ATF: Oops, we didn’t mean to approve that machine gun
So, someone took the ATF ruling that trusts aren’t people and applied to make a machine gun. ATF sent them an approved form 1. Apparently, ATF thinks this ruling only applies to some things and not others and called the guy asking him to send it back. Personally, I’d lawyer up and tell them to fuck off. I wouldn’t build the gun until talking to a good lawyer but definitely tell them to fuck off.
September 12th, 2014 at 7:26 pm
I’d be sure to tell them the tax stamp they sent me was now in the hands of my lawyer, so don’t bother coming around at oh-dark-thirty with the First Infantry wannabees to try to take it back.
September 12th, 2014 at 8:02 pm
Amusing. The BATFE violated the Hughes Amendment by stamping that form one. The owner did nothing wrong.
The ATF mall-cops need to raid their own WV records depository.
September 13th, 2014 at 6:30 pm
@Kristophr:
Actually, no.
The Hughes Amendment applies to the Gun Control Act of 1968 (as does the rest of the FOPA of 1986). Specifically, the Hughes Amendment exists as section 922(o) of title 18 of the U.S. Code.
The prohibition contained in 922(o) applies only to those who are defined as “persons” under the GCA.
The determination letter that BATFE sent to Dakota Silencer regarding confusion (Different BATFE offices were giving conflicting information) over whether silencers going to trusts required a NICS check (NFA items typically do NOT require NICS — the form 4 IS the background check) stated clearly that the BATFE had determined that, for the purposes of the GCA, Trusts are not “persons”.
Thus, since trusts are not “persons” under the GCA, trusts are also not “persons” for the purposes of 922(o), and thus there is no prohibition on the registration/transfer of machineguns by/to trusts.
In actuality, it is arguable that both parties are, in fact, correct: The definition of “person” as it applies to U.S.C. 18 Section 922 appears in section 921 of the same chapter, and reads:
“(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.”
That definition does NOT include trusts, and never has. That being said, the NFA is a TAX measure (and thus is in title 26 of the U.S. Code), and thus it relies on a definition of “person” which DOES explicitly include trusts.
Thus, while this has only come up recently, it is arguable that this is a legal angle to free up machineguns that could have been pushed at ANY point in the last 28 years.
Whether or not it would have been successful previously, or if it will be now, is still up in the air.
September 13th, 2014 at 9:57 pm
Its hilarious to see the ATF’s incompetent adherence to their chaotic letter ruling system of rule making blow up in their face.
This could be the setup for a court case on their interpretation but it could also be a case that challenges their ruling system and creates something more in conformance to the APA.
September 14th, 2014 at 12:46 pm
HSR47: The original Hughes amendment simply prohibited spending money to register post May 1986 firearms.
The changes to 922 was the implementation of this simply worded amendment.
At the very least, registering this weapon was still a misappropriation of funds.
September 15th, 2014 at 6:50 pm
Not post-May “firearms”.
Post-May “machineguns”.