Gun Owners defends machine guns in court brief

I think the possibility of getting short shotguns removed from the NFA as much as SBR's and suppressors. My argument is what makes a shotgun more dangerous if it's barrel is less than 18" or OAL less than 26"? It's not like these are so much easier to conceal that mass shooters will use them because of various reasons and if a street gangbanger wanted concealability, he's already got that in handguns

Click to expand...

The difference is that 1) SBS isn't nearly as popular ("common use" thing) as SBR and suppressors and 2) we cannot demonstrate or argue that there's really no practical difference the way we can when considering a pistol with a wrist brace vs. a short rifle, because other than muzzle loading, antique or C&R guns, there is no lawful way to own a smoothbore weapon under 26" OAL or a stocked smoothbore with <18" of barrel.

Incorrect. An individually-owned NFA item goes to the heir tax-free, using a Form 5. The executor (or administrator, if there is no will) takes immediate custody of the item, and has a reasonable time to complete the Form 5 transfer to the ultimate heir. There is no tax on this, and no need to involve an SOT. As far as probate is concerned, those items don't have to be specifically mentioned, since they can pass under the residuary clause of a will, or as provided by state law in the case of intestate succession (where there is no will).

Click to expand...

Let's be honest; how many of us, especially those under 40, have drafted wills, appointed executors, and filed with probate court? Because there's no guaranteed amnesty even for legally appointed executors (just ATF policy, which can change at the drop of a hat), and not even implied amnesty for acting executors/administrators in the event that one is not legally appointed.

The whole idea of "NFA trusts" has been oversold, mostly by lawyers standing to make a profit by setting them up. Most of the "advantages" attributed to them are illusory. Possession by multiple people is, indeed, possible under a trust, but I would question the wisdom of passing such an item among a group of people. (Remember, other people can always use the item under the immediate supervision of the owner.)

Let's face it -- the main (real) reason trusts were / are used is to sidestep non-signing CLEOs. That reason won't be valid six months from now, and I would expect the usage of trusts to decline dramatically thereafter.

Click to expand...

Again, the advantages are that any trustee can legally (by statute, not currently permissive agency policy) take possession of the weapon in the event that another trustee passes, and that any trustee may legally lend or transfer any NFA weapon owned by the trust to another trustee with no requirement for supervision. That has implications beyond simply borrowing, including that a trustee has to move somewhere that disallows NFA or has an AWB. It also deals with a situation where a trustee gets themselves in trouble and can no longer possess firearms; if an individual form 1 or 4, those items must be surrendered. But with a trust, the offending trustee is removed from the trust, and the remaining trustees may keep or dispose of the expelled trustee's weapons.

Out here, the CLEO sign off "side step" means nothing more than saving a 22 mile round trip; our sheriff is happy to sign, as is the sheriff in my sister's county. That is not the reason we chose a trust.

MachIVshooter said:

Let's say I'm not married, because I'm not. And let's say my kid is too young to transfer it, because he is, and will be until 2035. I have a trust now, but my individual form 1'd SBR goes into limbo if I perish, and ATF confiscates it unless someone decides it's worth the headache to form 4 it themselves.

Click to expand...

A trust would be better in that respect. My case is my wife (lol) and all my kids are over 21 so not an issue for me. Not really much of a headache transferring Title II stuff here in Okla.

I doubt that will ever happen. If it does the market value on pre 86 FA will drop like a rock. There might be many people opposed to loosing a bunch of money on their FA collection.

Click to expand...

i have said that very same thing for many years, also can you imagine "gun owners" becoming pro-gun law advocates ? they will!!

and to them i say...,

No. They won't.

There might be a handful here and there, but overall, no...they won't.

All those pre ban assault weapon owners sure do a lot to support AWBs, don't they? What an ignorant thing to say.

TCB

barnbwt said:

All those pre ban assault weapon owners sure do a lot to support AWBs, don't they? What an ignorant thing to say.

TCB

Click to expand...

lol, yup...and all those owners of pre-ban standard (non restricted) capacity magazines supported magazine capacity restrictions....or not

Let's be honest; how many of us, especially those under 40, have drafted wills, appointed executors, and filed with probate court? Because there's no guaranteed amnesty even for legally appointed executors (just ATF policy, which can change at the drop of a hat), and not even implied amnesty for acting executors/administrators in the event that one is not legally appointed.

Click to expand...

That's actually addressed, in detail, in the new 41F. It clarifies that the person managing the estate has a reasonable time to get things squared away.