It is worse than just re-importing
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11

Thread: It is worse than just re-importing

  1. #1

    It is worse than just re-importing

    He is also trying to stop the use of trusts to own weapons so felons can avoid the background checks. I was seriously considering that approach to get a suppressor for the home defense pistol. Issue is state requirement for the sheriff signing off before you can have one even though they are legal.

    Obama Offers Measures On Gun Control

  2.   
  3. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Santa Fe Area, New Mexico
    Posts
    3,487
    Sorry, but We the people not a trust or corporation has a right. Kind of what has contributed to the demise of this great country. People think rights are guaranteed to corporations or groups. The Bill of Rights guarantees it is "I" that have these rights. ( I know there will be a lot of blow back on this comment)
    "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities." --author and philosopher Ayn Rand (1905-1982)

  4. #3
    What effect would this have on C&R weapons? Would it only affect US made firearms given to, or sold as foreign aid? How about the "Fast and Furious" guns? Are they prohibited from coming back to America? Has anyone told the Zetas? Obviously, he's trying to save his rapidly sinking presidency by playing to his liberal rights hating base. Or, he is generating another smoke screen to hide something else.

  5. #4
    Guys, read the whole thing.

    A proposed solution to having problems getting a suppressor can be a state law requiring the local sheriff to approve a suppressor (or other restricted weapons) even though the same state's law says they are legal if they comply with federal regulations. It appears this applies to anything needing a tax stamp. And, I think, any weapons. There are no background requirements for the trust. But the stuff may be used by and bequeathed to others who are named members of the trust. Now that is a bit oversimplified; but do some research. Country of origin is not relevant. In this case (one of very few I suspect) the identity of a trust or corporation as a "person" is in our favor.

    Some local chief LEOs are OK with this; some view suppressors as vile and evil things used only by crazy people and other criminals and they simply have no legitimate reason for existing let alone in the hands of a mere civilian. Rape, pillage, burn and other atrocities will ensue (probably as soon as the application is filed). My experience with two of the local chief LEOs. Probably/maybe approve, and no way in hell, it would die on my desk. The latter LEO seemed to have a rather tenuous grasp of gun issues of many types.

    It amounts to a subset of the shall carry vs may carry issue. Remember the spirit of the old saying: RTFM.

  6. #5
    Alternty here is your final grade.

    "E" for effort
    "F" for content

    Being that you don't own a suppressor or a trust your lack of knowledge on the subject still surprises me.

    Sent from my SPH-L720 using Tapatalk 2
    Time to add FireMarshall Bill to the block list.

  7. #6
    Sorry, I thought I had indeed grasped the basics. I would appreciate substantive input on the subject. The lawyer site and articles I looked at seemed to say the things I stated.

    Grade "NH" for lack of content

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Sandpoint, Idaho
    Posts
    1,315
    I read the whole thing. Even the Fox News version of the whole thing. These are not gun control measures. These are just like the last round. It's Obama's way of offering gun control advocates a bone. He's not going to trample the Second Amendment. He may be a lot of things, but dumb isn't one of them, and that would be a dumb political move.

    Plus, I'm with mappow. The right to bear arms shouldn't extend to corporations. I can imagine so many terrible scenarios stemming from that. And if you read closely, the ban on importation is when the US has donated firearms to allies and individuals are attempting to sell them back. Pretty sure that's shady business right there.

    So we may be facing some trials in the future, but I don't think this is one of them.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    And if you have a trust, you have to still get BATFE approval to purchase.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Elma NY
    Posts
    1,638
    Bottom LINE!!!!! the Price on my war surplus MI Carbine just went up.
    If I was a typical NY Pistol Permit Holder, I would say I got mine so FU, but I'm not.
    I fight against the unconstitutional and capricious and arbitrary pistol licensing laws.
    Tolerance of the intolerant leads to the destruction of tolerance. “You are also reminded that any inappropriate remarks or jokes concerning security may result in your arrest,” in the land of the free.

  11. #10
    I am completely aware of the source of the rifles. Sending back the rifles is not a shady deal. They are WWII era surplus just rotting away. Probably supplied around the Korean war. We buy surplus weapons from all over the world and import them. He is just using the categorization and specifically identifying these particular to make up an excuse that might seem plausible to the unwashed masses (like they are really his rifles). He is basically extending those always popular little BATF restrictions that make everyone jump through hoops to import a gun. Like not a SAIGA shotgun is not suitable for hunting if it has a rail on top (like the writers of the Constitution did not make it clear the 2nd was to keep our government in check). And someone whose taxes (figuratively speaking) have not paid for the initial manufacturing will eventually get the weapons. Or maybe POTUS can convince the Koreans to just destroy the demon spawned things.:-(

    Yes BATF has to approve: you get the stamp from them. As noted, it is local LE that can be an issue and they are free to table/refuse. At least in Washington they are not required to "shall issue" suppressors as they are for the CC permits. From a personal advantage standpoint (which is the basis of everything I have said about this so far), if you have a class 3 firearm, no one may take that device by themselves and use it. You can not assign the privilege. If the weapon is owned by a suitable trust, additional persons may be members of the trust and thus can use the weapon without your immediate and direct supervision (I am not certain even that is enough). It also simplifies passing on weapons to your family when you die. All you have to do is make sure the recipients are trust members.

    Corporations can already buy and use arms. For a very long time corporations have had the status imbued by the legal concept that a corporation may be recognized as an individual in the eyes of the law. A simple example; gun ranges. Who do you think owns the rental guns? Once again the point is escaping some. This is being discussed (and blocked) on a personal use basis.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast