Post 86 Machine Guns - May become possible - Nolo lawyer 12K in donations

[sig55682]

Manufacturing new post 86 machine guns may become possible again.

Link to crowd funding for lawyer taking on 922(o). 12K in 1 day so far.

http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk

 

[barnbwt]

I thought we already had a guy file a Form 1, get approved, get denied D), and he's appealing it. Is this something different, or the same guy? He only talks generically about fighting the MG ban, which isn't very informative. I'd rather support the original hombre rather than some dude piggy-backing on his neck-stick-out-ery

I thought for sure KickStarter wouldn't cotton to a gun-related anything, but this is GoFundMe. I guess they have a more liberal attitude toward firearms? Perhaps I'll seek to fund a small CNC one day when my design ideas are prototyped

TCB

*Why can't we just bribe the ATF directly to re-open the registry? It's not like they have any issues breaking/exceeding their authority at the behest of The Executive, so applying greenbacks to the affected area seems a more plausible scenario

 

[sig55682]

The most info I have found consolidated so far:

http://www.examiner.com/article/attorney-seeks-to-overturn-federal-machine-gun-ban-on-constitutional-grounds

 

[Thompsoncustom]

Thanks for the info I'll get to sharing the 2nd amendment could use all the help it can get.

 

[AlexanderA]

The chance of this lawsuit succeeding is next to nil. Put your money into lobbying at the legislative level, instead.

 

[sig55682]

Unfortunately, I am not sure there is an organization powerful enough ($$$) in D.C. right now which is willing to lobby congress to repeal Hughes 922(o).

 

[IOwnTheWorld1994]

Well the good thing is the ban never PROPERLY passed. It's on an old archive on this forum. 126 said yes, 298 said no, 12 didn't vote. I believe it was the senate it didn't get passed. It's also on the Library of Congress.

Here's the link: http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-527810.html

Also has all of the names of the people who voted.

 

[Bobson]

Well the good thing is the ban never PROPERLY passed. It's on an old archive on this forum. 126 said yes, 298 said no, 12 didn't vote. I believe it was the senate it didn't get passed.

So what the heck happened? Why was it implemented?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Well the good thing is the ban never PROPERLY passed. It's on an old archive on this forum. 126 said yes, 298 said no, 12 didn't vote. I believe it was the senate it didn't get passed. It's also on the Library of Congress.

Here's the link: http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-527810.html

Also has all of the names of the people who voted.

As has been pointed out to you before that is complete garbage:

Only problem is that the FOPA of May 19, 1986 never passed....

Hogwash and urban myth. The reality is that Congressional procedure is complex. Many related versions of a bill may be considered. There may be a number of votes on different versions, votes on amendments and votes on procedural matters. However, at the end of the day, the FOPA passed Congress in its then known form including the Hughes Amendment.

Dave Kopel, well known lawyer, legal scholar and Second Amendment advocate tells the story here in The Volokh Conspiracy. Kopel also discusses the myth in this article originally published in National Review Online.

Well the good thing is the ban never PROPERLY passed. It's on an old archive on this forum. 126 said yes, 298 said no, 12 didn't vote. I believe it was the senate it didn't get passed.

He's wrong. See above.
So what the heck happened? Why was it implemented?

 

[Frank Ettin]

Manufacturing new post 86 machine guns may become possible again.

Link to crowd funding for lawyer taking on 922(o). 12K in 1 day so far....

I'm skeptical.

The argument that an NFA Trust can somehow be outside the Hughes Amendment turns on a certain definition in the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the USC), specifically 26 USC 7701. However --

1. A trust is not, in fact or in law, a legal entity.
   
   
2. Under the Internal Revenue Code (Title 26 of the United States Code), the word "person" is defined to include, among other things, a trust, a partnership, an association and an estate (26 USC 7701(a)(1)).
   
   
3. However, just as in fact and in law a trust is not a legal entity (or person), nor are a partnership, an association (if unincorporated) or an estate.
   
   
4. Furthermore, the preface to the IRC definitions says:

   ...where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof—

   
   
5. So even in the IRC when the word "person" is used it doesn't necessarily include a trust, a partnership, an association, or an estate. It all depends on the intent and context.
   
   
6. So Congress apparently decided that there might be times when, for the purposes of the effective administration of the tax laws, it might be convenient to lump various non-entities under the term "person." However, that does not necessarily change the fundamental legal reality that a trust, partnership, association, or estate is not a legal entity.
   
   
7. In other words, defining "person" to include a trust, a partnership, an association, and an estate is merely for the purposes of stylistic convenience. There may be times when, and situations in which, for the purposes of tax law the word "person" may be read to include a trust, a partnership, an association, a company or an estate. For example, certain rules relating to the deductibility of some business expenses, or the accounting for some business income, might apply whether the business is conducted by a natural person (i. e., a sole proprietorship), an artificial person (i. e., a corporation), a partnership, a trustee managing business property held by him pursuant to a trust, etc.
   
   
8. But lumping a trust, a partnership, an association, a company and an estate under the heading "person" doesn't change the legal nature or character of a trust, a partnership, an association, or an estate.
   
   
9. In a partnership, for example, the partners (or general partners) are personally liable for the debts of the business. A partnership might do business under a properly filed fictitious name giving the appearance of being a single entity, but the property, liabilities and debts trace back personally to the individual general partners.
   
   
10. Let's consider the nature of a trust:
    
    
    • A trust is a special structure for holding title to property. Let's look at some definitions of "trust":
      
      
      • The Free Dictionary:

        Trust
        
        A relationship created at the direction of an individual, in which one or more persons hold the individual's property subject to certain duties to use and protect it for the benefit of others.
        
        Individuals may control the distribution of their property during their lives or after their deaths through the use of a trust. There are many types of trusts and many purposes for their creation. A trust may be created for the financial benefit of the person creating the trust, a surviving spouse or minor children, or a charitable purpose. Though a variety of trusts are permitted by law, trust arrangements that are attempts to evade creditors or lawful responsibilities will be declared void by the courts.
        
        The law of trusts is voluminous and often complicated, but generally it is concerned with whether a trust has been created, whether it is a public or private trust, whether it is legal, and whether the trustee has lawfully managed the trust and trust property.
        
        Basic Concepts
        
        The person who creates the trust is the settlor. The person who holds the property for another's benefit is the trustee. The person who is benefited by the trust is the beneficiary, or cestui que trust. The property that comprises the trust is the trust res, corpus, principal, or subject matter. For example, a parent signs over certain stock to a bank to manage for a child, with instructions to give the dividend checks to him each year until he becomes 21 years of age, at which time he is to receive all the stock. The parent is the settlor, the bank is the trustee, the stock is the trust res, and the child is the beneficiary.
        
        A fiduciary relationship exists in the law of trusts whenever the settlor relies on the trustee and places special confidence in her. The trustee must act in Good Faith with strict honesty and due regard to protect and serve the interests of the beneficiaries. The trustee also has a fiduciary relationship with the beneficiaries of the trust.
        
        A trustee takes legal title to the trust res, which means that the trustee's interest in the property appears to be one of complete ownership and possession, but the trustee does not have the right to receive any benefits from the property. The right to benefit from the property, known as equitable title, belongs to the beneficiary.
        
        The terms of the trust are the duties and powers of the trustee and the rights of the beneficiary conferred by the settlor when he created the trust....

        
        
      • The Law Dictionary:

        ...An equitable or beneficial right or title to land or other property, held for the beneficiary by another person, in whom resides the legal title or ownership, recognized and enforced by courts of chancery. See Goodwin v. McMinn, 193 Pa. 046, 44 Atl. 1094, 74 Am. St. Rep. 703; Beers v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 613; Seymour v. Freer, 8 Wall. 202, 19 L. Ed. 300. An obligation arising out of a confidence reposed in the trustee or representative, who has the legal title to property conveyed to him, that he will faithfully apply the property according to the confidence reposed, or, in other words, according to the wishes of the grantor of the trust. 4 Kent Comm. 304; Willis, Trustees, 2; Beers v. Lyon, 21 Conn. 613; Thornburg v. Buck, 13 Ind. App. 446, 41 N. E. 85....

        
        
      • Nolo Press:

        ...A trust is an arrangement under which one person, called a trustee, holds legal title to property for another person, called a beneficiary. You can be the trustee of your own living trust, keeping full control over all property held in trust....

        
        
      • Wikipedia:

        In common law legal systems, a trust is a relationship whereby property is held by one party for the benefit of another. A trust is created by a settlor, who transfers some or all of his or her property to a trustee. The trustee holds that property for the trust's beneficiaries. Trusts have existed since Roman times and have become one of the most important innovations in property law....

      
      
    • In a trust, there is one or more trustees who hold title to certain property. Trustees can be natural persons or artificial persons (corporations). But the property is owned by the trustee(s). If the trustee is a natural person, he personally owns the property which is held in trust.
      
      
    • But in a trust, while the property is owned by the trustee he is not free to do with it as he wishes. He is not free to use it for his own purposes. He owns the property as a fiduciary to use for the benefit of one or more third parties called the beneficiaries.
      
      
    • The rights and obligations of the trustee with regard to the property he owns in trust (sometimes called the "trust res") are set out in writing in a document called a trust, or trust document, or trust indenture. That document describes what the trustee must do, may do and may not do with the property he owns in trust. That document also sets out the rights and obligations of the beneficiary.
      
      
    • The trust is started, assuming a trustee agrees to act, by a person, called the trustor or settlor, transferring property to the trustee. The trustee accepts the property subject to the trust document and agrees to be bound by the trust document.
      
      
    • So there is no entity called a trust. Business related to the property held in trust is conducted by the trustee as trustee, as a person (natural or artificial, as the case may be).
      
      
    • The foregoing is the basic structure of any trust arrangement. Trusts are used in many contexts for many purposes and to hold title to all kinds of property. Trusts are not unique to the NFA world, and an NFA trust is still a trust and operates essentially as described above.
    
    
11. Now let's look at the Hughes Amendment, i e., 18 USC 922(o):

    (o)
    
    

    (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.
    
    (2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—
    
    

    (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
    
    (B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.​

    
    
    • Some folks have made a big deal out of the fact that the definition of person under the GCA (specifically 18 USC 921(a)(1)) doesn't include a trust, while the IRC definition does (except "where not otherwise distinctly expressed or manifestly incompatible with the intent thereof"). So, the reasoning goes, since a trust isn't a person, a trust can own a machinegun even if the gun wasn't lawfully possessed prior to the effective date of 18 USC 922(o).
      
      
    • However, that "logic" doesn't consider some material data and information.
      
      
      • It doesn't involve a thorough analysis of the the IRC definition of "person" as I outlined above. And as I've outlined, the IRC definition doesn't change the fundamental legal nature of a trust.
        
        
      • It ignores the fundamental legal reality of the nature of a trust. A trust doesn't own anything. A trust doesn't buy or sell anything. In connection with a trust a person (natural or artificial), the trustee, has legal title to the property held in trust. The person might acquire more property to hold in trust. That person might divest property held in trust (subject to his obligations under the trust). But it's always done by a GCA person.
    
    
12. This would ultimately be an issue for the courts to decide, but I think it highly unlikely that a court will find the Hughes Amendment doesn't apply to an NFA trust.

 

[Bobson]

Well the good thing is the ban never PROPERLY passed. It's on an old archive on this forum. 126 said yes, 298 said no, 12 didn't vote. I believe it was the senate it didn't get passed.

So what the heck happened? Why was it implemented?

He's wrong. See above.

Thanks for clarifying this, Frank.

 

[sig55682]

He has not filed yet; so I am not exactly sure what argument he will be presenting.

"I will post them to http://www.sdslaw.us/ on a page that I will create so everyone can follow along. I will post every filing on that page. Thank you!"

Almost up to 17K now.

 

[IOwnTheWorld1994]

So what the heck happened? Why was it implemented?

No one bothered to check. Plus I'm right Frank.

 

[Frank Ettin]

So what the heck happened? Why was it implemented?

No one bothered to check. Plus I'm right Frank.

Nonsense. Let's see some actual evidence.

I've cited Dave Kopel. Mr. Kopel is a well known, highly regarded, Second Amendment lawyer and scholar. Here's his website. He is Research Director, Independence Institute; Associate Policy Analyst, Cato Institute; and Adjunct Professor of Advanced Constitutional Law, Denver University, Sturm College of Law. He writes regularly for Gene Volokh's blog, The Volokh Conspiracy (and Gene Volokh is a professor of Constitutional Law at UCLA).

And you have consistently demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[IOwnTheWorld1994]

So RhinoDefense was wrong in that post? He made that up? You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[IOwnTheWorld1994]

The Hughes Amendment wasn't actually passed.


132 Cong.Rec. H1741-06 Page 16 of 31

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the committee amendment in the nature of a substitute. PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, before the amendment is read, I would like to know if the amendment was one of those printed in the RECORD prior to today. The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will so inquire of the gentleman from New Jersey whether his amendment has been printed in the RECORD? Mr. HUGHES. It has been printed in the RECORD, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has it been printed in the RECORD by Mr. HUGHES? The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, it is not required that the sponsor of the amendment have it printed in the RECORD. The Clerk will report the amendment. The Clerk read as follows: Amendment offered by Mr. HUGHES to the amendment as amended, offered by Mr. VOLKMER as a substitute for the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended: Section 102 of the matter proposed to be inserted is amended- (1) in paragraph (7), by striking out "and"; (2) in paragraph (8), by striking out the period at the end and inserting in lieu thereof "; and"; and (3) by adding at the end the following: (9) by inserting after the subsection added by paragraph (8) of this section the following: "(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. "(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to- "(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or "(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.". Section 110 of the matter proposed to be inserted is amended by adding at the end the following: (c) MACHINEGUN PROHIBITION.-Section 102(9) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act. Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and printed in the RECORD. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment. Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request that the amendment be considerd as read and printed in the RECORD. I ask my colleagues, in all fairness and rationality-we only have 3 minutes left-to give me an opportunity to explain why machineguns should be banned. Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, regular order and reserving the right to object–– The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment. Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for a waiver of the reading of the amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read. The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment. Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for a waiver of the reading of the amendment. I do not know why anyone would object to the banning of machineguns. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey? Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object. The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard. The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment. Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise. Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. The CHAIRMAN. Is it the Chair's understanding that the gentleman from New Jersey moves that the Committee do now rise? Mr. HUGHES. That is my motion, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Committee do now rise. The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey . The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote. A recorded vote was ordered. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 124, noes 298, not voting 12, as follows:

AYES-124 Ackerman Akaka Anderson Annunzio Anthony Aspin Atkins Barnes Bates Beilenson Bennett Berman Biaggi Boland Bonior (MI) Borski Boxer Broomfield Burton (CA) Carper Clay Collins Conyers Cooper Coyne Crockett Dellums Dixon Donnelly Downey Durbin Dwyer Dymally Early Edgar Edwards (CA) Evans (IL) Fascell Fawell Fazio Feighan Foglietta Ford (TN) Frank Garcia Gejdenson Gibbons Gonzalez Gordon Gray (PA) Green Guarini Hawkins Hayes Henry Hertel Howard Hoyer Hughes Jacobs Kaptur Kastenmeier Kennelly Kildee Kleczka LaFalce Lehman (CA) Lehman (FL) Leland Levin (MI) Levine (CA) Lipinski Lowry (WA) Manton Markey Martinez Matsui Mavroules McKinney Mikulski Miller (CA) Miller (WA) Mineta Moakley Moody Morrison (CT) Mrazek Oakar Owens Porter Price Rangel Rodino Roe Rostenkowski Roybal Russo Sabo Savage Scheuer Schroeder Schumer Seiberling Smith (FL) Solarz Spratt St Germain Stark Stratton Studds Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Udall Vento Visclosky Walgren Waxman Weiss Wheat Whitehurst Wolpe Yates

NOES-298 Alexander Andrews Applegate Archer Armey AuCoin Badham Barnard Bartlett Barton Bateman Bedell Bentley Bereuter Bevill Bilirakis Bliley Boehlert Boggs Boner (TN) Bonker Bosco Boucher Breaux Brooks Brown (CA) Brown (CO) Broyhill Bruce Bryant Burton (IN) Bustamante Byron Callahan Campbell Carney Carr Chandler Chapman Chappell Chappie Cheney Clinger Coats Cobey Coble Coelho Coleman (MO) Coleman (TX) Combest Conte Coughlin Courter Craig Crane Daniel Dannemeyer Darden Daschle Daub Davis de la Garza DeLay Derrick DeWine Dickinson Dicks Dingell DioGuardi Dorgan (ND) Dornan (CA) Dowdy Dreier Duncan Dyson Eckart (OH) Eckert (NY) Edwards (OK) Emerson English Erdreich Evans (IA) Fiedler Fields Fish Flippo Florio Foley Ford (MI) Fowler Franklin Frenzel Frost Fuqua Gallo Gaydos Gekas Gilman Gingrich Glickman Goodling Gradison Gray (IL) Gregg Gunderson Hall (OH) Hall, Ralph Hamilton Hammerschmidt Hansen Hartnett Hatcher Hefner Hendon Hiler Hillis Holt Hopkins Horton Hubbard Huckaby Hunter Hutto Hyde Jeffords Jenkins Johnson Jones (NC) Jones (OK) Jones (TN) Kanjorski Kasich Kemp Kindness Kolbe Kolter Kostmayer Kramer Lagomarsino Lantos Latta Leach (IA) Leath (TX) Lent Lewis (CA) Lewis (FL) Lightfoot Livingston Lloyd Loeffler Long Lott Lowery (CA) Luken Lundine Lungren Mack MacKay Madigan Marlenee Martin (IL) Martin (NY) Mazzoli McCain McCandless McCloskey McCollum McCurdy McDade McEwen McGrath McHugh McKernan McMillan Meyers Mica Michel Miller (OH) Mitchell Molinari Mollohan Monson Montgomery Moore Moorhead Morrison (WA) Murphy Murtha Myers Natcher Neal Nelson Nielson Nowak Oberstar Obey Olin Ortiz Oxley Packard Panetta Parris Pashayan Pease Penny Pepper Perkins Petri Pickle Pursell Quillen Rahall Ray Regula Reid Richardson Ridge Rinaldo Ritter Roberts Robinson Roemer Rogers Rose Roth Roukema Rowland (CT) Rowland (GA) Rudd Saxton Schaefer Schneider Schuette Sensenbrenner Sharp Shaw Shelby Shumway Shuster Sikorski Siljander Sisisky Skeen Skelton Slattery Slaughter Smith (IA) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith, Denny (OR) Smith, Robert (NH) Smith, Robert (OR) Snowe Snyder Solomon Spence Staggers Stallings Stangeland Stenholm Strang Stump Sundquist Sweeney Swift Swindall Synar Tallon Tauke Tauzin Taylor Thomas (CA) Thomas (GA) Traxler Valentine Vander Jagt Volkmer Vucanovich Walker Watkins Weaver Weber Whitley Whittaker Whitten Williams Wilson Wirth Wise Wolf Wortley Wyden Wylie Yatron Young (AK) Young (FL) Young (MO) Zschau

NOT VOTING-12 Addabbo Boulter Gephardt Grotberg Heftel Ireland Lujan Nichols O'Brien Schulze Stokes Wright

 

[vamo]

So RhinoDefense was wrong in that post? He made that up? You don't know what you're talking about.

Just because you want something to be true does not make it so. Is it really so hard to believe that we got screwed over by a majority of congress?

 

[Frank Ettin]

So RhinoDefense was wrong in that post? ...

Yes, he was wrong. How would he know? I'll take Dave Kopel over an anonymous denizen of cyberspace any day.

The Hughes Amendment wasn't actually passed.


132 Cong.Rec. H1741-06 Page 16 of 31...

That reflects only one vote on something, it's not clear on what.

As Mr. Kopel describes the events here:

...Unable to stop Volkmer, Judiciary Chairman Rodino tried to head off the discharge petition by voting out an alternative bill by Rep. Hughes, which made from tepid reforms, and which also substantially expanded federal gun control. Speaker O’Neill promptly brought the Rodino-Hughes bill to the House floor for a vote. The debates took place on April 9-10, 1986. Volkmer led the charge against Rodino-Hughes. He won a motion to strike the entire bill below the enacting clause, and to substitute the language of FOPA.

While the vote on motion to strike was fairly close, the final passage of FOPA turned into a rout. FOPA passed the House 292-130; House Democrats voted 131 in favor and 115 opposed. On May 19, 1986, President Reagan’s signature made McClure-Volkmer the law of the land....

Oh, and here's a link to an interesting article published in the Cumberland Law Review (17 Cumb. L. Rev. 585-682 (1986)) on the FOPA.

You really ought to learn how to do a proper job of research.

 

[denton]

When I see a case like this brought forward, it concerns me greatly.

SAF seems to have a coherent plan for winning victories that open the way for more victories.

Trying to overturn federal machine gun law seems premature to me.

 

[Swing]

Overturn 18 USC 922(o) [MG ban] and NFA

Hey pallies. I saw this plan elsewhere. No idea on how they plan to approach it, but am pretty sure it won't yield much. Still, kinda interesting.


[MERGED --Sam1911]

 

[AlexanderA]

The big winner in this is the lawyer promoting the case. The chances of success are minimal. Put your money to work somewhere else, such as supporting lobbying by the NRA, etc.

 

[armoredman]

I wish the individual great success. I won't be donating money to him, unfortunately, more likely to support a proven winner like Mr Gura.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Frank, isn't everything you have said about the nature of trusts and that the legal fiction of including a trust under person being limited to only the Revenue Code (even with limitations) a reason not to trusts it in the definition of a person under 18USC? It seems you are arguing the opposite of your conclusion.

Mike

PS. When you come down to it, the ATF probably goofed when they started allowing registrations to trusts (that would have been the time to raise the "manifestly incompatible with intent" argument). I've read this was actually fairly recent (1980s) although I don't know if that is actually true (as a lot of things written in these forums are not).

PPS. Just read Stephen Stamboulieh's web page and it looks like this technical argument is not the focus of his case but he is challenging an outright ban of an entire class of standard and common (worldwide) weapons very rarely used in crime in the US on 2nd Amendment Grounds. Given the choice between the very strict regulation scheme of the NFA (with a record of transparently working) and an outright ban (which is hard to defend in the light of recent rulings).

 

[Swing]

PPS. Just read Stephen Stamboulieh's web page and it looks like this technical argument is not the focus of his case but he is challenging an outright ban of an entire class of standard and common (worldwide) weapons very rarely used in crime in the US on 2nd Amendment Grounds

Where are you seeing this? I've checked out his practice's page, but am not seeing it. Thanks.

 

[Frank Ettin]

Frank, isn't everything you have said about the nature of trusts and that the legal fiction of including a trust under person being limited to only the Revenue Code (even with limitations) a reason not to trusts it in the definition of a person under 18USC? It seems you are arguing the opposite of your conclusion....

I'm not sure what the question is.

If you're asking if it made sense to include trusts in the IRC definition of "person", it probably did. The IRC covers all federal taxes, and there could easily be many tax statutes in which it makes sense that the word "person" when used encompass trusts (as well as partnerships and associations, which are also not a"person" in any legal sense).

If you're asking if it makes sense not to include trusts in the definition of "person" under 18 USC 921(a), I think it does make sense for the reasons I discussed.

...When you come down to it, the ATF probably goofed when they started allowing registrations to trusts (that would have been the time to raise the "manifestly incompatible with intent" argument)...

I agree. We're seeing now the sort of complications and inconsistencies that tend to come up when we start getting too casual about the our understanding and use of technical terms. People might talk in more casual terms about a trust holding assets, but that's only a shorthand for the more detailed, technical reality.

It's kind of like the old "I say clip, but you know I mean magazine" discussion. If one lawyer talks to another about the assets of a trust, they both know that what is really meant is the property owned by the trustee in trust. But to someone without the background to understand the shorthand, it appears that there is some legal entity called a "trust" which owns certain property. That illustrates how a casual misuse of terms can lead to a serious misunderstanding. As the Chinese say, "The first step toward wisdom is calling things by their right names."

...Just read Stephen Stamboulieh's web page and it looks like this technical argument is not the focus of his case but he is challenging an outright ban of an entire class of standard and common (worldwide) weapons very rarely used in crime in the US on 2nd Amendment Grounds. Given the choice between the very strict regulation scheme of the NFA (with a record of transparently working) and an outright ban (which is hard to defend in the light of recent rulings)...

It's certainly not clear from his website what his theory is. However, from this article about this it appears that all his potential plaintiffs are trustees.