Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Want to buy a machine gun without a background check? Federal law allows it for now
Sunlight Foundation ^ | Dec. 19, 2013, 11 a.m. | Nancy Watzman

Posted on 01/06/2014 6:44:13 AM PST by Joe Brower

Want to buy a machine gun without a background check? Federal law allows it — for now
by Nancy Watzman
Dec. 19, 2013, 11 a.m.

An obscure regulation designed to close a gun law loophole that allows some people to avoid background checks when purchasing machine guns and silencers has sparked one of the more unusual gun control debates of the year. That's because those doing the arguing are all gun enthusiasts. Gun control groups have stayed out of this one.

The regulation in question — proposed earlier this year by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) — has drawn more than 9,000 comments. Many are from individuals urged to write the agency by gun groups, according to analysis via Sunlight’s Docket Wrench tool. The comment period for the proposed rule closed on Dec. 9.

They are protesting the agency's plan to shut down a loophole that allows people to avoid background checks when purchasing sawed off shotguns, machine guns, silencers, guns that look like pens and even Molotov cocktails — all classified as National Firearms Act weapons under a law dating back to 1934, the glory days of Al Capone and Baby Face Nelson — as long as the weaponry is transferred into a legal trust. Usually, purchasers of such weapons must get approval from the ATF, pay a $200 tax, undergo stringent fingerprint-based background checks and get sign off from local law enforcement officials, among other measures.

But if individuals register these firearms to a legal trust or corporation, there is no background check or required approval from local law enforcement officials. In recent years, gun enthusiasts have been flocking to lawyers or creating their own trusts with popular software such as Quicken. The New York Times reported that Christopher J. Dorner, the former Los Angeles police officer who went on a shooting rampage earlier this year, wrote in his manifesto that he'd used Quicken to create a trust where he placed silencers and a short-barreled rifle without having to undergo a background check. (The paper notes, however, that because Dorner was not a felon, he would have passed a background check.)

A Google search for "national firearms trust" returns sponsored ads trumpeting legal services to help people create such trusts. The ATF reports that applications for transfers of NFA firearms to trusts and corporations has skyrocketed from 840 in 2000 in 2000 to 12,600 in 2009 to more than 40,700 in 2012.

While President Barack Obama claimed the regulation as one of the executive actions he was taking to reduce gun violence following to last year's shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, the ATF had been working on a proposal for many years. In fact, the proposed regulation says it was drafted in response to a 2009 petition by a firearms industry group — the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association (NFATCA). The group had long been seeking that the ATF eliminate the "CLEO" provision, which requires local law enforcement to sign off on NFA weapon transfers. The complaint was that many local law enforcement officials were refusing to do this sign off, thereby preventing such transfers.

But the group felt double-crossed by the ATF once it saw what would be in the proposal. "The proposed [rule] is being used as a political expedient to address areas of negligible concern. The Executive Branch proposals unduly burden the law-abiding public, will restrain lawful commerce and bury an already overwhelmed agency with an administrative infrastructure that will not serve the public safety interest," wrote the NFATCA's president, John K. Brown III, in a public statement last August.

Meanwhile, the NFATCA was getting beat up on the Internet by gun enthusiast publications and bloggers for being the inspiration for the new rule. Blogger David Cordrea, who has earned the title of "Gun Rights journalist of the year" from the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms for his work on the "Fast and Furious" controversy, has written a series of posts both blasting NFATCA and the ATF proposal. A typical reader comment: "Way to throw your brothers under the bus, traitors." A spokesman for NFATCA told Sunlight that the group was not responding to requests for interviews but rather directing people to its website for information about its position.

The 9,000-plus comments posted on Regulations.gov and available for viewing here on Docket Wrench appear to come largely from private citizens and are overwhelmingly negative. One cluster of comments appears to be inspired by this alert from Grass Roots North Carolina, which includes such language as, "The resources available to ATF/NFA including but not limiting to NCIC, TECS, NLETS, III, and NICBCS databases more than adequately ensure that all applicants are fully screened." The acronyms refer to government databases used by Homeland Security that link law enforcement offices together, follow background checks for gun purchases, track crime and so on.

In October, the National Rifle Association encouraged its members to comment. The gun group argues that many people use gun trusts for estate planning reasons, "One of which is to simplify the transfer of the firearms to the heirs of the owner. Thus, children, including those who are very young, are often beneficiaries of trusts. The proposed rule seemingly would require even such children to be included in its expanded background check procedures."

One of the leading attorneys who has advocated for gun trusts, Florida-based David M. Goldman, whose website is titled "guntrustlawyer.com," posted his formal comments as well as comment letters from the NRA, NFACTA and others.

Major gun control groups, such as the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and Mayors Against Illegal Guns, while supportive, have largely stayed out of the fray. "To get these particularly dangerous guns, the president is doing whatever is within his power to close loopholes in federal law," said Sam Hoover, a staff attorney with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. However, he said his group had not submitted comments to the ATF. A search of comments does not show any coming from gun control groups, although due to the vagaries of how such searches work it is possible that some may have been missed.


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: banglist; batfe; nfa; rkba

1 posted on 01/06/2014 6:44:13 AM PST by Joe Brower
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

Can a corporation buy current production class III weapons?


2 posted on 01/06/2014 6:47:14 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; blackie; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
As usual, the boilerplate scare tactics by the usual suspects. With the Obama regime and it's servants ruling by executive fiat more often than not, I see this whole 'input gathering' phase as just a formality before the ATF, like a good lapdog, just proceeds and does whatever its taskmasters dictate.

A local gun shop owner who deals in Class III items told me recently that the word in the industry has it that June is the cut off date, so get anything you want bought before then. And it's quite possible that any existing trusts will not be 'grandfathered' on the new 'treat the applicant like a sex offender' rules, ex-post facto laws be damned.

Anyone have any additional input on this? Comments welcome!

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

3 posted on 01/06/2014 6:49:13 AM PST by Joe Brower (The "American People" are no longer capable of self-governance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
"Can a corporation buy current production class III weapons?

I'm sure some can. How much bribe money you got?

NFA trusts, as far as I know, only extend to FA firearms made before the cutoff date in 1986. But I am no expert in these matters.

4 posted on 01/06/2014 6:50:56 AM PST by Joe Brower (The "American People" are no longer capable of self-governance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

What about becoming a weapons manufacturer or dealer? I’m just looking for a way to avoid the outrageous prices. (legally of course)


5 posted on 01/06/2014 6:53:59 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Seeing as there are a bunch of small weapons makers out there producing new, legal, FA guns, there obviously is some way if one is determined enough, and has the money. That would include a skilled lawyer to make absolutely certain all the t's are crossed. But again, I don't know much about these aspects of the law.
6 posted on 01/06/2014 6:57:11 AM PST by Joe Brower (The "American People" are no longer capable of self-governance.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver

IIRC you have to pay thousands of dollars in taxes to become a “special occupational taxpayer” which then permits you to make or buy post-’86 machine guns.


7 posted on 01/06/2014 6:58:06 AM PST by coloradan (The US has become a banana republic, except without the bananas - or the republic.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: coloradan

I don’t really have a ‘need’ for a full auto rifle but the fact they make it so difficult makes me want one.


8 posted on 01/06/2014 7:07:02 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

a C & R license might come in handy.


9 posted on 01/06/2014 7:09:19 AM PST by stylin19a (Obama -> Fredo smart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a

As is usually the case, the left inflames the debate by throwing something completely ridiculous into the story. I challenge them to show one example of anyone, whether through regular regulations or through a trust who’s either applied or gotten a class III stamp for a Moloton cocktail. They are idiots preaching to idiots.


10 posted on 01/06/2014 8:00:37 AM PST by rickomatic
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
Can a corporation buy current production class III weapons?

Yes and No. Mainly No.

First, there is no such thing as a class iii weapon. They are called Title 2 firearms under the National Firearms Act.

Under the NFA and GCA of 68, to manufacture of deal in them, you had to have an FFL and pay an SOT.:
Type 1 FFL (retail sales of firearms) + Class 3 SOT = you could sell NFA items without paying the $200 tax between other FFLs.
Type 07 FFL (manf) + Class 2 SOT = you can manufacture AND deal in Type 2 firearms.

Second, ATF does not allow an FFL inside of a trust. A corporation CAN acquire Type 2 NFA firearms inside of an LLC or corporation if the LLC or corporation has their Form 7 (application for FFL) listed as that name, AND the state in which it is operating allows it.

FFLs with appropriate SOTs can acquire post-sample (after FOPA 86 act 19 May 1986) with a sample letter from a law enforcement agency. Type 2 SOTs can get post samples by either manufacturing them, or by taking them from another SOT going out of business.

Both "class 3 and class 2" SOTs can acquire pre-may samples and keep them after giving up their license.

Individual citizens cannot own any machineguns manufactured after midnight, 19 MAY 1986 unless they apply for, and obtain an FFL/SOT.

.....of course law enforcement is exempt.....spit.

11 posted on 01/06/2014 8:51:40 AM PST by DCBryan1 (No realli, moose bytes can be quite nasti!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: driftdiver
What about becoming a weapons manufacturer or dealer? I’m just looking for a way to avoid the outrageous prices. (legally of course)

If you want to do it legally, start up a state business (after consulting your lawyer who has experience in front of a jury defending against the ATF). Call the ATF and get a Form 7 application for yourself and partners, get it approved, and then after your inspection and sign off, you get an FFL. You must get an FFL and intend to do it as a business. It is illegal to get an FFL to acquire/obtain Title 2 firearms for yourself/corp....and YES, ATF has sent people to the pen for that.

After your FFL, pay the SOT....then have fun. If you go 07 FFL/02 SOT, pay your ITAR fees yearly. ATF is about to start cracking down on non-ITAR paying FFL/SOTs methinks.

12 posted on 01/06/2014 8:54:58 AM PST by DCBryan1 (No realli, moose bytes can be quite nasti!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: coloradan
IIRC you have to pay thousands of dollars in taxes to become a “special occupational taxpayer” which then permits you to make or buy post-’86 machine guns.

Partially correct. The FFL and SOT taxes and fees are really not that unreasonable. See ATF link.

What gets the 07/02 SOT types is the damn yearly ITAR fees. ....and yes, you had better pay the Dept. of State. Methinks the .gov ATF goons will be cracking down on this "loophole". Apparently some of the big Type 10 FFL/02 SOTs have gotten ITAR exemptions, but I don't know how to do that yet.

13 posted on 01/06/2014 8:59:33 AM PST by DCBryan1 (No realli, moose bytes can be quite nasti!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1
FFL - FEE + SOT FEE ++ ITAR
01/02 -$200 +$500 or $1,000
06 -$30 +$500 or $1,000
07 -$150 +$500 or $1,000 ++ $2,250
08 -$150 +$500 or $1,000
09 -$3000 +$500 or $1,000
10 -$3000 +$500 or $1,000 ++ $2,250
11 -$3000 +$500 or $1,000

ITAR is every year for manufacturers. Be sure to pay your MFG excise tax and contact your business liability company. Get ready to pay alot of money to your liability insurance company when you mention firearms, explosives, or components thereof.

Good luck.

14 posted on 01/06/2014 9:09:54 AM PST by DCBryan1 (No realli, moose bytes can be quite nasti!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: DCBryan1

and who says the govt is putting up barriers.

sheesh


15 posted on 01/06/2014 9:14:42 AM PST by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Anyone have any additional input on this? Comments welcome!

This is all pure strawman arguments. It's not about machine guns and it's not about trusts. When was the last time they added a transferable machine gun to the registry? 1986? It's about people being able to use a trust to avoid getting Chief LEO approval for all NFA devices. In many areas of the country, like California where, believe it or not AOWs are legal, no urban CLEO will even accept the application let alone sign it. Eliminating the trust option is all about instituting a de facto ban on suppressors and AOWs by requiring a signature that is unobtainable. If they were serious about getting a background check they would eliminate the CLEO approval requirement or just make it a notification like it is with a Class 3 C&R FFL.

16 posted on 01/06/2014 10:52:55 AM PST by atomic_dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson