Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What do you know, the morons may have just done us a favor...
Looking forward to a cheap select fire, maybe a M416
They've done more than that...
If it works out then they've defanged all Federal gun control law.
take 18 USC 922 (a)(1)
Quote:
(a) It shall be unlawful—
(1) for any person—
(A) except a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer, to engage in the business of importing, manufacturing, or dealing in firearms, or in the course of such business to ship, transport, or receive any firearm in interstate or foreign commerce; or
(B) except a licensed importer or licensed manufacturer, to engage in the business of importing or manufacturing ammunition, or in the course of such business, to ship, transport, or receive any ammunition in interstate or foreign commerce;
Ok so an incorporated company must be licensed (we know that every person who works at gun manufacturers are not licensed, but the company is)
We know that this applies to a person engaged in the business of...
However as unincorporated trusts (or companies, partnerships, etc. here on referred to as "unincorporated trusts") are not persons (as defined by 922 GCA above) nor are they incorporated companies, then this is inapplicable.
From the statement
Quote:
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.
Here's 18 USC 922(a)(2)
Quote:
or any importer, manufacturer, dealer, or collector licensed under the provisions of this chapter to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce any firearm to any person other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, except that...
"unincorporated trusts" are not licensed importers, manufacturers, dealers or collectors, therefore they could theoretically ship to anyone.
Quote:
for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector to transport into or receive in the State where he resides (or if the person is a corporation or other business entity, the State where it maintains a place of business) any firearm purchased or otherwise obtained...-
An "unincorporated trust" is not a person either we have BATFE saying so so they can receive any firearm too.
Now the GCA has been amended, but it's still the GCA, FOPA amended the GCA, Brady amended the GCA. Therefore as long as a person is acting as an agent of an "unincorporated trust" then the GCA is completely inapplicable in all cases involving firearms. As an agent of a "trust" one person could go and buy a FFL's entire stock, and the other members of that "trust" could all be newly paroled felons, however the agent was not performing a straw purchase, he was merely acting as an agent for the "trust". That agent could then mail those guns to anyone, as an agent of the "trust", and not be in violation of any law. Then receive a delivery of hundreds all supplied by other "trusts", whether they're select fire, semi auto, double or single action is irrelevant, same applies to SBS and SBR's likely DD too.
If it works out then they've defanged all Federal gun control law.
take 18 USC 922 (a)(1)
Ok so an incorporated company must be licensed (we know that every person who works at gun manufacturers are not licensed, but the company is)
We know that this applies to a person engaged in the business of...
However as unincorporated trusts (or companies, partnerships, etc. here on referred to as "unincorporated trusts") are not persons (as defined by 922 GCA above) nor are they incorporated companies, then this is inapplicable.
From the statement
Here's 18 USC 922(a)(2)
"unincorporated trusts" are not licensed importers, manufacturers, dealers or collectors, therefore they could theoretically ship to anyone.
An "unincorporated trust" is not a person either we have BATFE saying so so they can receive any firearm too.
Now the GCA has been amended, but it's still the GCA, FOPA amended the GCA, Brady amended the GCA. Therefore as long as a person is acting as an agent of an "unincorporated trust" then the GCA is completely inapplicable in all cases involving firearms. As an agent of a "trust" one person could go and buy a FFL's entire stock, and the other members of that "trust" could all be newly paroled felons, however the agent was not performing a straw purchase, he was merely acting as an agent for the "trust". That agent could then mail those guns to anyone, as an agent of the "trust", and not be in violation of any law. Then receive a delivery of hundreds all supplied by other "trusts", whether they're select fire, semi auto, double or single action is irrelevant, same applies to SBS and SBR's likely DD too.
Dude I think we have reached the land of awesome..
Dude I think we have reached the land of awesome..
Well, hold on to your britches a second, because there's still the whole "possession" issue...
Now all currently Title I non-NFA firearms could in theory (if it stands up in court) be entirely unregulated between "unincorporated trusts", however lets' look at NFA Items.
The NFA regulates the ownership and acquisition of items, as an officer of a trust you are permitted to possess property of the trust, which is how unincorporated trusts work now. However the issue is that possession of an unregistered NFA firearm is unlawful, that said, making NFA items is pretty easy, and they can be registered (even Machine Guns, although via Hughes these cannot be sold to a member of the public).
So to be sure there would need to be an instance where a trust approached an Type 7 SOT 2 FFL and then some form of test case completed, the dealer/manufacturer and trust could just apply for a transfer on a Form 4 then the trust could appeal through the courts.
Well, hold on to your britches a second, because there's still the whole "possession" issue...
Now all currently Title I non-NFA firearms could in theory (if it stands up in court) be entirely unregulated between "unincorporated trusts", however lets' look at NFA Items.
The NFA regulates the ownership and acquisition of items, as an officer of a trust you are permitted to possess property of the trust, which is how unincorporated trusts work now. However the issue is that possession of an unregistered NFA firearm is unlawful, that said, making NFA items is pretty easy, and they can be registered (even Machine Guns, although via Hughes these cannot be sold to a member of the public).
So to be sure there would need to be an instance where a trust approached an Type 7 SOT 2 FFL and then some form of test case completed, the dealer/manufacturer and trust could just apply for a transfer on a Form 4 then the trust could appeal through the courts.
Any reason why this would not hold a court of law? Or the ATf would have reason to deny this?
Any reason why this would not hold a court of law? Or the ATf would have reason to deny this?
Depends on the wording of who can own post '86 Machine guns. If it's specifically limited to government agencies, then it's toast (i.e. it's exclusively the named organizations). If it's preventing private persons owning post '86 MG's then "unincorporated trusts" do not meet that criteria (i.e. it's exclusively preventing persons from owning post '86 MG's), therefore they can be sold to them.
Here's the specific text...
18 USC 922 (o)
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18 USC 922
(o)(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 here are a list of people who can currently circumvent Hughes...
FFL's who hold an SOT to manufacture or deal in NFA firearms,
Federal, State and Local Government,
Law Enforcement (which is kind of redundant from the line above, but needs calling out),
Any other person authorized to do so by Federal, State or Local Government (see (o)(2)(A) "or under the authority of")
Ok so "unincorporated trust"...
Can they own post NFA MG's according to that text, yes, because under (o)(1) they are not persons. However, the law states no person may possess any NFA firearms without registration (that's actual, or constructive possession), to do so could result in up to a $250,000 fine, up to 10 years in prison, or both, so while the trust can own it, no person could at any time be in actual or constructive possession of it, which kind of makes ownership pointless.
So here's what you would need to do...
Set up an "unincorporated trust". Then become a licensed manufacturer with SOT2 or dealer with SOT3, then you could manufacture and register (as an SOT2), or transfer to your company (as an SOT3) post '86 NFA items. However if you were to do that, then as a licensed company company officers may legally possess such firearms (as long as they're company owned and they are company officers) and there is no $200 tranfer tax either.
However an "unincorporated trust" would be in violation of GCA manufacturing laws (it's an illegally manufactured firearm if unregistered) if they made their own unregistered machine gun, to register requires a form 1 submission and will only be approved for FFL's with SOT 2 (rarely SOT 3 on appeal if they want to make a sample, but they would need to show a justified reason for instance a letter from the CLEO on department headed paper). In this event, any person in constructive or actual possession of that firearm would be liable for the standard penalty above ($250k, 10 years).
Now that said... If you could become authorized somehow (for instance become deputized, or reserve police), you could in theory persuade your CLEO to sign off on you being authorized to buy a NFA weapon that isn't Hughes (around $700 for an M16). However that's pretty remote.
All of that said, this will be decided in court. The fact that the majority of the GCA refers to FFL's, and persons means that BATFE may have by their own statement undercut much of it. However Hughes isn't quite as specific. Hughes makes it an offense to transfer post '86 MG's except to those authorized it's already an offense to possess an unregistered NFA item, NFA registration for MG's requires an FFL and SOT (manufacturer, dealer, or importer), and an FFL cannot legally transfer to a non-authorized person except anything predating the activation of Hughes in '86.
It's interesting, and I'll be watching as it progresses, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
