• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

Want a NEW Machinegun? The ATF may have just allowed you to make one!**Update Post 72

Joined
Sep 15, 2009
Messages
12,148
Likes
3,063
Location
SC
Feedback: 8 / 0 / 0
Solid Gold.

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…

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/20...accidentaly-thrown-open-machine-gun-registry/
 
Last edited:
While it would be nice if it actually worked, I would bet all my money that any Form 1s submitted to make new machineguns under a trust will be rejected. It's not like the ATF has to actually use logic or follow the law, they just do what they want and justify it however they feel like.
 
While it would be nice if it actually worked, I would bet all my money that any Form 1s submitted to make new machineguns under a trust will be rejected. It's not like the ATF has to actually use logic or follow the law, they just do what they want and justify it however they feel like.

Then why shouldn't we do the same??
 
Yeah, good luck with that. Let's say the ATF does actually find itself in a quandry... couldn't they just sit on the application "forever"? Who's going to make them process it?
 
I'm sure it will be rejected, it will be funny to see what happens if this guy tries to take them to court over the issue, if he actually follows through on it.

-Mike
 
I'm sure it will be rejected, it will be funny to see what happens if this guy tries to take them to court over the issue, if he actually follows through on it.

-Mike

I would be willing to bet all my money on this too: He will lose. No court is going to overturn the machinegun ban, no matter how logical the argument against it is, because OMG MACHINEGUNS.
 
I would be willing to bet all my money on this too: He will lose. No court is going to overturn the machinegun ban, no matter how logical the argument against it is, because OMG MACHINEGUNS.

Even if it gets punted through the court systems as a win you can expect an 11th hour wallhack to fix the hole, regardless. If the feds realistically think it has a chance of messing with them they will make the issue moot before it even goes to trial.

-Mike
 
Sig is suing the ATF in court that the "flash suppressor" on the MPX constitutes a "Silencer" and it looks like they (Sig) have good precedent in their favor.

Sig is fast becoming my favorite company solely for their ATF wallhacks like their AR-15 "Pistol Brace" stock and the "muzzle brake" suppressor baffles.
 
I suppose this would (in theory) allow someone to CNC mill a sear for an AR provided they have a trust?
 
Sig is fast becoming my favorite company solely for their ATF wallhacks like their AR-15 "Pistol Brace" stock and the "muzzle brake" suppressor baffles.

Me too, although I don't particularly care for many of their guns, save for that new pistol carbine and 556 Classic SBR. I think I could party with one of those.
 
I suppose this would (in theory) allow someone to CNC mill a sear for an AR provided they have a trust?

That is the theory. The Attorney who blogged this story says he has submitted a form 1 on a trust for a new minigun.... [rofl]. So we will see where it goes. Good news is, he is already and attorney [laugh]
 
That is the theory. The Attorney who blogged this story says he has submitted a form 1 on a trust for a new minigun.... [rofl]. So we will see where it goes. Good news is, he is already and attorney [laugh]

Seems an application for a mini gun is a bit more flamboyant than strategically necessary. Wouldnt a sear have been a more conservative play?
 
They're going to come back arguing that "possession" includes physically handling the firearm, is my guess. Because you can't touch such a firearm, your trust can't make one.
 
They're going to come back arguing that "possession" includes physically handling the firearm, is my guess. Because you can't touch such a firearm, your trust can't make one.

I can "possess" a new manufacture MG as long as I am doing so in the presence of the FFL that acquired it. There are machineguns at MFL that I can rent and shoot on their property that were made after 1986.
 
Want a NEW Machinegun? The ATF may have just allowed you to make one!

So wish I had a trust id try to get a drop in auto sear to sneak in lol.

Belt fed 54r kits aren't that much .....
 
Yes, you can. It's not that hard to do in many of the non douche towns.

-Mike
I bet you could fit the list of non-douche towns on one side of a business card using 10-point font. I started the process in Norwood a few years ago. Where I already had them legally registered out of state, the chief basically said, "well you already have them, I guess no harm in giving you the license - just finish the hoops" To note though, he didn't make a promise and my confidence was not 100% that he'd follow through. (instead I just moved back to the state they were already registered in).
 
Back
Top Bottom