Does Illinois Have SBR and certain machine guns now

We will know within a number of weeks whether the change to the UUW statute holds. I will wait a bit before applying to see if the CLEO issues changes. Since trusts will still not be in play, how does an NFA item tramsfer upon the death of the CR license holder?

Midwest-

You don't need to set up a trust, in fact, you can't form a trust on a C&R as you can't apply for the C&R as a corporate entity like you can a normal FFL. Only individuals can apply for a C&R.

I don't think they bothered to read it. No one probably read past the first sentence on the synopsis: "Replaces everything after the enacting clause. Amends the Criminal Code of 1961. Changes the exemption from the unlawful use of weapons statute and the aggravated unlawful use of a weapon statute ... "

The Governor signed a whole stack of stuff that day. He was probably on autopilot and late for a golf game.

Click to expand...

A trust can not get a C&R. I know for fact that an LLC can- which is something that I have previously confirmed with ATF. I believe that a corporation can as well.

Here's a scenario. My wife is a professional corporation. I am VP of said corporation and holder of CRL. Could a SBR pass to me in this situation?
What are the rules on inheritance of NFA items from an individual as compared
to a corp?

Trent said:

Well, not sure about that.

The Illinois Statute is pretty clear about stating "a person who holds a valid..." does that exclude corporations?

Not sure if the legal definition of person includes corporate entities. Any lawyers lurking around?

Click to expand...

Corporate 101

People form corporations for various reasons but one reason is for liability. If the company is a corporation and it gets sued and loses, they can go after the company's assets. If the company is not a corporation then the company including the owner can be sued and go after all of the owners assets including their house, car, and anything else they own.

A corporation is a distinct legal body separate from a 'person' . However there is nothing to prevent John Smith from starting John Smith Corporation. A corporation can be looked as a legal 'buffer'. But if the corporation is not run as a corporation which things like regular meetings, meeting notes and so on. Then the 'corporate veil' can be 'pierced' which means if the govt. or the person suing the corporation can prove that corporation is not run as a corporation. They can 'pierce the corporate veil' and remove the 'buffer' of protection that a corporation offers.


Disclaimer:
I am not a lawyer, this is broad general information only. A person needs to contact a licensed lawyer in their own area who is knowledgeable in these areas for proper legal advice. And look how state laws and federal laws apply in matters like this.

There are issues best taken up with a NFA experienced lawyer. Our law firm has no one experienced with this and and I'm not interested in paying for their education. I'll start researching Illinois Gun Trust lawyers unless someone here
has a name.

This is interesting. Will see how it shakes out in 2013.

Could you cut down the barrel and stock on a Nitro Express double gun?

lilguy said:

Could you cut down the barrel and stock on a Nitro Express double gun?

Click to expand...

You could, yes. Doing it would define a certain level of insanity, but the option does exist.

Thanks, I was just wondering if what you want to do has to make sense.

There is a box to check(line #7)on the C&R application for a Corporation,what kind BATFE accepts I have no idea.

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5310-16.pdf

lilguy said:

Thanks, I was just wondering if what you want to do has to make sense.

Click to expand...

No rule that says it does. If there were such a rule/law, a lot of people would be in trouble.

So the veto session has started. Has anybody heard anything about this being rolled back, I haven't.

I stumbled upon this thread and looked at the law in question. It is a great example of some extremely sloppy drafting (to the extent that the statute accomplishes a lot more than the author intended).

First, what hasn't been mentioned here yet is that the law states, "Subsection 24-1(a)(7) does not apply to or affect any of the following: ... (7) A person possessing a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length if: (A) the person has been issued a Curios and Relics license from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; or ...."

Read literally, none of the prohibited acts listed in 24-1(a)(7), such as possessing a machinegun, apply to a person who possesses a SBR and C&R license. So, for example, 24-1(a)(7) prohibits the possession of a Molotav cocktail. But, based on a literal reading of the law, a person is allowed to possess a Molotav cocktail so long as they are also in possession of a SBR and C&R license.

I think what the author intended to write was "Subsection 24-1(a)(7) does not apply to or affect any of the following: ... (7) The possession of a rifle with a barrel or barrels less than 16 inches in length if: (A) the person possessing the rifle has been issued a Curios and Relics license from the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives; or ...."


The second problem has been identified by Trent. Nothing about this new law limits its application to semi-automatic rifles only. No matter what the alleged author says in this thread about what was intended, the language of the statute says something different. A court is required to apply the plain meaning of the words of a statute (without looking at the "intent" of the legislature) unless there is some ambiguity in the statute, and this statute is completely unambiguous.

Finally, I have a feeling that a lot of the anti-gun legislators who voted for this bill thought that the only SBR's being legalized were antique SBR's. That is probably not sloppy drafting but an intentional feature that was kept on the down-low.

All that being said, I wouldn't want to be the test subject that first tries to assert these loop holes in the law. You may eventually get off, but you'll first be put through the ringer.

lilguy said:

Thanks, I was just wondering if what you want to do has to make sense.

Click to expand...

Never been a requirement in the past. First, the laws would need to make sense.

Short barrel rifles are/have been legal in Illinois now? Anyone tried to convert or transfer one yet?

Can an S or C corporation be issued a C&R by the ATF?

Click to expand...

Yes.

If so, does the language of the Illinois law, by naming "a person..", preclude corporations which hold C&R's from possessing SBR's? (Assuming a C or S corp can get an SBR).

Click to expand...

A "person" is broadly defined in the Illinois criminal code to include any possible legal entity. An S Corp, C corp, LLC, partnership, trust would all qualify as a "person."

So, in short, beginning on January 1, 2013, an S Corp can obtain a C&R license and then legally possess a SBR in Illinois.

So, has anyone filed yet?

So it's law now. I have a C+R lic., do I need to become a C corp also or do I need to form a corp with a lic? Does the ATF issue C+Rs to Corps, Can I get one as an individual with a C+R?