Form 1 for Thompson approved for Trust?

[reconbob]

I had a conversation with a customer today who got a Form 1 - this is the application to make

a firearm - approved for a trust. In other words, if you have a Trust for your Class 3 stuff, you

can file a Form 1 (and pay $200) to manufacture a firearm, i.e. a machine gun. This is one of the

things that was banned in 1986.

I do not know all of the details but the story is that the wording of the 1986 act spells out that

individuals can no longer manufacture machine guns. (Short barreled rifles and silencers were

not affected.) And that new manufacture machine guns cannot be transferred to individuals.

BUT...apparently someone studied the law and concluded that a Trust is not an individual,

and that if a Trust files a Form 1 and manufactures a machine gun there is no transfer, and

therefore the ATF will approve it. When the guy got the approved Form 1 back he was so

shocked he contacted ATF to make sure there was no mistake.

This seems plausible because people have been using Trusts so they do not need the

law enforcement letter for transfers.

Anybody heard of or know anything about this?

 

Bob

 

[Motorcar]

Seems possible, wouldn't that change the way we do things! I'm going to send that to my Class 3 and see if he's come accross that. They do a huge suppressor business.

Edited August 16, 2014 by Motorcar

[Dolphinvet]

I'm rather skeptical of this. First off, if true, then anybody could get full auto parts for an AR lower receiver with a trust, and make an M-16 after ATF approved the form 1. I think I'd of heard of this being commonplace by now if that were possible. I've built 3 SBR's in the past 5 or so years and there's a lot of discussion on making these guns on M4carbine.net with a form 1. I don't think this is something an individual can do even with a trust. An SOT yes, but not an individual.

[ThompsonCrazy]

If declined do they return your $200 check?

 

TC

[mike in pa]

If declined do they return your $200 check?

 

TC

Yes they will return your check.

[mnshooter]

If a trust cannot be transferred, wouldn't these be much like post sample guns?

If the trust is dissolved, what happens to the firearm manufactured under these conditions?

[timkel]

I had a conversation with a customer today who got a Form 1 - this is the application to make

a firearm - approved for a trust. In other words, if you have a Trust for your Class 3 stuff, you

can file a Form 1 (and pay $200) to manufacture a firearm, i.e. a machine gun. This is one of the

things that was banned in 1986.

I do not know all of the details but the story is that the wording of the 1986 act spells out that

individuals can no longer manufacture machine guns. (Short barreled rifles and silencers were

not affected.) And that new manufacture machine guns cannot be transferred to individuals.

BUT...apparently someone studied the law and concluded that a Trust is not an individual,

and that if a Trust files a Form 1 and manufactures a machine gun there is no transfer, and

therefore the ATF will approve it. When the guy got the approved Form 1 back he was so

shocked he contacted ATF to make sure there was no mistake.

This seems plausible because people have been using Trusts so they do not need the

law enforcement letter for transfers.

Anybody heard of or know anything about this?

 

Bob

Looks like I'll be setting up a trust.

[Paladin601]

So you first make the Trust, file the Form1 and pay the tax, then make the gun?

[buzz]

This is a classic case of the "spirit of the law VS the letter of the law".

 

This topic has been getting kicked around the gun boards since last May.

 

Whenever someone finds a loophole in the NFA or CGA laws, the ATF just issues a "clarification" of some kind and wishes the problem away.

 

For example, people were getting FNC full auto sears installed into the receiver of their FNC.

 

The M16 guys said, "If you can put an FNC sear into a FNC lower, I should be able to put one into a AR15 lower."

 

So ATF simply issued a statement saying that henceforth the upper on an FNC was the receiver and the lower was just a trigger pack.

 

Therefore the lower can be drilled for a sear without creating a new machine gun.

 

That's the opposite of how AR15s are treated, even though the FNC often has the serial number on the lower and is practically identical to an AR15, the FNC has the exact same modular construction as the AR15, the lower is held on with two pins and is more or less identical.

 

If ATF needs a federal judge to issue a ruling, one of Obama's cronies will make it happen in about 5 minutes flat.

 

In short, the chance of new machineguns becoming legal is about 2% of zero.

 

IMHO

[mattnh]

Unlikely - this is prob. the genesis of that story...

 

http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/05/14/did-atfs-determination-on-nics-checks-open-the-door-for-manufacture-of-new-machineguns-for-trusts/

[AlexanderA]

reconbob wrote:

 

"When the guy got the approved Form 1 back he was so

 

shocked he contacted ATF to make sure there was no mistake."

 

The guy should publicly post a (redacted) copy of the approved Form 1. Until I see this, I simply won't believe it. If true, this development would be a complete game-changer.

[anjong-ni]

The question I would have for Bob is, "Would you hand him the 100% receiver?".

 

If the intent of the Federal law is generally, to: "Prevent 'new' machineguns from being made for individuals", which it probably was,

then are these machinations to "sidestep" the intent of the law... indeed truly legal?

 

And if the manufacturer didn't feel that it's legal, they certainly wouldn't want to be the company that "made him a machinegun"......Phil

Edited August 16, 2014 by anjong-ni

[reconbob]

I will see if I can get more info on this. No, I would not give a trust a 100% receiver.

I would assume the trust has to make it. Now, maybe it would be acceptable for the

trust to bring me a semi=finished receiver, and stay with me while I finished it for them

so that it was never out of their possession or control. I don't know.

I am not holding my breath on all this but this could be (maybe) like when Roger

Cox discovered and exploited the "Dealer Sample" loophole to allow importation and

sale of old machine guns. Back then to get the transfer approved all you had to do was

SAY the gun was to be used as a sales sample and you were in. The loophole was so

widely exploited, (e.g. M1914 Hotchkiss 8mm Lebel for sales sample to police department)

that they eventually changed it so you actually had to include a letter from a police

department requesting a demo. But until they did that it was wide open and 1000's of

guns many of them oddballs that would never be used by law enforcement were imported

as samples.

 

Bob

[anjong-ni]

Bob, I ask because here in California, of course, we're not allowed NFA transfers of any kind.

But I HAVE a Trust....

Interesting to see what comes of this....Phil

[Paladin601]

Anjong, you live in Calif, we can't have NFA transfers, then why have the Trust. Mind I am watch this very closely, I too am in Kali, and wish to own NFA firearms

[anjong-ni]

I don't know if the wording of the CA law prohibits NFA transfers to individuals, or EVERY entity.

The rumour is that there are more "legally registered" machineguns in CA than ANY other state.

 

For the moment, of course we can't have a machinegun because the mere "assembly" of the parts would produce a dreaded, illegal "assault weapon", having a high-capacity removable "ammo source", and other characteristics such as pistol grips, flash hiders, bayonet lugs, etc.

 

I don't know of anyplace that would allow F/A fire in the Litigious State.

 

That said, a Thompson would be a nice investment to have....apart ...in the safe.....Phil

[Paladin601]

guess we would also be stuck with a 10 rd drum on a Thompson, no fun.

[bug]

You two are making me glad I live where I live. America...

[Motorcar]

My Class 3 guy dealer, who also has an extensive trust, has submitted a Form 1 to manufacture on the trust as well. We shall see what happens.

[cocoabill]

I plan to put one in in the next day or two, any thoughts on quoting the basis (the loophole) on which the form 1 would be hoping to exploit, or do you think the BATF is up on all of this? My guess is that if this is a loophole they will be delaying approvals until than can plug it.

[buzz]

This is no big deal.

 

The NFA and GCA laws are poorly written and full of loopholes.

 

Some inventive person finds a clever loophole, then the ATF steps up with a tub of spackling compound and fills the hole.

 

It happens all the time.

 

 

For cheap new machineguns to become available, there would need to be a massive political push for it.

 

Otherwise it would be voted out of existence as quickly as it appeared.

 

Our country doesn't work on right or wrong, it works on the popular vote.

 

The general public doesn't vote on logic, they vote on feelings.

 

How are you going to get millions of soccer moms to agree that hobby gun collectors should have cheap new MGs to goof around with?

 

The whole topic is political radioactive toxic waste, no politician will touch it, much less go to the mat over it.

Edited August 19, 2014 by buzz

[AlexanderA]

buzz wrote:

 

"Our country doesn't work on right or wrong, it works on the popular vote."

 

In theory, you are correct. But often, on a legislative level, results come from inside maneuvering rather than from popularity. This is how we got the Hughes Amendment in the first place. There was no straight up-or-down vote on the Amendment -- or rather, there was, but it went the other way.

 

What can be done by underhanded tactics can be undone using the same tactics.

 

I agree that this idea of Form 1 "making" of new machine guns by trusts is a long shot. If by some fluke the ATF approved such an application, the issue would be kicked back to Congress. Given the right makeup of Congress (with, say, a Republican Senate after this November's elections), the entire NFA could be revisited. At the very least, the irrationality of the current NFA would be exposed.

[buzz]

Well, it's worth a shot anyway.

 

I used this software to make a trust (but never actually used the trust for anything):

 

http://www.nolo.com/products/quicken-willmaker-plus-wqp.html

 

 

The trust is made using an online program that comes free with the willmaker software.

 

I think I paid $30

Edited August 20, 2014 by buzz

[wwiifirearms]

The trust Form1 for a machine gun thing was started a while back and the lawyer that came up with it is said to have submitted the form 1, but as far as I know no update was given on how it turned out. The thing that kicked it off was the ATF insisting on a NICS check for the person picking up a transfer to a trust. The ATF said only natural persons were exempt from the background check on an NFA transfer is their interpretation of the law. Since the same language is used in the Hughes amendment to ban induciduals from registering new machine guns, it follows that if the NICS exemption does not apply to trusts, than neither does the Hughes Amendment.

A long shot, but certainly tempting to send in a few dozen mini-gun form 1's just in case there is a brief window before they close the "loophole". More likely they will just ignore what the law says and do as they have always done. They will reject the form 1 and someone would have to have the means to spend years fighting in court.

[The Lone Ranger]

For those of you who insist on clogging the system - please consider filing just one form so you can get standing and file your suit. Sending half a dozen serves no purpose. All will get the same response.