Armory Sponsor
Posted: 1/31/2015 6:45:15 PM EDT
| Citizenship form required? Since when? I have done a lot of form 4's and never seen this form. Is this a new thing or just an anal examiner? |
|
Quoted:
As this rifle is for work, I did it as an individual filing so in the event of a civil suit down the road, my trust and it's contents does not get put on display. If you get sued down the road, your items in the trust are not protected. Thats what Corporations are for. |
|
Quoted:
Not looking to protect items, looking to protect myself and how I'm portrayed. A trust offers no legal protections. You get sued, you must disclose you have it and that it has assets. You get sued, a judge can put a lein against the trust, order it liquified, order all content to be disclosed, etc. A corporation is shielded against this. Do NOT use a NFA item for self defense unless at last resort. If you have a 18" shotgun and a 10" shotgun and someone breaks in, grab the 18". Obviously if you only have the 10", take that. The procecution will try to villify you for using a title 2 weapon. If I have equal access to a title 1 weapon I'll grab it for home defense as A over zealous DA will not have an opportunity to make me sound like a "nut" to a grand jury. And I say that living in Texas. |
|
Quoted:
You get sued, a judge can put a lein against the trust, order it liquified, order all content to be disclosed, etc. A corporation is shielded against this. Quoted:
You get sued, a judge can put a lein against the trust, order it liquified, order all content to be disclosed, etc. A corporation is shielded against this. A corporation is not in the least shielded against this. If you are successfully sued and own (i.e., are the sole shareholder in) a corporation, that's an asset you have, and it can be taken to satisfy a judgment against you. If there's more than one shareholder, your shares can be taken. If the gun is owned by a corp, and the corp is sued as the only defendant and loses, the corp might offer some protection--but as a practical matter, the person who pulled the trigger is always going to be a defendant. The procecution will try to villify you for using a title 2 weapon. If I have equal access to a title 1 weapon I'll grab it for home defense as A over zealous DA will not have an opportunity to make me sound like a "nut" to a grand jury. And I say that living in Texas. [citation needed] I hear this a lot, and to me, it sounds just like the debates on which ammo to use for defense. Like in those discussions, there's a lot of handwaving over how the prosecution will try to vilify you for your choice in (ammo/weapon), and an utter lack of examples of where it's actually happened. But I'm always open to learn--in what cases has a defendant's choice to use a legally-owned NFA weapon been made an issue in a criminal prosecution? Or is your advice simply the result of an ungrounded fear of what could happen? |
|
Quoted:
A corporation is not in the least shielded against this. If you are successfully sued and own (i.e., are the sole shareholder in) a corporation, that's an asset you have, and it can be taken to satisfy a judgment against you. If there's more than one shareholder, your shares can be taken. If the gun is owned by a corp, and the corp is sued as the only defendant and loses, the corp might offer some protection--but as a practical matter, the person who pulled the trigger is always going to be a defendant. [citation needed] I hear this a lot, and to me, it sounds just like the debates on which ammo to use for defense. Like in those discussions, there's a lot of handwaving over how the prosecution will try to vilify you for your choice in (ammo/weapon), and an utter lack of examples of where it's actually happened. But I'm always open to learn--in what cases has a defendant's choice to use a legally-owned NFA weapon been made an issue in a criminal prosecution? Or is your advice simply the result of an ungrounded fear of what could happen? Quoted:
Quoted:
You get sued, a judge can put a lein against the trust, order it liquified, order all content to be disclosed, etc. A corporation is shielded against this. A corporation is not in the least shielded against this. If you are successfully sued and own (i.e., are the sole shareholder in) a corporation, that's an asset you have, and it can be taken to satisfy a judgment against you. If there's more than one shareholder, your shares can be taken. If the gun is owned by a corp, and the corp is sued as the only defendant and loses, the corp might offer some protection--but as a practical matter, the person who pulled the trigger is always going to be a defendant. The procecution will try to villify you for using a title 2 weapon. If I have equal access to a title 1 weapon I'll grab it for home defense as A over zealous DA will not have an opportunity to make me sound like a "nut" to a grand jury. And I say that living in Texas. [citation needed] I hear this a lot, and to me, it sounds just like the debates on which ammo to use for defense. Like in those discussions, there's a lot of handwaving over how the prosecution will try to vilify you for your choice in (ammo/weapon), and an utter lack of examples of where it's actually happened. But I'm always open to learn--in what cases has a defendant's choice to use a legally-owned NFA weapon been made an issue in a criminal prosecution? Or is your advice simply the result of an ungrounded fear of what could happen? http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=198964 Go read what Gary Fadden went through. |
|
Quoted:
http://www.shotgunworld.com/bbs/viewtopic.php?t=198964 Go read what Gary Fadden went through. I was passingly familiar with the case, but thanks for the link to more detailed information. It's certainly a nightmare scenario in many ways. There are a couple of problems, though. First, and most obvious, is that there's simply no evidence presented that the use of the AC556 played any role in the decision to charge Fadden, nor that its full-auto nature was even mentioned (much less vilified) at trial. Fadden believes it played a role, and he may be right, but belief isn't evidence. Second, the weapon in question was full-auto capable, and was actually being fired full-auto during this incident. Machine guns are fairly rare even in the NFA world, for the simple reason that they're so damn expensive (which was much less of an issue in 1984, of course). They're also very obviously different from non-machine guns, and significantly "scarier" to the bed-wetting types who think everything needs to be strictly controlled for our own benefit. My guess (worth exactly what you paid for it) is that your average cop or prosecutor wouldn't give a second thought to a 14" shotgun, and probably wouldn't even realize that there are special restrictions on them, But a machine gun, well, everybody knows those are illegal (even though they aren't). Third, of course, is the appearance of having shot the decedent in the back. That's always going to look bad. However rational and justified the explanation, the appearance of having shot the guy in the back is going to raise the odds of prosecution at least an order of magnitude. Finally, this is one case, over 30 years ago. I don't expect NFA firearms are used in self-defense all that often, just because they're fairly rare (compared to the 300+M Title I firearms out there), but I'd expect it's happened more than a few times since then. It doesn't in the least surprise me that this write-up is from Mas Ayoob. All respect to him (seriously), but he pretty much heads the pack in recommending you neuter your defensive ammo for fear of prosecution--it doesn't surprise me that he'd make the same recommendation wrt NFA firearms. Heck, I'm an attorney, and it's a concern I'd probably mention to a client--"it's possible that, if you were to use an NFA firearm in self-defense, an over-zealous prosecutor could capitalize on your choice of weapon." So yes, I'll grant that there was a case over 30 years ago where someone defended himself with a machine gun and was charged. I'll also grant, in the absence of evidence either way, that it's possible his choice of weapon had something to do with the charging decision, and that it could have been mentioned during the trial. As for me, even if I had any full-auto firearms (I wish), I don't think I'd reach for one in a defensive scenario if I had something else comparable available. However, if my home were being broken into and I had a suppressed firearm available, I'd be very likely to use it. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: I thought they even make trusts fill out the citizenship forms? I've submitted one with my 4 NFA items, as I've read many of the examiners require them nowadays. Nope. http://i751.photobucket.com/albums/xx151/thegreghorton/EFORMS/187FB596-6ACE-40CF-8078-3B21264E940C_zpsovpfdwqa.jpg Interesting. I was going based on this article: I figured if they didn't need them, they would write a note to stop doing it :D |
|
Quoted:
Interesting. I was going based on this article: http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/certification.html I figured if they didn't need them, they would write a note to stop doing it :D I sent them with my first two paper Form 1s. Have since filed at least 20 more, a combination of F1/F4 and paper/EForm, and have yet to send another one or be denied for that reason...not even an error letter. |
|
Quoted:
It doesn't in the least surprise me that this write-up is from Mas Ayoob. That's the key sentence. He's the only prominent individual in the gun community who feels so strongly that you should neuter your own defenses for legal protection. And frankly, it makes no sense even from a legal or philosophical perspective. If you are already granting that the case is being reviewed by an "overzealous" prosecutor, then ANYTHING you do could result in criminal charges. I mean, even if you shoot someone with a garden-variety Glock, said zealot could easily view your use of "flying ashtray explosive murder bullets" (ie, Speer Gold Dots?), your "high-capacity death clip" (standard-cap magazine), or your "ceramic-plastic undetectable assassination pistol" (Glock 19) in a hostile fashion. As you note, evidence is sparse for Ayoob's stance on fear of malicious prosecution, and if the prosecution is truly malicious, then your choice of weapon or ammo will probably be irrelevant. I think a more relevant concern would be whether other occupants of the home could be in errant "possession" of an NFA item if you leave the house with a suppressed SBR under the bed. I know that point has been debated here but I have not seen conclusive citations on the question. |
|
Quoted: I sent them with my first two paper Form 1s. Have since filed at least 20 more, a combination of F1/F4 and paper/EForm, and have yet to send another one or be denied for that reason...not even an error letter. Quoted: Quoted: Interesting. I was going based on this article: http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/certification.html I figured if they didn't need them, they would write a note to stop doing it :D I sent them with my first two paper Form 1s. Have since filed at least 20 more, a combination of F1/F4 and paper/EForm, and have yet to send another one or be denied for that reason...not even an error letter. |
Armory Sponsor