Can't share NFA items anymore?

American_Fusilier

American_Fusilier

Member
Joined
Jul 28, 2019
Messages
676
Location
Free America
Did anybody see the ATF's change to their FAQs about who can be in possession of your NFA item, even in your presence?



Thoughts?

People on Glock Talk didn't seem to be too concerned about it. But being a new NFA item owner, it scares the heck out of me.
 
If this is truly how they mean this to be interpreted that is pretty onerous. They are also setting themselves up to have a law interpretation on the books they have no way to enforce uniformly. This is why laws against possession of anything are stupid they are all unenforceable in all but randomly selected cases. Stupid laws are stupid.
 
yes I saw it. This kind of stuff wont stop on its own. Not sure what happened to "no compromise" but........ whatever. Im not into the NFA or pistol brace stuff but thats irrelevent. Try to not get too worked up. I swear they trying to give everyone heart attacks by raising stress and blood presure more with every passing day. My thoughts are with all you guys and I sincerely feel for you. At some point firearms owners need to get over this "I got mine" mentality or its going to end up collapsing the entire RKBA. We are getting boxed in.
 
He better be careful. Just calling something a _______ makes it a ______, in some cases.
Well does anyone still think the ATF isn't trying to make law-abiding people into criminals?
I tell people they better put a lawyer or lawyers on retainer.
People will carry a gun to protect themselves from criminals but won't put a lawyer on retainer to protect yourself from state sanctioned criminals?
Why is that?

I would say if anyone does get charged with this absolutely under no circumstances take a "plea deal". Which is not a deal.

On the bright side there are a lot of machine guns owned by ranges. If they can't rent them out, then a crap ton of machine guns are going to hit the market and the price will crash.
I don't personally know anyone with a machine gun any more and haven't since the 1980s. All the machine guns "owners" I know of are gun ranges.
 
Last edited:
This new FAQ statement runs contrary to the last 89 years of interpretation in which "possession" has been maintaining dominion and control over the item, meaning that the owner need be physically present but not necessarily the one actually holding the item.

This would be like trying to say someone has unlawful possession of a controlled substance simply by picking up a prescription bottle that doesn't have their name on it when in the home of the person who it's for. Absurd. Wholly different story if they try to remove the bottle from the home or steal the contents, but we're not talking about loaning out an NFA weapon here, which we all know is verboten unless the weapon is on a trust and the borrower is a trustee.

Use and possession are also distinctly different terms. They can and often do exist together, but are not mutually inclusive. Hopefully @Spats McGee will come along to better explain it than I am capable of, but in my lay understanding, use of something does not confer possession, and one can be in legal possession of a thing without physically controlling it at that time. A person does not possess my vehicle merely by sitting in the driver seat, yet if a person steals my vehicle, they are in possession of it even if they are a considerable physical distance away from it when caught. Dominion and control.

The powers that be are playing fast and loose with the law, and it's going to bite them in the posterior. Enforcement agencies don't get to alter legal definitions and create policy.
 
Last edited:
This has been touched on in the Brace ruling thread in the NFA section.

And someone royally screwed up when they wrote the FAG's since no changes the the actual NFA laws have been made.


PS; MachIV types faster than I do.
 
Here is some more information on this and yes teh ATF said it was a mistake and they took steps to correct it.

https://bearingarms.com/ryan-petty/2023/01/26/atfnfa-guidance-on-non-owners-n66642

Alerted to this change, Larry Keane, Senior Vice President of Government and Legal Affairs at the NSSF, reached out to ATF for a response. The ATF response, as reported by NSSF to Bearing Arms, is as follows:

“The Q&A currently listed on the eforms account is incorrect. In this scenario, the registered owner of the NFA weapon is co-located with the firearm and thus no transfer has occurred. However, if the person firing the NFA weapon is prohibited from possessing the firearm there could be a GCA violation. We are working to correct the site as quickly as possible.”
Click to expand...
 
Heck there was a big discussion of someone using another person gun at a range constituted a "transfer" by definition.:what:

It's all getting crazy!
 
Rule3 said:
Heck there was a big discussion of someone using another person gun at a range constituted a "transfer" by definition.:what:

It's all getting crazy!
Click to expand...

By someone who doesn't understand at all what the legal definition of transfer is.

Letting someone temporarily use something you own is not a transfer of property.

"Transfer is an act by virtue of which title of a property is voluntarily conveyed from one person to another. "

"The act by which the owner of a thing delivers it to another person, with the intent of passing the rights which he has in it to the latter."
 
I take the rule to mean that you can let someone else shoot your NFA gun, as long as you (the registered owner) stay in close physical proximity. (Within line of sight, at most.) It's always been this way, and remains this way.
 
The media does like to hype up and sensationalize stories since it helps their ratings. This includes YouTubers that are Pro 2A. And reported have been doing this for a long time so it isn't something new.

Yes someone at the ATF screwed up big time and those with accounts saw the mistake. Some went full Chicken Little with the story and blew it out of proportion without taking the time to actually dig in deep for the facts. I am glad that level heads took the time to look into this and also to contact the ATF directly to get to the bottom of this.

As far as possession goes, we have had this discussion many times in this section and also in the legal section. Actual lawyers here have stated what possession means and did so in a manor that all can understand.
 
Last edited:
I don't believe they messed up for a second.
They got so much blow back they had to say it was a mistake. If people would have just rolled over and took it does anyone think the AFT would have came out and said it was a mistake?
They are turning millions of people into felons over night by changing their mind on pistol braces, why wouldn't they extend the same courtesy to hundreds of thousands of MG owners?
 
Last edited:
MachIVshooter said:
By someone who doesn't understand at all what the legal definition of transfer is.

Letting someone temporarily use something you own is not a transfer of property.

"Transfer is an act by virtue of which title of a property is voluntarily conveyed from one person to another. "

"The act by which the owner of a thing delivers it to another person, with the intent of passing the rights which he has in it to the latter."
Click to expand...


Go read the thread in legal.

https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/family-member-firing-handgun-in-my-name.911296/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lennyjoe
  • Locked
Informing the local sheriff in Ohio of NFA possessions
Replies
1
Views
1K
crazyelece
C
Ryanxia
  • Locked
Beneficiary possessing NFA item?
Replies
14
Views
2K
Aaron Baker
A
N555
  • Locked
  • Poll
Are NFA items hard to get?
2
Replies
25
Views
991
citizenconn
citizenconn
S
  • Locked
What constitutes possesion of an NFA item
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
pjeski
pjeski
MoscowMike
New Suppressor and Existing Trust
Replies
6
Views
340
dogtown tom
dogtown tom
Back
Top