"Here, try my suppressed machine gun"


PDA






parsimonious_instead
October 18, 2011, 09:01 AM
Given how strict NFA rules are about "transferring" a silencer, full auto weapon or SBR, how does that apply, in a legal sense to the following situations:

Rentals at Knob creek
Rentals at a tourist-oriented place like the Gun Store
Some friendly dude next to you at the range invites you to try out
his "fun stuff."

If you enjoyed reading about ""Here, try my suppressed machine gun"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Loosedhorse
October 18, 2011, 09:09 AM
Transferring has a specific legal meaning. Transferring ownership. Unless, after trying the gun, you expect to walk off with it saying, "Thanks!" over your shoulder, it has not been transferred.

I wouldn't touch the gun unless I saw the paperwork. JHMO.

In MA, we had an 8 y/o die at a machinegun shoot. Don't get me started. However, one of the things that the folks running the show were charged with was "furnishing a machinegun to a minor." The jury acquitted (also acquitted on manslaughter), so apparently, letting someone try one at a range is not furnishing, either.

IANAL.

TexasRifleman
October 18, 2011, 10:01 AM
None of those things are transfers. The owner remains close by and still exercises control of the firearm.

Tully M. Pick
October 18, 2011, 10:40 AM
Sure, thanks.

USAF_Vet
October 19, 2011, 07:43 PM
In MA, we had an 8 y/o die at a machinegun shoot. Don't get me started. However, one of the things that the folks running the show were charged with was "furnishing a machinegun to a minor." The jury acquitted (also acquitted on manslaughter), so apparently, letting someone try one at a range is not furnishing, either.

I remember reading about that death. Anti's were all over it for awhile. Not surprisingly, this is the first I'm hearing about the outcome of that tragic event. Almost surprised at the acquittals.

Jeff82
October 19, 2011, 08:15 PM
It was a tragic accident. You don't think the father or the organizers have suffered enough already? They will never get over this as is. :banghead:

Dnaltrop
October 19, 2011, 08:24 PM
While not fun-switched, got to try my first suppressed HK pistol at my club earlier this year.

he had his laminated paperwork laid out on the bench before I even laid a finger on it.

Good stuff

click clack
October 19, 2011, 09:28 PM
wow... There are some dumb laws out there but do you really think they would make it Illegal to just shoot a full auto weapon. Especially in the situations you mentioned.

BK
October 19, 2011, 09:57 PM
Thanks to a couple members from this site, I got to try out a suppressed machine gun a few months ago. It was the coolest thing I've done in a long long time.

Loosedhorse
October 19, 2011, 10:21 PM
It was a tragic accident. You don't think the father or the organizers have suffered enough already? They will never get over this as is.I wasn't there, and I didn't hear the trial evidence.

That being said, I feel that there was clear negligence involved. Manslaughter was apparently not committed, and I accept the jury's verdict. I expect that there will be a civil trial (or settlement) and that the award will be devastating.

And I'd accept that, too.

MIgunguy
October 20, 2011, 12:14 AM
If some guy at the range wanted to try my MG or suppressed weapon and then asked to see my form 4, I'd tell him to <deleted>.

do you really think they would make it Illegal to just shoot a full auto weapon. Especially in the situations you mentioned.
LOL, try telling that to all those lawyers hocking those NFA trusts. Don't get me wrong, trusts have their place, but when they rely on the above "borrowing" scenarios in the OP to push the trust issue they might as well be chasing ambulances.

Dnaltrop
October 20, 2011, 01:46 AM
MIgunguy- I wouldn't let anyone who came up and asked to shoot it anywhere near it in the first place unless I knew them well enough in the first place.

It's the sort of thing that should only be offered by the owner or trust holder of their own volition.

I just happened to appreciate the gentleman in my case had it laid out already, was a good conversation about the ease of getting through the process too. That darn De Lisle thread was the tipping point for me between "maybe" and "eventually"

MIgunguy
October 20, 2011, 11:55 PM
"I wouldn't let anyone who came up and asked to shoot it anywhere near it in the first place unless I knew them well enough in the first place."

well yeah, that goes without saying... or at least I thought it did :evil:;)

Aaron Baker
October 21, 2011, 12:34 PM
LOL, try telling that to all those lawyers hocking those NFA trusts. Don't get me wrong, trusts have their place, but when they rely on the above "borrowing" scenarios in the OP to push the trust issue they might as well be chasing ambulances.

I've never seen a single attorney suggest that you have to have a trust in order to loan your NFA toy to someone else while you supervised them, which is exactly what's happening in all the scenarios listed. In fact, it would be negligent for an attorney to suggest adding randoms strangers at the range to your trust as trustees, which is what you'd have to do in order for the trust protections to make any sense with random strangers at the range.

On the other hand, if I own an NFA item and I don't want to lock it up when I leave the house and my wife stays home, then if I'm an individual owner, I've just left my wife in sole possession of an NFA item that isn't registered to her. "Transfer" in the statute doesn't just refer to legal ownership. You can't loan your NFA item to your buddy and let him take it to the range alone. That's an illegal transfer.

So where a trust is useful is in naming trustees who are people that you absolutely can place your faith in, and then those people can also be in possession of the NFA item alone. It works well for family members or very trusted friends.

Attorneys who love guns and want to help keep people out of legal trouble with the ATF sure do seem to get a bad name around here. I guarantee that no lawyer who doesn't care about guns and is just in it for the money ever became an expert on NFA law and trust law and then started hanging around on The Highroad. The attorneys who do NFA trusts aren't chasing ambulances, at least in my humble opinion.

Aaron

PPGMD
October 22, 2011, 12:11 AM
I wouldn't touch the gun unless I saw the paperwork. JHMO.

Do you have some way of verifying the paperwork is actually legal?

This "Your papers please?" attitude that has permeated America in the last few years is getting kind of annoying.

MIgunguy
October 22, 2011, 12:14 AM
I've never seen a single attorney suggest that you have to have a trust in order to loan your NFA toy to someone else while you supervised them
I have, plenty of times.

Do you have some way of verifying the paperwork is actually legal?

This "Your papers please?" attitude that has permeated America in the last few years is getting kind of annoying.
Thank you!

Aaron Baker
October 22, 2011, 12:22 AM
I have, plenty of times.

Well, in that case, I stand corrected. That's horrible. It really does give attorneys a bad name when some people in our profession misstate the law, whether intentionally or not.

I hope that someone chimes in and corrects these misstatements. I think trusts are great and I have done a few of them, but they're not for everyone, and I'd rather turn away a client that doesn't really want or need one.

Aaron

W.E.G.
October 22, 2011, 01:20 AM
Don't get any legal advice from this thread.

TexasRifleman
October 22, 2011, 10:25 AM
Honestly this has just turned silly at this point.

If you enjoyed reading about ""Here, try my suppressed machine gun"" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!