Kicked off range for not having NFA paperwork...

[AK103K]

Taxing them was the only way it could pass the constitutional scrutiny at the time. I suppose later on, they figured, and seem to have been correct in their assumption, that the BS fed the general population from 34 on to 68, and then for sure in 86, would (and did) allow them to ignore it altogether.

If it were really about tax, it would be an open registry.

[Skans]

If it were really about tax, it would be an open registry.

If it was really just about tax there would be no photographs, no fingerprints, no CLEO sign-off, no restrictions on transporting them between states - just a revenue stamp, like the ones they put on liquor bottles.

[Conn. Trooper]

I probably wouldn't mind any of the NFA headaches if transfers moved a little quicker.

[Skans]

I probably wouldn't mind any of the NFA headaches if transfers moved a little quicker.

The biggest PITA for me is getting a CLEO signoff. Not impossible, just a PITA!

[Hkmp5sd]

Pay a lawyer to create a Living Trust. No more CLEO, fingerprints or photos. Very fast form approvals.

[RAnb]

I think all 50 states have a statute stating the effect that SBS, SBR, MG, silencers, etc. are illegal to possess. As for the states that do allow one or more of those items, the statutes are usually written "it is illegal to possess UNLESS properly registered with ATF." So by the way the statute is worded, then someone can be assumed to be breaking the law UNLESS proof is given that they are not.

Not all states say that. FL only mentions silencers to define them. WA only mentions them to ban use. TX bans possession, but makes registration an affirmative defense to prosecution. I have not read all of the states title 2 weapons laws, but they vary a lot.

Ranb

[Skans]

Pay a lawyer to create a Living Trust. No more CLEO, fingerprints or photos. Very fast form approvals.

I know folks who have done this. It seems to work. But, I'm skeptical of it because in the back of my mind all it takes is one of BATFE's "special" rulings to nullify that.

BATFE is real good at ignoring the law and simply restating it in the form of rulings to make the law whatever it wants it to be. Examples: catagorizing ordinary 12 gauge shotguns as DD's in the 1990's; labling the Akins Accelerator as an "illegal machinegun" eventhough the gun fires one shot per trigger pull.

I never liked or trusted Janet Reno. How do you feel about Eric Holder?

[dogtown tom]

Skans ... But, I'm skeptical of it because in the back of my mind all it takes is one of BATFE's "special" rulings to nullify that.

And......somehow an individual registration NFA will never have a chance of a "special ruling"?

Federal law clearly allows the use of a trust in regard to NFA firearms.



Way too much BATF paranoia.

[Skans]

Federal law clearly allows the use of a trust in regard to NFA firearms.

Way too much BATF paranoia.

Federal law also clearly defines a semi-automatic as one trigger pull per round fired. That didn't stop BATFE. Someone made a "trigger activator" type device that actually worked, and BATFE simply took the position that it was illegal, demanding that everyone who had them turn in their springs. I suspect that if someone came up with a gat trigger device that worked too good, then BATFE would outlaw those as well.

Regardless, State law could also prohibit the use of Trusts, or impose additional CLEO sign-off requirements even for Trusts, regardless of what NFA/GCA says.

I'd use a trust to purchase a can if I wanted one - not much to lose there. And, if I absolutely had to use one to get a machine gun, I'd probably do that as well. But, I can get a CLEO sign-off for machine guns - it's just a PITA, that's all. I'm not saying "don't use Trusts, LLC's, or Corps." All I'm saying is that if you can get a CLEO sigh-off, then there's no need to bother with this. And, there may be some reasons not to go the Trust route if you can get a CLEO sign-off.

[Conn. Trooper]

I belive with a trust you can list "Officers" of the trust/corporation, and they can also be in possession of your Class 3's? Correct?

[Willie Lowman]

Trustees or officers can be in control of NFA items held by the trust or corp.

There are advantages and disadvantages to this.

The advantage I see is if I have a heart attack at the range and am rushed to the hospital, my wife wont be committing multiple felonies by taking my(our, the trust's) silencers home.

[Skans]

I belive with a trust you can list "Officers" of the trust/corporation, and they can also be in possession of your Class 3's? Correct?

Trusts have "Trustees" and Corporations have officers. It would be the Trustees that would have the right to possess the machinegun. I'm not entirely sure what would give a Trustee the right to shoot it, though. What purpose could it possibly serve the Trust for a Trustee to fire a machinegun owned by the Trust? If anything, it would devalue the gun, slightly, and Trustees are generally charged with the requirement of trying to enhance the value of the contents of the Trust.

Just saying - I don't really trust trusts.

[dogtown tom]

Skans Quote:
Trusts have "Trustees" and Corporations have officers. It would be the Trustees that would have the right to possess the machinegun. I'm not entirely sure what would give a Trustee the right to shoot it, though. What purpose could it possibly serve the Trust for a Trustee to fire a machinegun owned by the Trust? If anything, it would devalue the gun, slightly, and Trustees are generally charged with the requirement of trying to enhance the value of the contents of the Trust.

Just saying - I don't really trust trusts.

I don't think you have any idea of what a trust actually is or does.

You need to go here:http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/

excerpt from above link
Co-owners and Authorized Users

If an individual purchases Title II firearms then he or she is the only one permitted to use or have access the firearms. Many people incorrectly believe that it is ok to let others use their NFA firearms when in their presence. However, the NFA would consider this a transfer and be a violation of the law. When your spouse or someone else knows the combination to your firearms safe, you may be violating the restriction on letting others access or possess your firearms. Improper possession through constructive possession is a form of unauthorized possession, and a violation of the NFA.

If you use an NFA Firearms Trust to purchase Title II firearms, you can designate additional owners and authorized users. You can eliminate the risk associated with an improper constructive possession with a simple signature authorizing that person to be in legal possession of the items. This can help protect you and your family from the penalties of violating the NFA.

[Frank Ettin]

But in any case, a trust doesn't have officers. A trust has trustees.

A trust is not an entity. It is a device for owning things (including money). In such an arrangement, there are one or more natural or artificial persons (a trustee can be a corporation, and a corporation has officers) called trustees who legally own things for the benefit of someone else, called a beneficiary. The rights and obligations of trustees and beneficiaries are written out in a document called a trust or a trust indenture or a trust document. The person who creates the trust is called a settlor, a trustor or a grantor.

Of course the trust document has to be carefully written to structure the trust in a manner appropriate for the type of things the trustees will own, the purposes and goals of the trust arrangement and applicable state and federal laws. And so an NFA firearms trust would need to be uniquely structured to properly serve its purposes and goals.

[Skans]

If an individual purchases Title II firearms then he or she is the only one permitted to use or have access the firearms. Many people incorrectly believe that it is ok to let others use their NFA firearms when in their presence. However, the NFA would consider this a transfer and be a violation of the law. When your spouse or someone else knows the combination to your firearms safe, you may be violating the restriction on letting others access or possess your firearms. Improper possession through constructive possession is a form of unauthorized possession, and a violation of the NFA.

If you use an NFA Firearms Trust to purchase Title II firearms, you can designate additional owners and authorized users. You can eliminate the risk associated with an improper constructive possession with a simple signature authorizing that person to be in legal possession of the items. This can help protect you and your family from the penalties of violating the NFA.

Let me guess - this comes from some lawyer who sells trusts for NFA purchases. What a load of BS - if my wife knows the combination of my safe, which holds my registered machinegun, she and I are violating the NFA??? Or, if I let someone else shoot it in my presence, that's a violation of the NFA???

Yeah - I'm going to be buying one of those trusts from whatever lawyer said this crap over this kind of scare tactic BS!

Look, it's one thing if you need to use Trusts, etc. because your CLEO won't sign off on your Form 4, but I ain't buying this other stuff. Not one bit.

[Skans]

And so an NFA firearms trust would need to be uniquely structured to properly serve its purposes and goals.

Fiddletown, I don't dissagree with anything you've said. But, I do have a question for you. What would be the stated purpose of a trust established for the ownership of NFA items? Investment? If that's the case, then don't shoot the machinegun, because that has noting to do with investment.

I can't see how it could be defense related, or "just for fun". From the little I know, these purposes wouldn't jive with what trusts are for. Tell me, how do you grant the Trustee or beneficiary the power, under a trust, to take the trust asset (machinegun) to a range and shoot it just for kicks and giggles? Who pays for the ammunition if you do this? The trust? Who pays the range fees? The trust? Surely, the trustee isn't going to use his own funds for this and the trust asset for his own kicks and giggles, now is he?

[Frank Ettin]

..,I do have a question for you. What would be the stated purpose of a trust established for the ownership of NFA items? Investment?...

Beats me. I chimed in to offer some background on the general nature of a trust. I have no experience specifically with NFA firearm trusts. I would expect that the lawyers who do that sort of work have good answers.

I know it's very common and fashionable to mistrust lawyers. And there certainly are plenty who are on the smarmy side. Also, if you're dealing with one who is actually representing someone you're dealing with, he doesn't owe you anything. But at the same time, bar associations don't have any more sense of humor than ATF when it comes to lawyers who take on stuff they're not qualified to handle.

[Hkmp5sd]

What would be the stated purpose of a trust established for the ownership of NFA items? Investment?...

There are three primary reasons for getting a trust. One is for those people that cannot obtain a CLEO autograph. Second is for those that frequently buy NFA items and want to simplify the paperwork.

The important reason for a trust is to ensure the proper distribution of your NFA items upon your death. With common M16s and MP5s selling for $20,000 these days, it is important that you plan ahead for your demise.

[Willie Lowman]

Who pays for the ammunition if you do this? The trust? Who pays the range fees? The trust? Surely, the trustee isn't going to use his own funds for this and the trust asset for his own kicks and giggles, now is he?

Yes, the trust does pay for it. From a bank account in the name of the trust that the trustees put money into. Same way tax stamps are paid for.

[Skans]

I know it's very common and fashionable to mistrust lawyers.

I don't have a beef with lawyers, per se. I simply think that the use of a trust or corp to purchase NFA comes with some real problems. Recreational use of firearms by individuals seems contrary to what trusts are set up for - i.e. the preservation of assets or distribution upon death. How many folks who have these trusts actually set up bank accounts in the name of the trust for the purpose of paying all related costs to shooting NFA item?

But, the bigger question is really what purpose does it serve for the trustee of such a trust to take the gun out to the range and do mag dumps with it. A trust might work fine for guns that are nothing but safe queens, but I think there is a real contridiction using them for guns you want to use and shoot. I think it would way too easy for BATFE to simply declare by "special ruling" that all NFA guns in trusts can only be kept for investment purposes - not used for target practice, etc. If everyone started putting their NFA items in trusts, it sure would be an easy way for BATFE to prohibit people from ever using them.

[Powderman]

And this post hits at the heart of the problem.

Why on earth do we have to duck and go through all kinds of twists and turns to exercise a right? Why?

It seems that the answer is that we haven't gotten mad enough yet. We, as a nation, are like the frog in the pot of slowly heating water. We aren't at the tepid stage--far from it! We are in the rolling boil, and we don't seem to care about it.

How did we get here? Simple. Look at the last election.

"I'll never vote for Palin."
"I hope Obama gets elected."
"Maybe this will be a wake-up call."
"I'm not voting this year."
"I'm going to vote for_____."

The Obama crowd didn't even have to fight to defeat us. We whacked ourselves in the head quite nicely, thank you very much. And still, it was a very close thing.

We haven't gotten mad enough yet to seriously ask questions like, "Why do I have to jump through these hoops? Why do I have to twist and turn and go into convulsions to own a fully automatic firearm?"

"Why does one inch of barrel even make a difference?"

We as a Nation have just sat by and let it happen. We have the most powerful weapon imaginable--the VOTE--and we waste it, squander it away on candidates who don't have a chance of winning, withhold it.

And we get what we deserve. After the election, what happened?

Panic buying. Primer and powder shortages.

A general air of defeat.

Elected officials giving voice to ideas that are the stuff of nightmares--registration schemes, confiscation, submission to UN control, outright bans--all open discussions; things that should not even be spoken of in a free Nation.

And we let it happen.

I see posts on the forums stating: "If you are a true patriot, you won't enforce this law. You'll turn a blind eye to this."

Wrong.

We, as a Nation, have allowed these laws to exist. We, as a Nation, have allowed officials to be elected that will eventually take our rights and strangle our freedoms into subjugation.

And then there is a lot of empty rhetoric about what will happen "if they come to take our guns away".

Why will we let it come to that? Why do we not unite, on a solid front, and come Election Day--starting with the mid terms, coming up next year--and VOTE THESE BUMS OUT OF OFFICE?

Until we DO wake up, let's try to stop having angels dance on the head of a pin.

And just to be safe, have your NFA paperwork with you when you go to the range.

[LukeA]

Does any evidence corroborate any of the above claims?

[ssmdive]

Let me guess - this comes from some lawyer who sells trusts for NFA purchases. What a load of BS - if my wife knows the combination of my safe, which holds my registered machinegun, she and I are violating the NFA??

Like it or not, that is the way the law is written.

[gyvel]

I was at the Markham Park shooting range today in South Florida.

The ultimate irony is that C. R. Markham was one of the biggest anti-gun politicians in Broward County and they named a park/shooting range after him

[gyvel]

Perhaps I am being overly simple minded, but NFA Regs regarding Form 4s clearly state that it is SUGGESTED to carry a copy. SUGGESTED does not mean REQUIRED.

Now, assuming there are no state or local ordinances to the contrary and some LEO, going on the basis of prima facie evidence, actually arrests (NOT detains) you for possessing the weapon, and you do not have your stamped paperwork with you, which, BY LAW you are NOT required have in your immediate possession, wouldn't you have a whopper of a case for false arrest once you go to court and produce said documentation?

For that matter, since the only law/regulation governing such an incident clearly states that the document is only required to be surrendered to the Attorney General or ATF officers, would you have to produce it in court at all? At that point would it become incumbent on the prosecution to prove otherwise?

The only parallel I have for this is a former acquaintance who was stopped by a Chandler, AZ LEO one night while walking with his girlfriend.

He refused to produce identification upon demand of said LEO, was arrested, jailed overnight, and, when brought before the judge was immediately exonerated due to the fact that there is no legal requirement (in AZ, at least) to show identification when walking in a public place upon demand of an LEO.

He did receive an out-of-court settlement of $10,000.00 from the City of Chandler.

Assuming no such requirement exists in Broward County or Florida, wouldn't the arrest of a person for simply refusing to produce NFA docs be the same principle?