SuperiorMarksman_18
member
I heard somewhere that used police weapons, even ones made after 1986, can be sold to civilians. Is this true?
Of course they can, as long as these civilians you are talking about are in law enforcementI heard somewhere that used police weapons, even ones made after 1986, can be sold to civilians. Is this true?
Shouldn't that mean that any machinegun owned by the government before 1986 would be good to go? Just have the PD call up the ATF and enter it into the registry, then form4 it?
The problem is that most government owned MGs never had the tax paid on them and that is what you cannot now do. That is the same problem with pre-86 and post-86 dealer samples.
Before that if a PD has a MG made before that date it is transferable TAX FREE to an individual.
Sorry, referring to non LEO's as "civilians", as though LEOs are not "civilians" too kinda annoys me.
All I am trying to say is that the law says that any machinegun lawfully owned before 1986 can be lawfully owned by us today. It does not say that the machinegun needed to be in the NFA registry before 1986.
Additionally, if the gun in question is a machine gun, not having
the paperwork can lead to being charged with a violation of 18
U.S.C. sec. 922(o), the ban on possessign machine guns made after
May 19, 1986. All four of the federal circuit courts of appeals
(U.S. v. Just, 74 F.3d 902 (CA8 1996), U.S. v. Gravenmeir, 121 F.3d
526 (CA9 1997), U.S. v. Gonzales, 121 F.3d 928 (CA5 1997) and U.S.
v. Franklyn, 157 F.3d 90 (CA2 1998)) that have addressed the issue
have ruled that sec. 922(o) prohibits possessing all machine guns,
and it is an affirmative defense to such a charge that the weapon
was legally possessed before it took effect. It is up to the
defendant to prove an affirmative defense, although by a lower
evidentiary standard than the government needs to prove to show a
criminal violation (usually preponderance of the evidence versus
beyond a reasonable doubt). It is not up to the government to prove
the weapon was not registered, for a charge under sec. 922(o), at
least according to all the appeals courts that have considered the
question. If you don't have the paperwork, and it isn't in ATF's
computer, (it is likely they will check, even though they don't
have to prove non-registration, they don't want someone to wave a
registration form in their face during a trial) you can have a
serious problem.
Tax exemptions
Law enforcement, states, and local governments are totally exempt
from the making and transfer (either to or from) taxes, but must
comply with the registration requirements. While the NFA only
specifically provides that there is no transfer tax due when the
U.S. government is the transferee, (26 U.S.C. sec. 5852(a)), or a
state governmental entity (26 U.S.C. sec. 5853(a)), ATF has made up
an exemption from the transfer tax where any U.S. or state
governmental entity is the transferor, see ATF Chief Counsel
Opinion numbers 20023 and 20400. Opinion 20023 is on my web page -
ATF refuses to release number 20400, claiming it is privileged
attorney-client work product. Abuses of this tax exemption, as in
transferring guns through governmental entities so as to avoid
transfer taxes, have been successfully prosecuted. See U.S. v.
Fleming, 19 F.3d 1325 (CA10 1994).
US v Knutson
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/wba..._v_knutson.txt
Caught with machinegun. (resumably unregistered).
Ruling is that 922(o) is constitutional under commerce clause.