NYT has Opened a New Can of Worms

sigcurious · February 25, 2013, 11:26 PM

Article

Apparently a reporter finally stumbled on NFA trusts. The article implies the reasoning behind them is nefarious, along with the usual NFA items are too dangerous for people to own shtick. Sadly, the LGS owner quoted at the end is a local to me. The Gun Store does significant amounts of business renting machine guns to range users(tourists)...

It's unfortunate that more disinformation is being thrown out there at this stage of the fight. Particularly when it's in regards to an already poorly understood(by the general public) area of firearms.

kilimanjaro · February 25, 2013, 11:51 PM

Expect hundreds of articles like these in the media until our 2nd Amendment is emasculated.

Armorer-at-Law · February 26, 2013, 09:27 AM

As is so often the case these days, it is more of an op-ed piece, with a token quote from the "other side," than an article.

The statement at the end that this is a way criminals can get machine guns is pretty stupid (IMHO). If a person is legally barred from possessing firearms, then she will also be breaking the law if he forms a trust to obtain a machine gun. Why would she form a trust, pay $4,900 for a cheap Cobray or $15,000 for an M16, and wait 6-8 months, just to be able to -- still illegally -- acquire a machine gun? Why not just built/buy it illegally in the first place for much less? If we are talking about suppressors or SBRs (which is not the example given in the quote at the end), then the only factor that changes is the price tag.

With the coming change in the requirement for CLEO sign off (conveniently not mentioned in the article), this "loophole" will close and gun trusts will continue to serve their valuable estate planning purpose.

**Glenn E. Meyer** · February 26, 2013, 11:06 AM

That author has been researching and writing about gun issues for several months. Some articles are well done (even if you disagree). I don't think it was a 'stumble' - there is a research and article plan operating.

sigcurious · February 26, 2013, 12:19 PM

I did not know the authors history. I'll have to check out some of the previous articles.

DaleA · February 26, 2013, 02:02 PM

I didn't think the article was too bad.

BUT...I really, really wish the writer would have told us how many times a legally owned silencer or legally owned full auto weapon had been used in a crime. (I think a number VERY close to zero.)

A little thread veer here. It stupefies me to think someone like the writer who has done some research on the gun issue and can write a coherent article (like this one) could possibly NOT be on 'our' side of the issue. I'd be interested in what they write in the future.

dajowi · February 26, 2013, 02:40 PM

Remember it wasn't that long ago that a father allowed his small son to fire a mini-uzi machinegun at a gun range which killed the child. We're lucky they're not beating us over the head with that example.

February 25, 2013, 11:26 PM	#1
sigcurious Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2011 Posts: 1,755	NYT has Opened a New Can of Worms Article Apparently a reporter finally stumbled on NFA trusts. The article implies the reasoning behind them is nefarious, along with the usual NFA items are too dangerous for people to own shtick. Sadly, the LGS owner quoted at the end is a local to me. The Gun Store does significant amounts of business renting machine guns to range users(tourists)... It's unfortunate that more disinformation is being thrown out there at this stage of the fight. Particularly when it's in regards to an already poorly understood(by the general public) area of firearms.

February 26, 2013, 09:27 AM	#3
Armorer-at-Law Senior Member Join Date: October 29, 2002 Location: Cincinnati, OH Posts: 464	As is so often the case these days, it is more of an op-ed piece, with a token quote from the "other side," than an article. The statement at the end that this is a way criminals can get machine guns is pretty stupid (IMHO). If a person is legally barred from possessing firearms, then she will also be breaking the law if he forms a trust to obtain a machine gun. Why would she form a trust, pay $4,900 for a cheap Cobray or $15,000 for an M16, and wait 6-8 months, just to be able to -- still illegally -- acquire a machine gun? Why not just built/buy it illegally in the first place for much less? If we are talking about suppressors or SBRs (which is not the example given in the quote at the end), then the only factor that changes is the price tag. With the coming change in the requirement for CLEO sign off (conveniently not mentioned in the article), this "loophole" will close and gun trusts will continue to serve their valuable estate planning purpose. __________________ Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT

February 26, 2013, 11:06 AM	#4
Glenn E. Meyer Staff Join Date: November 17, 2000 Posts: 19,553	That author has been researching and writing about gun issues for several months. Some articles are well done (even if you disagree). I don't think it was a 'stumble' - there is a research and article plan operating. __________________ NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

February 25, 2013, 11:51 PM	#2
kilimanjaro Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2009 Posts: 3,963	Expect hundreds of articles like these in the media until our 2nd Amendment is emasculated.

February 26, 2013, 12:19 PM	#5
sigcurious Senior Member Join Date: May 25, 2011 Posts: 1,755	I did not know the authors history. I'll have to check out some of the previous articles.

February 26, 2013, 02:02 PM	#6
DaleA Senior Member Join Date: September 12, 2002 Location: Twin Cities, MN Posts: 4,141	I didn't think the article was too bad. BUT...I really, really wish the writer would have told us how many times a legally owned silencer or legally owned full auto weapon had been used in a crime. (I think a number VERY close to zero.) A little thread veer here. It stupefies me to think someone like the writer who has done some research on the gun issue and can write a coherent article (like this one) could possibly NOT be on 'our' side of the issue. I'd be interested in what they write in the future.

February 26, 2013, 02:40 PM	#7
dajowi Senior Member Join Date: November 2, 2005 Posts: 1,174	Remember it wasn't that long ago that a father allowed his small son to fire a mini-uzi machinegun at a gun range which killed the child. We're lucky they're not beating us over the head with that example.