Quote of the day—orpheus762x51

A Form 1 came back approved for a new Machine Gun. Jaqufrost was quickly contacted by the ATF saying he has to send back the stamp.

This thing is growing legs and will probably go to court. Stand by, because we will surely need contributions to a legal fund if it goes to court.

All things considered, this looks like a realistic opportunity at taking back out rights to Machine Guns. If this fight starts moving forward, it’s going to tale a monumental amount of commitment to see it through. Hold fast, everyone. We’re going to need all hands on deck for this one.

orpheus762x51
September 10, 2014
ATF ruling may have opened door to new machine guns–Pg9 Form 1 APPROVED Pg18 ATF call audio
[Background material is here.

Audio of the ATF phone call:

Interesting. Very interesting!—Joe]

21 thoughts on “Quote of the day—orpheus762x51

  1. I hope it DOES grow legs. The ‘tax’ on machine guns was originally allowed Constitutionally because, you know, ‘Tax’. The bureaucracy turned it into a mother-may-I, UN-Constitutional restriction. Part of the argument should include the extreme amount of time it takes for approvals. In reality it should be payable at the point of sale like a sales tax or the gas pump. Otherwise it’s just a restriction and subject to “Shall NOT”.

    • But as the discussion in the Federalist Papers make quite clear, the purpose of the power to tax is to allow taxes for the other enumerated powers, not taxes just for grins. At least that’s what Madison claimed, though his explanation makes me wonder whether he was drunk, or lying, when he wrote it.
      Not that principles or the plain meaning of plain English words will get you anywhere with any of the three branches of Government, or the additional branches invented over the centuries that don’t exist in the Constitution at all.

  2. My understanding is that the last official communication that came from the ATF was the actual stamp – they retraction arrived before the stamp did. From a purely chronological standpoint, the approval SHOULD take precedence – but I’m sure no one would be willing to get his dog shot, kittens stomped, and house burnt down on the basis of that sort of supposition….

  3. Has the ATF ever revoked a stamp in the past, and if so under what authority, and if not can they do so now, and if so under what authority?

    • I was gonna ask the same thing. What stututory authority do they have to revoke a tax stamp? It seems like once it’s issued, it’s done, over. No take backsies :p

      • Nope. A stamp issued in error is invalid. But if you want your tax refund, you have to return the stamp.

  4. Lawyer up immediately, put the tax stamp and the weapon associated with it in the lawyer’s safe, and no kitties need to be stomped, no dogs killed, no doors broken or wives abused. This thing should be resolved in a civilized manner, no matter how the BATFE may seek to resolve it otherwise. “No need to SWAT, I’ll see you in court.”

  5. And if they SWAT the Lawyer’s office, they get the Bar Association on their backs, and the judges will seek to preserve the profession’s privilege, as there is an exception for keeping evidence like this for your client.
    I don’t see how this can NOT develop legs.

  6. No, DO NOT “hole up”. Send the damned stamp back, then sue the ATF.

    See, this is basically what they (the people filing) EXPECTED to happen (well this, or an outright refusal to process). The whole point was to force ATF to take action, under the new definition of “person” they want to use.

    That gives the plaintiffs grounds to SUE ATF to force them to enforce the law consistently on this point — either trusts are “persons” for the purposes of the GCA and can register machineguns, or trusts are NOT “persons” under the GCA, and are exempt from the 922(o) machinegun registry freeze.

    The actual tax stamp is, at this point, irrelevant, and holding on to it will only result in a raid. It will NOT affect the outcome of the case one way or the other.

    This is basically how the T/C case was done.

  7. Pingback: SayUncle » ATF: Oops, we didn’t mean to approve that machine gun

  8. This is a bit confusing to me. Am I interpreting this correctly that the ATF initially approved, not an existing MG transfer stamp, but approved the construction of a NEW MG to be added to the (transferable?) list? Then, they noticed what they did and asked for the stamp back?
    Or is it more that since a Trust isn’t a person it doesn’t require a background check for a transfer?

    • Because of the previous ruling about a trust not being a person orpheus762x51 applied for permission for his trust to build a machine gun. The law says ordinary people can’t own a post ’86 machine gun. Since a trust is not a person then, by default, a trust must be able to build and own a post ’86 machine gun. He sent this rationale in a cover letter to the ATF. They agreed and sent him is stamp to build the machine gun. Then very shortly thereafter changed their mind and wanted the stamp back.

      • In other words, they want it both ways. While I’m sure that some “liberal” court members would be fine with this, explicitly saying “for this purpose, a trust is not a person, but for that purpose it is,” and see no problem with it, I think a lot of judges would not like that, as it would mean that words don’t mean what they mean, and you’d have to have a definition for each of them in every law. That would be rather messy, I’d think. I look forward to seeing how this all shakes out.
        Can anyone see a possible ruling that somehow screws gun owners buy managing to get the worst of each possible outcome coalescing and getting barfed out on us via SCUTUS?

        • The problem is, they could get away with that (weasily) if the GCA used the “ordinary” definition of “person”. However, since the GCA very explicitly states that, for teh purposes of the GCA, these words are defined as follows:… and then carefully defines “person” in that list, they are stuck with that definition.

          Now, they can argue that “unincorporated trusts” aren’t ‘persons” because (unlike “natural” people, corporations, etc.) they were omitted from teh definition of “person” in the GCA. Or they can argue that they are “persons”, because they somehow fall within the wide net of entities that are defined as “persons” in the definitions.

          What they cannot do, is say that the SAME definition of “person” applies here in THIS section of the GCA, but not THERE in THAT section, when BOTH sections use the same definition.

  9. Repeal the Hughes Amendment to FOPA and we will all be much better off. No more $15,000 or more machine guns, but back to something reasonable, hell, maybe even a couple grand for a brand new select fire M4 or what have you. When that law into effect, the price of a full auto M-16 went from <$1000 to $15,000 overnight. Now only rich collectors can afford them.
    Heck, repeal ALL the infringing laws.

    • Agreed, but politically unfeasible. What majority of Congresscritters in each house would be willing to listen to months of election commericals attacking them for “flooding our streets with machineguns”, and what chance is there Obama would sign such a bill?

      The only way it COULD occur in teh forseeable future would be if someone managed to sneak in such an amendment into a huge omnibus bill, and it got overlooked becuase “we have to pass it to find out what’s in it.”

      I, frankly, disapprove of such manuevers as being inherently dishonest, even when I agree with the end result.

  10. Pingback: Tuesday News Links 09-16-2014 | Shall Not Be Questioned

  11. There is no way that an administrative error can be used to bootstrap an illegal act into a legal one. Congress clearly intended to keep We The People from machine guns, and they passed a law instructing the Executive Branch to make it so. ATF does nothing but administer that law, and a clerical error won’t change it. ATF does not have the power to let me build a machine gun, because Congress clearly passed a law intended to prevent that from happening. Any argument over the definition of “person” won’t detract from that clear Congressional intent.

    I’d gladly toss the entire NFA and treat these things like we do other firearms. But that won’t come by way of administrative error.

    Stories like this are just another example of everyone looking for some magic loophole that lets them get what they want without working to change the law. If you want to build or buy a new machine gun, you need to focus on congress. You need to vote and make sure the people you vote for know what you want. Everything else is just wasted energy.

    • Um, the “clear Congressional intent” WAS the definition of “person”.

      They chose that definition, they wrote it, they applied it to machinegun possession under 922(o). It isn’t an “administrative error’ — it’s the plain black and white language Congress used.

Comments are closed.