Grandpa's Colt

[MARK2112]

I wondered how many thompsons still reside in grandpas attic.....so to speak.and if the grandkids turned them in,could local law enforcement keep them,or must they be destroyed.

[ineverlistentoFM]

family called me a couple years ago and had an m-1 and offered it to me for like 20k. i told them an unregistered gun is not worth that much and receiver will have to be destroyed. they later turned it in to the NFA people to avoid a headache without taking off any parts...at least it wasn't a colt.

[Karatebear]

I think properly approached they would be able to retain them. A seasoned lawyer should be able to get the ATF to grant a stamp. I have heard of instances of individuals getting stamps on unregistered pre 86 mg's long after into the late 90's. Read my complete thoughts and please feel free to verify the case law accompanying below. Had I the backing, I would certainly file a case arguing that the NFA, GCA are both unconstitutional with the following cases in support.

 

If a stamp, albeit unlawful (Title of Nobility, Article 1 sec 10 US Constitution), is not granted, one would file a suit against the ATF and their superiors, possibly including all the way to the US President for violating their rights under Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes

 

-US v Miller

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/307/174

 

under this case, a thompson would most certainly be argued as protected under the second amendment

 

-Miranda v Arizona

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/384/436

 

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them."

 

-Miller v. United States, 230 F. 2d 486

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4704247576517858470&q=miller+v.+us,+230+f+486&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1

 

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot thus be converted into a crime.”

 

-Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 US 105

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=6017722261549120053&q=Murdock+v.+Penn.,+319+US+105+(1943)&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1

 

a person cannot be compelled "to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution."

 

-Norton v. Shelby County, 118 US 425

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9919916227330617957&q=-+Norton+v.+Shelby+County,+118+US+425&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1

 

“An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.”

 

-Marbury v. Madison, 5 US 137

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/5/137

 

“It is also not entirely unworthy of observation that, in declaring what shall be the supreme law of the land, the Constitution itself is first mentioned, and not the laws of the United States generally, but those only which shall be made in pursuance of the Constitution, have that rank. Thus, the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.

The rule must be discharged.”

 

-Shapiro v. Thompson 394 US 618

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/394/618

 

“If a law has no other purpose . . . than to chill the assertion of constitutional rights by penalizing those who choose to exercise them, then it [is] patently unconstitutional.

 

-Elliott v. Lessee of Piersol 26 U.S. 328

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9851142207306798312&q=Elliott+v.+Lessee+of+Piersol+26+U.S.+328&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1

 

“Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are regarded as binding in every other court. But if it act without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are considered in law as trespassers.”

 

--

The ATF, police, municipal courts do not have jurisdiction unless consented by the individual, Only Justice, Superior and higher courts that have a letter from the DOJ granted by an act of congress per Article 3 of the US constitution do

 

“however this may be in other cases, we are not disposed to give the constitution a construction which will allow ministerial officers to be invested with power to punish individuals by fine and imprisonment. Such power involves the personal liberty of the citizen, and is in its nature a judicial power of the highest degree. It cannot be exercised except after due process of law.” - BURNS v. SUPERIOR COURT 140 Cal. 1.

 

“the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer, and not in a judicial capacity; and his discretionary power is the same as that of the chief of police” “Therefore, if the provisions of the ordinance authorizing the chief of police… be void because it is a delegation of legislative powers to an administrative officer and vests an arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion in the chief of police, the provisions of the ordinance authorizing the exercise of the same discretion by the judge of the municipal court… is also void " - Thompson v. Smith 154 SE

 

“A judge ceases to sit as a judicial officer because the governing principle of administrative law provides that courts are prohibited from substituting their evidence, testimony, record, arguments, and rationale for that of the agency. Additionally, courts are prohibited from substituting their judgment for that of the agency. Courts in administrative issues are prohibited from even listening to or hearing arguments, presentation, or rational." - ASIS v. US, 568 F2d 284.

 

“When it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach the merits. In such a situation the action should be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.” - Melo v. United States, 505 F. 2d 1026

 

“Once challenged, jurisdiction cannot be assumed, it must be proved to exist." - Stuck v. Medical Examiners 94Ca 2d 751. 211 P2d 389

 

“An agency may not finally decide the limits of its statutory power. That is a judicial function.” - SOCIAL SECURITY BOARD v. NIEROTKO. 327 U.S. 358

 

--

This is not legal advice, but I personally have used the above information to get traffic violations dismissed, appearing specially, never seeing a judge for no license plate, and failure to provide license upon request, the fact is it was never asked for, I was quite content with the results but had I wanted I could of sued for violation of oath/affirmation and violations of Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241, Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242, Title 42, U.S.C., Section 14141

 

I understand traffic and firearms are different categories, but the law is the law and statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules are not! It is clear and has been ruled as much in many instances by the highest court in the US that the Constitution is the LAW (Article 6 US Constitution) and unconstitutional legislation is null and void, and I quote “An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is, in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been passed.” - Norton v Shelby County

 

rant over and God Bless America!

Edited March 2, 2015 by Karatebear

[buzz]

Can you please cite an actual example of a contraband full auto gun being added to the registry as a transferrable?

 

 

The only guns I ever heard of being added to the registry after 1986 were guns that had legitimate military bring-back paperwork from WWII. The ATF will occasionally issue a stamp on those guns for some reason to the original owner of such a gun.

 

And of course a dewatt can be rewatted and get a stamp.

 

As far as I am aware, the only thing you can do with a completely unregistered MG is donate to a suitable museum or government agency.

 

Or you can strip the parts and surrender the receiver to ATF.

Edited March 2, 2015 by buzz

[buzz]

As far as arguing the constitutionality of MG ownership goes, I would not want to bet my life on that tactic.

 

It seems that gun laws are very vigorously enforced and juries seem unsympathetic.

 

That guy Olafson made an AR15 sort of slam fire by adding a couple of M16 fire control parts.

 

He tried to argue the constitutionality aspect, the judge and jury listened patiently and then gave him 10 years like he was heroin kingpin.

[Karatebear]

In the event of an unfavorable ruling, one would have to file suit against all parties involved with the ruling and sue. Look up "Charlie Sprinkle" of course this was over traffic violations but he sued everyone up the chain of command to the Governor of California, which was then Ronald Reagan and was demanding to be paid in lawful money i.e gold/silver. In the end the state dropped their charges to get him to drop the suit.

[Karatebear]

Also, this is key, PROPERLY APPROACHED. I'd suggest through a third party, make sure there is client confidentiality as well, I'd reluct to use the word attorney as it would suggest one is incompetent to ascertain their own rights, by default subjecting to jurisdiction. but this is a totally other topic.

 

BAR lawyers have an oath to the British Accredited Registry, just as all public servants have an oath/affirmation to the Constitution. It sort of overrides their ability to represent you in the proper capacity. then again, another topic

[richard w.]

I'm a little surprised that you don't hear about family members getting in trouble for keeping grandpas contraband machinegun.

 

Are they tossing them in the nearest lake, or are they really good at keeping quiet about it?

[buzz]

I think you'll see our Sun go supernova and swallow the earth before you see somebody bulldoze ATF into adding a gun to the registry.

 

The feds will never let that door swing open.

 

I'm not being negative, there have already been lots of cases where ATF stomped down hard on people who had a pretty legitimate case.

 

Like for example there were damaged guns where the manufacturer had replaced the receiver after 1986 with a new one and ATF found out.

 

Even thought the gun is papered and there was no criminal intent, the guns still got confiscated as contraband.

Edited March 2, 2015 by buzz

[buzz]

My understanding is that ATF will often just confiscate the gun and not arrest anyone if there was no criminal intent.

Apparently a lot of people don't even know that the gun they inherited from grandpa is full auto.

I have seen several slotted UZI bolts and schnellfeuer mauser pistols up for sale on gunbroker, for the same price as the legal versions go for.

It was very obvious that the seller had no idea that they were selling an MG.

Nobody is going to list a slotted UZI conversion bolt with no serial number on it on gunbroker for $50 if he knows it's illegal.


If I inherited a contraband NFA gun I would tear the house apart looking for the tax stamped form 4.

I read somewhere about how somebody finally found the NFA paperwork taped to the underside of a drawer.

I'm a little surprised that you don't hear about family members getting in trouble for keeping grandpas contraband machinegun.

Are they tossing them in the nearest lake, or are they really good at keeping quiet about it?

Edited March 2, 2015 by buzz

[TD.]

MARK2112,

This question comes up from time to time. There is no answer. Everything is speculation. Right now ATF could not tell you exactly how many Thompson guns are on the Registry. I do believe there are a number of machine guns owned by families not on the Registry that are carefully hidden away - as long as someone(s) in the family has an interest. Given the present value of machine guns and all Class Three items, the majority of these "family guns" would probably be registered if there is ever another amnesty. If not, they will remain hidden away. When the family interest fades, the guns are surrendered or quietly destroyed.

 

Karatebear,

Legal advice from someone not licensed to practice law is worth what you pay for it. Everything sounds good when the situation is hypothetical. Given the right fact situation, venue, enough dollars and a lot of high priced legal talent, a defendant may be able to bully the government into modifying or changing a prosecution decision. This works well in novels and movies, not so much in real life. The much safer approach is to follow all the rules to the letter of the law when dealing with firearms talked about on this forum. It makes for much nicer retirement years!

[buzz]

On a side note, sometimes people tell me they inherited a lot of guns from their dad or father in law.

 

Then they say something like, "I took them all to the gun shop and got $500 for about 10 old shotguns. Do you think that was a fair price?"

Edited March 2, 2015 by buzz

[richard w.]

Lol. Family members are funny about guns that fall into their laps.

 

They either throw them away for a quick buck like that or they're convinced they've got something of vast, immeasurable worth and waste some time with a crazy asking price.

[cocoabill]

From my experience in properly approaching something with a lawyer, is you WILL quickly rack up legal fees in the amount that would allow you to buy the finest registered colt on the market.

[Karatebear]

Like I mentioned, I personally have used the above case law to take a stand for an implied right, "the right to freely travel." Gun ownership is an expressed right. The following are further examples of why a Thompson SMG would be expressly protected, because it has been and has features that are ""ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense."" A lawyers oath to the BAR, unless his patriotism and belief in the US Constitution convicts him otherwise,or his greed and a clients ability to pay such vast sums, prohibits him from fully taking this position.

 

Lewis v. United States (1980); Footnote 8

(the Second Amendment guarantees no right to keep and bear a firearm that does not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia"); United States v. Three Winchester 30-30 Caliber Lever Action Carbines, 504 F.2d 1288, 1290, n. 5 (CA7 1974); United States v. Johnson, 497 F.2d 548 (CA4 1974); Cody v. United States, 460 F.2d 34 (CA8), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1010 (1972) (the latter three cases holding, respectively, that 1202 (a) (1), 922 (g), and 922 (a) (6) do not violate the Second Amendment).

Printz v. United States (1997) (concurring opinion of Thomas)

Our most recent treatment of the Second Amendment occurred in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), in which we reversed the District Court's invalidation of the National Firearms Act, enacted in 1934. In Miller, we determined that the Second Amendment did not guarantee a citizen's right to possess a sawed off shotgun because that weapon had not been shown to be "ordinary military equipment" that could "contribute to the common defense." Id., at 178. The Court did not, however, attempt to define, or otherwise construe, the substantive right protected by the Second Amendment.

District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)

"Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons. It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment."

[reconbob]

No offense, but the "I was able to register an un-registered machine gun" is an urban myth. I have been in

the business for 40 years and always there is some story floating around about ways to get a gun on the registry

and none of them have ever turned out to be true. Its easy for you reference all sorts of prior cases that you think

would apply to this, but at the same time it seems that you are just speculating and have not actually walked the

walk and done it. If you are so confident in your position - go for it. Sue the ATF to put an un-registered gun on the

registry and when you get to court trot out all of the arguments you have posted here....and let us know what

happens...

 

This whole thing reminds me of the military jeeps in original crates myth of the 1960's-1970's and perhaps even

before that. The myth was that you could buy an original WW2 or Korea jeep new in the crate, in grease, for $500.

And always somebody knew someone who had done this - the friend of a friend, the guy who knew a guy.

It was never true. it never happened. Yet the myth would not die. And the government wasted untold 1000's of

man-hours trying to convince people who would write letters or call, that no, you can't buy a WW2 jeep new in

the crate for $500. It was so bad that when the government mailed out the packages for surplus to be sold by

bid, every package had an insert stating that no, you cannot buy a jeep new in the crate for $500 and asking that

if you knew of anyone saying this - promoting the myth - to please contact the regional surplus office so they could

contact that person and set them straight. I remember back in the 1970's my sisters boyfriend was thinking of

going into the jeep business because he knew for sure that you could get jeeps for $500 and all you had to do was

uncrate them, degrease the engine, etc. and then sell at a big profit. It never happened.

 

Bob

[MARK2112]

Damn shame........ Edited March 3, 2015 by MARK2112

[anjong-ni]

Yet,

In the past we've all witnessed "complete chopped receivers" on G/B that featured "fresh shavings" in the pictures.

 

I wouldn't want to be the "helpful neighbour" that hacksawed the widow's Colt into a parts kit,

only to find that her old man had, indeed, registered it.

Phil

[Karatebear]

I just find it unfortunate that there are very few like myself that feel like something, anything can still be done. This defeated attitude, and concession of rights to the thoughts, ideas of another, only fuels the growing of oppression. I for one believe we the people still can, but for those who think we can't, well can't never could...

[buzz]

Being optimistic is important.

 

Knowledge of how things work is way more important.

 

When you go to the doctor with a broken arm, you're not paying the guy for optimism.

 

You're paying him for expertise.

[timkel]

The BATF registry was and probably still is a mess. It should be audited followed by a new amnesty. The guy to talk to is Eric Larsen? I think that is his name. He has done extensive research on the registry and has posted here in the past. There were transferable MG's added the the registry post 86. These were weapons that the BATF said were not in the registry so contraband. But the owners found the original registration paperwork. If the ATF found the paperwork legitimate then it was added. These weapons typically were registered in the mad rush of the 68 registry.

[gunhistorian]

I suspect that, despite any Constitutional or very "legalistic" arguments available, one approach to registering a purportedly previously unregistered NFA gun would be the state of the Registry. While I don't pretend any expertise in Federal firearms law or Constitutional law, I think any lawyer would have to consider the nature of the registration requirement from the -- what? 1934 law (the National Firearms Act) as well as the fact that registration is a means of collecting a transfer tax -- basically the same type of tax that applied (if I understand this correctly) to a gift to a minor under the Uniform Gift to Minors Act. It is a tax on the transfer of property which is not subject (again, as I understand it) to Constitutional constraints. Basically, I think the issue is whether or not the firearm was originally registered by the manufacturer on, I believe, a Form 2. I am well aware that ATF (or whatever the alphabet entity now is) frequently cannot find the original (or copies) of these forms. It might be possible to throw the burden on the Government to prove that the firearm was not registered upon manufacture, notably by review of corporate income tax returns -- which are prohibited to public disclosure. Presumably, any registration fee would be reported as an expense on the tax return (though this is far out of my line of expertise -- if I have any), thus potentially opening the "record" to discovery of these returns in order to prove (preponderence of evidence?) that a particular firearm was registered. I strongly believe in the KISS principle and while this might be an off-the-wall approach, it might create sufficient confusion and concern (from the Government) to "force" another amnesty. Remember, AFT -- once a part of the Department of the Treasury -- has certain "ministerial" duties that it cannot avoid. Need a better lawyer than I to work this out, but it is one approach.