Ammo For Sale

« « Sean Penn: Criminal | Home | Free markets! » »

VA AG: Trusts can’t own machine guns

PDF here. Rumors are that ATF has all forms on hold and may no longer process forms for trusts in VA.

7 Responses to “VA AG: Trusts can’t own machine guns”

  1. mariner Says:

    That didn’t take long, did it?

  2. Austrian Anarchy Says:

    They have to put their fingers in everything, don’t they?

  3. DHSGuy Says:

    Flip it back around onto the AG. If a trust, under his definition, was omitted from inclusion into the statute, then it stands that the limited definition logic would hold for any other usage within the VA statutes where a trust is used, but not defined for in the statutes.

  4. Jake Says:

    A trust is not listed, and thus, I conclude that the General Assembly did not intend to include a trust among the non-natural person, i.e., “legal,” entities that might be considered a “person” for purposes of the Act’s regulatory scope. Indeed, this omission is particularly noteworthy because the general definition of “person” found in § 1-230 includes “trust” among the other legal entities listed When the legislature omits language from one statute that it has included in another, courts may not construe the former statute to include that language, as doing so would ignore “an unambiguous
    manifestation of a contrary intention” of the legislature.

    Sadly, the legal reasoning here (at least when ignoring any 2A implications of registering MGs in the first place) is sound. Now I wonder what this is going to do to all the people in VA who currently own MGs through a trust? How many are going to be charged with felonies before this gets straightened out?

  5. Geodkyt Says:

    Cuccinelli is a strong legal reasoner, and his interpretation of the specific code in question looks valid. Hell, he’s the most pro-gun AG Virginia has EVER seen, and one of the most pro-gun AGs anywhere in teh nation in teh last 40 years or so. . .

    This is the original meaning of the phrase “the exception that proves the rule” — when the legislature SPECIFIES certain things, and does not use “inclusive” language such as “entities such as. . . ” or “similar”, it is legally interpeted as they used EXCLUSIVE language purposefully — so anything NOT specifically called out is excluded.

    Trusts are not called out in THAT code, but other “non-natural persons” _are_ explicitly named, and there is no inclusive weasel words to indicate that similar “non-natural persons” are also included. Thus, trusts are excluded.

  6. Geodkyt Says:

    I would say that CURRENTLY approved transfers to trusts are OK, but new ones would not be. Alternatively, they might require guns owned by trusts to be registered in the name of a particular person.

    HOWEVER, this only applies to VIRGINIA’S machinegun registration — which is TOTALLY seperate from and independant of the federal one. I believe you can keep your gun _federally_ registered to your trust, and have it registered with the STATE under one person.

    Virginia adopted the “Uniform Machinegun Act” BEFORE the NFA was passed, and we haven’t gotten rid of this zombie law yet (came real close in 2003). UNLIKE the NFA, it is a simple registration, NOT a permission slip — you download a one page PDF form (less info than an ATF 4473), fill it out, and mail or fax it back to the state police. No tax, no background check, no asking for permission.

  7. rickn8or Says:

    Thanks for the clarification, Geodkyt. Sounds like a tempest in a teapot, just trying to muddy the waters enough to discourage mere citizens from owning machinegun deathrays.

Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.

Uncle Pays the Bills

Find Local
Gun Shops & Shooting Ranges


bisonAd

Categories

Archives