Of Arms and the Law

Navigation
About Me
Contact Me
Archives
XML Feed
Home


Law Review Articles
Firearm Owner's Protection Act
Armed Citizens, Citizen Armies
2nd Amendment & Historiography
The Lecture Notes of St. George Tucker
Original Popular Understanding of the 14th Amendment
Originalism and its Tools


2nd Amendment Discussions

1982 Senate Judiciary Comm. Report
2004 Dept of Justice Report
US v. Emerson (5th Cir. 2001)

Click here to join the NRA (or renew your membership) online! Special discount: annual membership $25 (reg. $35) for a great magazine and benefits.

Recommended Websites
Ammo.com, deals on ammunition
Scopesfield: rifle scope guide
Ohioans for Concealed Carry
Clean Up ATF (heartburn for headquarters)
Concealed Carry Today
Knives Infinity, blades of all types
Buckeye Firearms Association
NFA Owners' Association
Leatherman Multi-tools And Knives
The Nuge Board
Dave Kopel
Steve Halbrook
Gunblog community
Dave Hardy
Bardwell's NFA Page
2nd Amendment Documentary
Clayton Cramer
Constitutional Classics
Law Reviews
NRA news online
Sporting Outdoors blog
Blogroll
Instapundit
Upland Feathers
Instapunk
Volokh Conspiracy
Alphecca
Gun Rights
Gun Trust Lawyer NFA blog
The Big Bore Chronicles
Good for the Country
Knife Rights.org
Geeks with Guns
Hugh Hewitt
How Appealing
Moorewatch
Moorelies
The Price of Liberty
Search
Email Subscription
Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

 

Credits
Powered by Movable Type 6.8.8
Site Design by Sekimori

« Former head of MD pistol licensing explains his change of view | Main | More hypocrisy.... »

Can a gun trust own a "post ban" MG?

Posted by David Hardy · 16 March 2015 02:57 PM

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

Mike | March 16, 2015 3:28 PM | Reply

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.

ARL | March 16, 2015 3:37 PM | Reply

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

FWB | March 17, 2015 9:46 AM | Reply

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.

Leave a comment