NYT has Opened a New Can of Worms

S

sigcurious

New member
Article

Apparently a reporter finally stumbled on NFA trusts. The article implies the reasoning behind them is nefarious, along with the usual NFA items are too dangerous for people to own shtick. Sadly, the LGS owner quoted at the end is a local to me. The Gun Store does significant amounts of business renting machine guns to range users(tourists)... :rolleyes:

It's unfortunate that more disinformation is being thrown out there at this stage of the fight. Particularly when it's in regards to an already poorly understood(by the general public) area of firearms.
 
As is so often the case these days, it is more of an op-ed piece, with a token quote from the "other side," than an article.

The statement at the end that this is a way criminals can get machine guns is pretty stupid (IMHO). If a person is legally barred from possessing firearms, then she will also be breaking the law if he forms a trust to obtain a machine gun. Why would she form a trust, pay $4,900 for a cheap Cobray or $15,000 for an M16, and wait 6-8 months, just to be able to -- still illegally -- acquire a machine gun? Why not just built/buy it illegally in the first place for much less? If we are talking about suppressors or SBRs (which is not the example given in the quote at the end), then the only factor that changes is the price tag.

With the coming change in the requirement for CLEO sign off (conveniently not mentioned in the article), this "loophole" will close and gun trusts will continue to serve their valuable estate planning purpose.
 
That author has been researching and writing about gun issues for several months. Some articles are well done (even if you disagree). I don't think it was a 'stumble' - there is a research and article plan operating.
 
I didn't think the article was too bad.

BUT...I really, really wish the writer would have told us how many times a legally owned silencer or legally owned full auto weapon had been used in a crime. (I think a number VERY close to zero.)

A little thread veer here. It stupefies me to think someone like the writer who has done some research on the gun issue and can write a coherent article (like this one) could possibly NOT be on 'our' side of the issue. I'd be interested in what they write in the future.
 
Remember it wasn't that long ago that a father allowed his small son to fire a mini-uzi machinegun at a gun range which killed the child. We're lucky they're not beating us over the head with that example.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top