Posted on 02/25/2013 2:26:28 PM PST by Second Amendment First
A growing number of shooting enthusiasts are creating legal trusts to acquire machine guns, silencers or other items whose sale is restricted by federal law — a mechanism that bypasses the need to obtain law enforcement approval or even undergo criminal background checks.
The trusts, called gun trusts, are intended to allow the owners of the firearms to share them legally with family members and to pass them down responsibly. They have gained in popularity, gun owners say, in part because they may offer protection from future legislation intended to prohibit the possession or sale of the firearms.
But because of a loophole in federal regulations, buying restricted firearms through a trust also exempts the trust’s members from requirements that apply to individual buyers, including being fingerprinted, obtaining the approval of a chief local law enforcement officer and undergoing a background check.
Lawyers who handle the trusts and gun owners who have used them say that a majority of customers who buy restricted firearms through trusts do not do so to avoid such requirements. And most gun dealers continue to require background checks for the representative of the trust who picks up the firearm. But not all do.
Christopher J. Dorner, the former Los Angeles police officer who embarked on a weeklong assault on law enforcement officers this month that ended with his death on Feb. 12, said in a rambling 11,000-word manifesto that he had used a gun trust to buy silencers and a short-barreled rifle from a gun store in Nevada without a background check.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
We need to start a petition.
I think we should ban fully automatic printing presses; they should have to physically press "print" each time for each page for each paper printed.
High capacity ink feeding devices should be banned as well - 7oz containers should be enough. I mean if you can't get your message out/viral after making three newspapers, you probably don't need to be distributing more than that....the people deserve to be left alone.
We need Common Sense Speech Laws.
/s
Oh, those clever lawyers.
Ping
Hmmmm...
sfl
Boy, these people are ignorant. You still have to submit paperwork to BATFE for the tax stamp. BATFE does the background check and takes several months, at least, to give approval or reject the applicant.
Congress passes.laws everyday requiring us to hire lawyers to get around laws congress never should have passed. Makes a lot of sense huh!
In a decade the quality of modestly priced 3D printers will reach the stage where they can create commercial quality machine guns and clips. Probably the ammo as well.
Metals like stainless steel can be printed now.. You can print tools like wrenches and they are good quality.
So, shell out 10-20K for a printer and whip up a machine gun in a day or two.
In the age of 3D printing gun laws and drug laws will be damned hard to enforce. Technology has always been a two-edged sword. 3D printing will assist the good as well as the bad elements of society.
You can be sure that Obamacare is chock full of loopholes that will let Liberals avoid penalties, taxes, & other obligations, while maximizing their ability to obtain grants/loans/privileges at taxpayer expense. With 12,000 pages, I imagine the “law” applies to the many, but not the few.
But what is the “that” it means exactly. I suppose most would say the “that” is “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” This leads to the question: “What is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms?” If this right is not to be infringed we need to know what this right is.
Another post on this forum today ( http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2990936/posts ) stated:
“In a sweeping ruling, the Tenth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that there is no Second Amendment right to carry a concealed firearm in public”, and further stated “But the final ruling held, “In light of our nation’s extensive practice of restricting citizens’ freedom to carry firearms in a concealed manner, we hold that this activity does not fall within the scope of the Second Amendment’s protections.” (emphasis added).
We talk about “shall not be infringed” plenty. We need to talk more about the scope of “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” so that we can establish what is and is not an infringement. If we don’t, it will be done for us. Or rather to us.
No gun is “illegal”.
It’s simply “undocumented”.
Good one.
Snicker.
“No gun is “illegal”. It’s simply “undocumented”.”
It is the only kind of gun or gun collection to have...
Interesting:
The New York times has an investigative reporter to assign to this story, but not to Fast & Furious, Benghazi, or all of Obama’s college career?
How odd.
They basically run the trust document past the legal staffers to make sure that it is drawn up properly for your state of residence. The actual paperwork is tricky and requires you use an attorney who has done this before. Don't try to squeak by with legal zoom dot com, it will come back to haunt you. Plan on spending about $1000. Of course it will last for a lifetime. I've got one as well as a revocable trust to hold all my assets (including my non NFA items). So sue me, I don't own a damn thing!
Regards,
GtG
I think we should ban fully automatic printing presses... especially the ones used by the Bureau of Printing and Engraving to “assault” the value of our money by printing endless new bills that they push into circulation by buying things to the benefit of government.
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms" isn't a "natural right". One is not born with the subject arms in a state of nature or in a state of society. One has to take something, make it his property, and turn it into an "arm" before he can exercise the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms might be more properly derivative and contingent upon the right to life and the right to property.
From my not super extensive reading of law and the framers intent, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms” applies [should] to any individually portable common infantry weapon available in the time period viewed.
So, theoretically as an un-infringed right, you should be able to have a select fire weapon and it would seem logical that you could also have an attachment like a grenade launcher.
It would not apply to crew served weapons mainly from the fact that said weapons are generally not individually portable. In the past, units would aquire crew served weapons (cannons) and frequently, up to around the Civil War, these would be comissioned/purchased by a wealthy patron or a local community.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.