Have you ever wondered how George Kelly, aka Machine Gun Kelly, was always able to show up at the scene of the crime with a machine gun? The guy was on a first name basis with the guards at Leavenworth but, every time he was released, Kelly was always able to buy a new machine gun.
Well, it turns out that one of the most ridiculous gaps in our gun background check laws is that no background check is required if you register a machine gun to a corporation or trust. So while no self-respecting gun dealer would sell a machine gun to Machine Gun Kelly without a background check, the dealer would have no problem with registering the machine gun to the Machine Gun Kelly Widows and Orphans Trust. But how often does this happen, you say? A lot. Last year, the ATF reported receiving more than 39,000 requests for transfers of machine guns to trusts and corporations. Now why would a trust or corporation EVER need a machine gun? So the Obama administration has proposed a regulation to close this loophole by requiring persons associated with trusts and corporations to undergo background checks before they can legally buy a machine gun. “We oppose requiring trusts and corporations to undergo background checks before they can legally buy a machine gun,” NRA president I.M. Fulschitt told a gaggle of reporters. NRA spokesman M.E. Scheisskopf explained the rationale for the NRA position - “Machine guns don’t kill people; people are killed by bad corporations and trusts. What we need to do is arm the good corporations and trusts with machine guns so it will be an even fight.” Fortunately, the Obama admin sees it differently. A rare victory for common sense gun control regulationsFully automatic weapons have resulted in 2 deaths. Great way to end gun violence. How about the m16 s the us gov supplied to mexican cartels? What will you say when they cause a death in the usa? They obviously wont be legal when it happens... Or the next police officer or military personal to use one against someone illegally?
that tried to buy machine guns last year, right? I mean 39,000 in one year? You don’t even blink your eye at that incredible number?
You have no concern that maybe one of two of those “trusts or corporations” was actually a front for al queda or some home grown terrorists organization?
We have not had too many deaths by sarin or anthrax in this country either. Should we just wait until we have a chemical weapon or biological trajedy to start restricting access there?
Isn’t it reasonable to assume that some subset of that 39000 were guys that we would just as soon not have machine guns?
Sorry, Spades, but when we are dealing with weapons of great destructive ability like this, I think being proactive is a much better policy than just reacting after it happened
I never said a firearm should be owned by corporations instead of individuals. It might be that private owners are just trying to protect themselves from liability and make it harder for the government to seize their firearms, or make them transferable to their children. You do realize this applies to pre 86 guns and they are 10-20 times more expensive than illegal or converted semiauto firearms? I would lean toward saying that many of the corporations filing to purchase these are private security corporations. IE blackwater ect. That's the true benefit of corporations being allowed to own these guns. They could buy new guns as well I believe than and transfer them between employees without each employee needing permits for certain firearms. I do think the corporations and all their employees need to be vetted. But to believe its a set towards ending gun violence is another joke (at least currently).
Its easier to convert an ak47 and much cheaper than buying a legal gun. To convert an ak it takes maybe 45 minutes if you have a pre 74 ak. A drill and a file is all you need I believe. Glock pistols I think the kits are under $500.
I don't know how many of the 39,000 we wouldn't want having them. Legal registered firearms in my opinion are about as safe as they can be. Are they even remotely as dangerous as anthrax or a nerve gas? I don't think they are in the same category. These guns were legal without any special permits until 86 and still the number for people killed from 1932-2012 by one of these legal guns is 2. I guess if gun violence is the target its a waste of time and political equity.
In MN we had a diesel fuel station have 55,000 gals of diesel contaminated with fertilizer. That scares me way more than this ever will. OKC was 4000 lbs of diesel more or less. If they had used more fertilizer can you imagine the damage?
You have no concern that maybe one of two of those “trusts or corporations” was actually a front for al queda or some home grown terrorists organization?
We have not had too many deaths by sarin or anthrax in this country either. Should we just wait until we have a chemical weapon or biological trajedy to start restricting access there?
Isn’t it reasonable to assume that some subset of that 39000 were guys that we would just as soon not have machine guns?
Sorry, Spades, but when we are dealing with weapons of great destructive ability like this, I think being proactive is a much better policy than just reacting after it happened.
security firms. So I will concede there are some legitimate reasons to transfer gun ownership to a corporation or trust, although I am still staggered by the 39000 in one year figure. Obviously the ATF believes some of these applications are fraudulent attempts by felons to avoid background checks.
But there is no meaningful burden imposed on the legitimate applicants. If you are want to keep your guns in the family via a trust there is no rush to get this done, so you can wait till a background check is conducted. And private security firms like any other business can buy individually and have ownership transferred to the corporation later. So the NRA opposiiton to this one is meritless.
Finally, the last time I looked the Second Amendment didn't apply to corporations and trusts. So this is one of the rare areas where the gov pass laws and regulations without 2d amend objection
I agree that background checks should be done on every purchase made. The nra crusades to provide firearms to everyone even convicted felons. They shouldnt be the voice of reason. I more or less was saying there are reasons for trusts ect.
"Machine Gun Kelly" died in 1954 and spent the last 21 years if his life in prison.
The "National Firearms Act" that banned most automatic weapons from private ownership was passed in 1934. So the law you are talking would not have been an issue for Mr. Kelly!
You do not help your cause by making up false information to support your point of view
in the universe other than yourself understood that part literally. I'm surprised that you didn't also point out that I misspelled the name of the NRA president.
It didn't ban private ownership. It just meant that they had to be registered to you with a written permit in your possession at all times and that you had to notify ATF when you crossed state lines with one. If you had the permit you could buy new fully automatic firearms until 1986. Privately held legal guns sold before 86 can be transferred between permitted individuals. After 86 new fully automatic firearms cant be sold publicly. Corporations/private security firms are different and I think they can buy new fully auto weapons. It would explain why so many corporations have filed for these permits/purchases recently. As our military farms out more and more "work" the number should increase.
http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/NFA_Gun_Trust_brochure.pdf
-- Modified on 8/31/2013 1:44:57 PM
I have one..........I'm good! A Bible thumpin, gun totin, anti-gay conservative lol. Lock up your wives and children
Surely, this is a good idea, because of the endless number of people who die by machine gun fire, right?
In reality, only 2.5% of all murder victims die from rifles, of ALL types, and almost NONE die from machine gun fire. In fact, 5 times as many people die from knives than from rifles of all types. More than twice as many people die from what the FBI classifies as "personal weapons", i.e. punching or kicking.
In other words, it would make more sense to require every American to have a background check on their fists and feet than it would be to have a background check done for having a machine gun.
The number of corporations and trusts that are purchasing machine guns seem high, does it? 39,000!!! Yowsers!
....Um, not really, especially considering that most of the owners of machine guns are shooting ranges, who incorporate for legal purposes. Just how many shooting ranges are there? There's an estimated 18,000 in the United States, and that's indoor ranges alone.
So as Mari's firearms phobia worsens, who wants to guess who can do more harm to the most people? A nut with a machine gun, on the lose running through the streets, or a sociopath running an investment bank.
You know who you'd bet the house on, assuming your house is worth anything.
-- Modified on 8/31/2013 9:56:57 PM
Spades made the same argument and I responded by pointing out that when you have a weapon that kills so many people so fast good policy demands that you be proactive. Certainly if we followed your reasoning - machine guns have not killed many people YET- we wouldn't need those annoying and expensive security lines at the airport.
So you have added shooting ranges to the gun trusts and security firms to explain the 39000 number. Well that helps but this is one year number. We don't know if this is average or high or low from the link. But let's assume that 38000 of the transfer requests were legitimate and only 1000 were felons and terrorists. Still think we don't "need" this regulation?
As to your one man campaign against bankers, I'm really sorry they raised your ATM fees Willy but I really don't think that is a good analogy.