- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Interview: Meet the Man Suing Eric Holder and the ATF
Posted on 3/6/15 at 7:50 am
Posted on 3/6/15 at 7:50 am
LINK
Good Read:
Ar15 thread on the case. The OP of this thread is the lead attorney on the case and provides updates.
Good Read:
quote:
Before getting to the interview, we'd like to give you some background facts on what led to the lawsuits.
First, it is legal in the United States for a private citizen to own machineguns. Some individual states prohibit the ownership but it is permissible on a Federal level per the National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA), so long as the Federal government approves the purchase (currently regulated by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives or BATFE, formerly “ATF”) and the citizen pays a $200 tax. Once the purchase is approved (a process that can take several months), the citizen receives a document called a tax stamp and can then go about their business with the firearm. Since this is approval for a purchase, not a permit for continued possession, there is no legal mechanism for the stamp to be “revoked” or for the approval to be reversed.
Ar15 thread on the case. The OP of this thread is the lead attorney on the case and provides updates.
5
Posted on 3/6/15 at 8:02 am to wickowick
I don't care about automatic weapons but classifying suppressors and SBRs as NFA is just dumb.
I want to pickup several but it is a pain to manage the trust and there are still grey areas in regard to transfers even temporarily to someone.
Now that I think about it, I wouldn't mind a MP7.
I want to pickup several but it is a pain to manage the trust and there are still grey areas in regard to transfers even temporarily to someone.
Now that I think about it, I wouldn't mind a MP7.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 8:14 am to Helo
Interesting
Posted on 3/6/15 at 8:30 am to Helo
It's all dumb. You should be just as concerned with fully automatic weapons as you are a SBR. Like the man said, it's about them taking away our rights at their discretion.
What do to mean that trusts are hard to manage?
What do to mean that trusts are hard to manage?
Posted on 3/6/15 at 8:31 am to Helo
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/28/22 at 9:56 am
Posted on 3/6/15 at 8:38 am to DownSouthDave
quote:
You should be just as concerned with fully automatic weapons as you are a SBR
why? I think NFA should be repealed in its entirety but I have no desire to own a fully auto weapon.
quote:
What do to mean that trusts are hard to manage?
Adding a removing trustees every time you want to allow someone to shoot your suppressed 45 is bullshite.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 8:42 am to Helo
quote:
Adding a removing trustees every time you want to allow someone to shoot your suppressed 45 is bullshite.
You don't have to amend to let them shoot, but you have to be there. The gun has to be with the trustees. Your friend can't just take it to the range...
Posted on 3/6/15 at 8:47 am to Helo
quote:
why? I think NFA should be repealed in its entirety but I have no desire to own a fully auto weapon.
certainly your perogative, but others do have that desire
quote:
Adding a removing trustees every time you want to allow someone to shoot your suppressed 45 is bullshite.
as above, you just have to be present
Posted on 3/6/15 at 8:48 am to Helo
quote:
NFA should be repealed
Then maybe we are on the same page. But just because you do t wish to have one, doesn't mean they shouldn't concern you.
That's not how it works, anyone you go shooting with can use your suppressor. They must be in your immediate supervision. For someone to take your suppressor on their own, yes, they must be a trustee. But it's not a big deal to amend the trust. Not something you're going to do a lot, but it's fR from difficult.
Shoutout to Papercutninja, he did my trust yesterday. Highly recommend. Emailed him Wednesday, had a trust Thursday. He's also a notary, so he can do that part as well and you don't have to run around town.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 8:49 am to wickowick
that is a good read, thanks for posting
out of curiosity, has anyone here ever had to show their stamp to anyone, or been otherwise required to "prove" ATF compliance for an NFA firearm? just wondering under what circumstances would this ever come up?
out of curiosity, has anyone here ever had to show their stamp to anyone, or been otherwise required to "prove" ATF compliance for an NFA firearm? just wondering under what circumstances would this ever come up?
Posted on 3/6/15 at 8:51 am to wickowick
Posted on 3/6/15 at 8:57 am to DownSouthDave
quote:
Shoutout to Papercutninja, he did my trust yesterday. Highly recommend. Emailed him Wednesday, had a trust Thursday. He's also a notary, so he can do that part as well and you don't have to run around town.
he's on his way to my office this afternoon
2 days start to finish
Posted on 3/6/15 at 8:59 am to cgrand
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/28/22 at 9:56 am
Posted on 3/6/15 at 9:00 am to DownSouthDave
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/28/22 at 9:56 am
Posted on 3/6/15 at 9:18 am to Papercutninja
Good read, thanks for sharing wick. Will be interesting to see how this falls.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 9:21 am to wickowick
so this is actually being taken to trial.. I saw the thread a while ago when these people were just issued the Stamps. 'Merica!
This post was edited on 3/6/15 at 9:22 am
Posted on 3/6/15 at 9:25 am to CarRamrod
quote:
so this is actually being taken to trial.. I saw the thread a while ago when these people were just issued the Stamps. 'Merica!
Yes it is. At one point I thought like many it had no chance, but the lawyer on this knows his stuff, we have a chance...
Posted on 3/6/15 at 9:39 am to wickowick
Court filing argues post-1986 machine gun ban 'defies Constitution'
quote:
That Judge Barbara M.G. Lynn of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas Dallas Division (the court's Fort Worth Division last month declared the interstate handgun transfer ban unconstitutional) used her discretion and permitted a sur-reply indicates an interest in the plaintiff’s arguments, and if the government can be responsive to them. That she then issued a March 3 order giving the defendants until March 11 to file a sur-sur reply could indicate she has concerns over the lack of substance on government filings submitted to date, and is not even sure if defendants will produce anything more than continued obfuscation and misdirection.
Arguing against the preposterous claim that plaintiff Hollis lacked standing, the sur-reply went on to challenge contentions regarding levels of judicial scrutiny and the government’s interpretation of Heller case applicability, and to expose wholly unsubstantiated arguments for a ban based on non-existent crimes.
Posted on 3/6/15 at 9:40 am to wickowick
(no message)
This post was edited on 9/28/22 at 9:55 am
Posted on 3/6/15 at 9:43 am to Papercutninja
quote:
Unless the just eliminate the tax stamp all together the ATF will just adjust the price of the stamp for inflation.
That is not a fee, but a tax, a change in the $200 cost would have to come from Congress, specifically the House.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News