Quantcast

Gun Owners defends machine guns in court brief

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by Aim1, Jan 7, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. MachIVshooter

    MachIVshooter Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Messages:
    16,505
    Location:
    Elbert County, CO
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited: Jan 8, 2016
  2. saltydog

    saltydog Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2004
    Messages:
    397
    Location:
    From The Free State of Okla
    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.
     
  3. AR-15Nutt

    AR-15Nutt Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2003
    Messages:
    264
    Location:
    Tucson Arizona, actually 25 m. from !
    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..., :cuss: :cuss: :cuss:
     
  4. Warp

    Warp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,656
    Location:
    Georgia
    No. They won't.

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

    barnbwt member

    Joined:
    Aug 14, 2011
    Messages:
    7,340
    All those pre ban assault weapon owners sure do a lot to support AWBs, don't they? What an ignorant thing to say.

    TCB
     
  6. Warp

    Warp Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2008
    Messages:
    9,656
    Location:
    Georgia
    lol, yup...and all those owners of pre-ban standard (non restricted) capacity magazines supported magazine capacity restrictions....or not
     
  7. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    6,859
    Location:
    Virginia
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice