MagnumWill
New member
I've been following this issue on ARFCOM (unfortunately; i don't ever post there) but this is a very interesting situation.
http://blog.gunlink.info/2014/11/17/watson-v-holder-second-nfa-lawsuit-filed-challenging-922o/
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/16...rney_announced_for_our_team_p_30_.html&page=1
There's a lot to this case, but i'll give a brief synopsis (i've read his ~39 page claim);
There's an ATF response to Dakota Silencer, where they had asked if a person picking up an NFA item must pass a background check, if they are picking it up on behalf of a gun trust. The ATF stated that a gun trust isn't considered a person.
This raises the question that the verbiage of the 1986 legislation (section 922(o)) regarding which entities are prohibited from possessing a machine gun manufactured after May 19(?)th, 1986, that it may not actually apply to a gun trust.
Hence, the Watson Family Gun Trust applied for two Form 1 requests to manufacture a machine gun on behalf of the trust, one electronic and one paper. They received the electronic one back as APPROVED with an attached stamp. Stamp in hand, they proceeded to manufacture a machine gun out of an AR lower.
Next, it sounds like they receive the paper application back as DECLINED, and then they receive a copy of the electronic submission with THE ATF SIGNATURES WHITED OUT, AND "DISAPPROVED" across the document (it sounds like the ATF can disapprove stamps, save for that no action has been taken to develop said firearm/device/etc.). An explanation was included that they couldn't actually produce the machine gun, in their own interpretation of the law (can't remember the verbiage, it's in Strombo's case file). It sounds an awful low like the accuser interpreting the law on their behalf at their discretion.
Now, they ask the Trustee (Mr. Watson, presumably) to now surrender the illegal weapon to an ATF agent. Mr. Watson is now concerned about federal charges of now assembling an "unlawful" machine gun. After much communique, it was decided that no federal charges will be pressed if he surrenders the weapon (without compensation).
It sounds like the first of the cases will proceed 1/16, after an extension because of the holidays. If these cases proceed, what could the potential outcomes be? It sounds like they actually have a pretty solid case of the ATF not being clear, discriminatory and overstepping their boundaries (as expected), not to mention putting someone in legal jeopardy based on an interpretation of the law, instead of the letter of the law.
Thoughts? Could this potentially mean that they now redefine a Trust as a person, corporation, etc. (having ramifications outside of the firearms industry) or potentially having section 922(o) not apply to trusts?
It sounds like they have a pretty solid case, if they act on it.
http://blog.gunlink.info/2014/11/17/watson-v-holder-second-nfa-lawsuit-filed-challenging-922o/
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/16...rney_announced_for_our_team_p_30_.html&page=1
There's a lot to this case, but i'll give a brief synopsis (i've read his ~39 page claim);
There's an ATF response to Dakota Silencer, where they had asked if a person picking up an NFA item must pass a background check, if they are picking it up on behalf of a gun trust. The ATF stated that a gun trust isn't considered a person.
This raises the question that the verbiage of the 1986 legislation (section 922(o)) regarding which entities are prohibited from possessing a machine gun manufactured after May 19(?)th, 1986, that it may not actually apply to a gun trust.
Hence, the Watson Family Gun Trust applied for two Form 1 requests to manufacture a machine gun on behalf of the trust, one electronic and one paper. They received the electronic one back as APPROVED with an attached stamp. Stamp in hand, they proceeded to manufacture a machine gun out of an AR lower.
Next, it sounds like they receive the paper application back as DECLINED, and then they receive a copy of the electronic submission with THE ATF SIGNATURES WHITED OUT, AND "DISAPPROVED" across the document (it sounds like the ATF can disapprove stamps, save for that no action has been taken to develop said firearm/device/etc.). An explanation was included that they couldn't actually produce the machine gun, in their own interpretation of the law (can't remember the verbiage, it's in Strombo's case file). It sounds an awful low like the accuser interpreting the law on their behalf at their discretion.
Now, they ask the Trustee (Mr. Watson, presumably) to now surrender the illegal weapon to an ATF agent. Mr. Watson is now concerned about federal charges of now assembling an "unlawful" machine gun. After much communique, it was decided that no federal charges will be pressed if he surrenders the weapon (without compensation).
It sounds like the first of the cases will proceed 1/16, after an extension because of the holidays. If these cases proceed, what could the potential outcomes be? It sounds like they actually have a pretty solid case of the ATF not being clear, discriminatory and overstepping their boundaries (as expected), not to mention putting someone in legal jeopardy based on an interpretation of the law, instead of the letter of the law.
Thoughts? Could this potentially mean that they now redefine a Trust as a person, corporation, etc. (having ramifications outside of the firearms industry) or potentially having section 922(o) not apply to trusts?
It sounds like they have a pretty solid case, if they act on it.
Last edited: