« Former head of MD pistol licensing explains his change of view | Main | More hypocrisy.... »
Can a gun trust own a "post ban" MG?
Joshua Prince has an interesting post. The key is that the NFA says a "person" may register and pay taxes on an MG, and 18 U.S.C. §922(o) says a "person" may not possess a post-ban MG, but the two statutes have different definitions of "person." An unincorporated trust is a person within the definition of NFA, but is not a person within the definitions of the GCA, which govern §922(o).
3 Comments | Leave a comment
Yeah that blog post at Prince is almost a year old. A lot has happened since then. There's a couple court cases in progress. http://www.sdslaw.us/#!nfa-cases/c1xu9
Federalist 84 - the inclusion of a Bill of Rights is unnecessary because CONGRESS has NO power over those areas.
The 2nd is an amendment "OF" not "to" the Constitution. Every prior granted power in conflict with the amendment "OF", i.e. the power to tax, is circumscribed by the amendment, that is to say the 2nd removes Congress' power to infringe on the Right to keep and bear Arms.
Some will disagree. They are simply wrong and do not understand the governmental system as designed, natural law as espoused, and the position of individuals as sovereigns and the government as servant.
I think this is the subjected of at least two pending lawsuits. Someone got an approved Form 1 back using this line of reasoning, and made a machine gun from an AR-15. Well of course once ATF realized what it approved, it sh*t a brick and asked for the Form 1 back.