ATF ruled that a trust is not a person as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a) and the Gun Control Act (GCA).
Since ATF holds that an unincorporated trust is not a “person” under the GCA, the prohibition on the transfer or possession of machineguns as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(1) and 18 U.S. Code § 922(o) cannot apply to unincorporated trusts.
Numerous (See Footnote #1) trustees submitted Form 1 applications to build new machine guns.
ATF approved the applications and sent out stamps (See Footnote #2).
On or around 9/10/14, ATF began calling trustees that received stamps demanding that they be returned, or in the case of eForms, updating their online status from Approved to Disapproved. Those that were called were told they had to return the stamp. (See Footnote #3 for audio of one such call)
At least one of the plaintiffs has also made a novel argument challenging the Hughes Amendment on a rational basis. The gov’t claims they have a compelling interest in civilians not owning machine guns so they restrict transfers of those made post-86. The plaintiff is arguing that since pre-86 and post-86 machine guns are no different in function, basically the date is arbitrary, and arbitrary restrictions by definition fail the rational basis test. In other words, if .gov thinks FA is so dangerous and unusual that civilians can’t handle it, then the rational response to that compelling gov’t interest is to restrict ALL transfers and not just some. By conceding .gov authority to regulate FA weapons, they’re calling into question the authority to restrict transfers of SOME FA weapons.
I think it’s absolutely brilliant because it’s significantly easier for a judge to stomach removing a restriction that still leaves the NFA with all it’s BG checks and transfer taxes intact…
I would love to see positive changes made, but I have no faith in our current administration. The same argument can be made on suppressors and SBRs, what makes either of those more dangerous than their counterparts? As long as they can get the tax monies from these items they will! Thanks for posting up this info, I will be paying attention to this!!
its good to follow this and thanks for the summary.
I kinda wish they would challenge the Hughes Amendment on the grounds that it was falsely passed with a “voice vote” in Congress and Charlie Rangel illegally and arbitrarily passed the amendment. Maybe there is nothing there, but i think its worth a shot.
There is nothing there. Congress said the FOPA passed, so it’s passed. Even if it was constitutional for the courts to determine whether one amendment to that bill was added in an aboveboard manner or not, you do not want the courts ruling on the internal processes of the legislative branch, for any number of reasons you should be able to come up with if you think about it for a bit.