS) checks are already required for all NFA firearms, except silencers. But, not so quick…let’s look at Section 922(o) of the Gun Control Act…
Section 922(o) provides:
(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to–
(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.
So, we have a prohibition on any “person” transferring or possessing a machinegun which was not lawfully registered before May 19, 1986. BUT, an unincorporated trust is not a “person” under the GCA, so this provision cannot apply to it.
In turning to the National Firearms Act, as amended, 26 U.S.C. 5801, et seq., we find that a “person” is defined as including a trust, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 7701. Yet, there exists no 922(o)esque provision in Section 5801, et seq.
Therefore, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. 5812 and 5822, an unincorporated trust may lawfully transfer and make machineguns, as it is not a “person” for purposes of the GCA and Section 922 only applies to “persons” as defined by the GCA. And yes, this opens up a lot more issues for ATF in relation to the purchase of firearms by trusts under the GCA. Someone isn’t likely to be employed much longer…
I will continue to update our viewers, as I have already submitted a Form 1 Application for a minigun…oh hell yeah I did…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
876 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Like I said I'm going to try, but I have a feeling it's going to be a "If you like your healthcare you can keep it" type of thing. Or Mao Se-obama makes another executive order. I prey that some attorney takes this to the supreme court and we have our 2nd amendment rights restored...... that President Reagan took away!.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,692 Posts
Could be time for my firearms trust to send in a couple more Form 1's to convert a couple of SBR's into select fires :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Troublesx10

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
One big problems with this:

1. Unless the MG is already owned by a trust, then it cannot be transferred to a trust unless it meets the other requirements as it is:

Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun

and if it is already owned by a trust it probably meets the current requirements so the point is void... The paragraphs mentioned do not discuss manufacturing so I am only discussing transfer

And before you ask:

PersonThe term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.


 

·
Vendor
Joined
·
1,754 Posts
One big problems with this:

1. Unless the MG is already owned by a trust, then it cannot be transferred to a trust unless it meets the other requirements as it is:

Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun

and if it is already owned by a trust it probably meets the current requirements so the point is void... The paragraphs mentioned do not discuss manufacturing so I am only discussing transfer

And before you ask:

PersonThe term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.


Is there a way to UN-THANK this? Here we were all excited that we were going to get new toys, and Starz goes and dumps a load of reality on us. How non-fun is that? Boo!

:)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
11,087 Posts
I doubt it matters because the registry for machine guns, regardless of who OR WHAT owns them, is closed by federal law. To comply with the NFA, they would have to rescind the fed law that terminated or closed the registry for machine guns to be registered. That will take an act of congress.

This is a stretch by any imagination of the reading of the law and you will be just pissing your time and efforts away.

The law is very specific on the manufacture of machine guns and the law will out weigh any decision made by some bureaucrat at the NFA office.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
876 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
One big problems with this:

1. Unless the MG is already owned by a trust, then it cannot be transferred to a trust unless it meets the other requirements as it is:

Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun

and if it is already owned by a trust it probably meets the current requirements so the point is void... The paragraphs mentioned do not discuss manufacturing so I am only discussing transfer

And before you ask:

PersonThe term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.


But the ATF just said the term "Person" isn't a trust, partnership, company, other types of entities........Basically they changed things trying to screw us, but in doing so messed up. They probably had some anti-gun libtard write up the new regulations without the slightest idea of what they were doing. Then it was rubber stamped by all the other DOJ executives who don't know the laws either. You know....they just make them up as they go and let the courts sort it all out. Don't get me wrong Starz I don't expect them to honor the law. But hopefully it opens a crack for it to be legally argued....Hopefully the cases make it to the superior courts after Obama is out of office and most of the Senators and Representatives are replaced with RepublicLibertarians who want to give back freedoms and liberties instead of take them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,629 Posts
But the ATF just said the term "Person" isn't a trust, partnership, company, other types of entities........
You read to much into it. All the text says is "trusts do not fall within the definition of “person” in the GCA"

trusts is all that is in the text, not corps, partnerships, companies. Only the trusts were deemed not a person. Per the text in the link "Unlike individuals, corporations, partnerships, andassociations; unincorporated trusts do not fall within the definition of "person" in the GCA "

Again, even with this logic, Unless the MG is currently owned by a trust is is unlawful for it to be transferred as the one transferring would be a person.... And since it is highly unlikely that a Pre-Ban MG is owned by a trust, even if this loophole as this ..ahem...lawyer points out could be true and all the stars aligned it would not matter because the MG is currently owned by a PERSON as it is not owned by a trust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
876 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I doubt it matters because the registry for machine guns, regardless of who OR WHAT owns them, is closed by federal law. To comply with the NFA, they would have to rescind the fed law that terminated or closed the registry for machine guns to be registered. That will take an act of congress.

This is a stretch by any imagination of the reading of the law and you will be just pissing your time and efforts away.

The law is very specific on the manufacture of machine guns and the law will out weigh any decision made by some bureaucrat at the NFA office.
Can't you let a guy dream for a moment.........By the way when select fire weapons were regulated under the NFA was there ever a case where a registered machine gun was used in a crime by someone other then a government employee. Back in 1986 I don't remember hearing the Colombians in Miami having registered machine guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
841 Posts
If I'm following it, the point is that there is, under this interpretation, no restriction on a trust to either POSSESS or MANUFACTURE (!!!) a machine gun.

Basically (if this loophole isn't immediately slammed shut, which of course it would be) it's opening up trusts to be the equivalent of a SOT 02 with the ability to manufacturer and possess a "Post '86 Dealer Sample" ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,692 Posts
Yeah that! :th_greatpostsign:
:th_vote_yes::th_vote_yes::th_vote_yes::th_vote_yes::th_vote_yes::th_vote_yes::th_vote_yes::th_vote_yes::th_vote_yes::th_vote_yes::th_vote_yes::th_vote_yes::th_vote_yes:

I hope! lol
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
135 Posts
The key is in the last line of the article. Form 1 is a creation. If the Form 1 is approved for a trust then they may create the NFA item. If I understood correctly the transfer is still prohibited by the other sections of the law.

I'm highly doubtful that it would work, but the logic chain is complete.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,907 Posts
I got $10.00 says you get the bad news note mailed back:)


BBG-
Unfortunately I believe this will be the outcome, But if true you would be able to build a machine and not have to do a separate tax for a SBR as the MG requirements also include short barrels.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SONYtec

·
Registered
Joined
·
757 Posts
Man...April Fools Day was a while back!
I'll admit for a second there I felt that unimpeded hopefulness of youth. And then it went something like this...





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
1 - 20 of 21 Posts
Top