Posted: 5/14/2014 11:18:37 PM EDT [Last Edit: 4/23/2015 7:54:12 AM EDT by orpheus762x51]





Hollis v. Holder, Watson v. Holder



To donate to the legal fund, follow this link to the Heller Foundation:

https://hellerfoundation.org/donate-now/



This thread got the ball rolling on Hollis v. Holder, for current news and developments on the Post '86 Machine Gun Lawsuits, visit Nolo's thread:To donate to the legal fund, follow this link to the Heller Foundation:





////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////



Posted: 5/14/2014







Read about it here:



http://blog.princelaw.com/2014/05/14/did-atfs-determination-on-nics-checks-open-the-door-for-manufacture-of-new-machineguns-for-trusts/



I know it's a long shot, but this could have seriously implications.



ETA 5/15/14:



Here's a cover letter I typed up for anyone interested in submitting any Form 1s.



I think I covered everything, but I'm not a lawyer, so if any of you legal types want to chime in and add/edit anything, feel free.



Also, the cover letter references the ATF letter to Brandon Maddox, so it would be in your best interest to print a copy of it and send it in with this cover letter.



PDF of ATF letter













Attention: NFA Examiner

National Firearms Act Branch

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

244 Needy Road, Suite 1250

Martinsburg, WV 25405





According to the Firearms Industry Programs Branch letter dated March 17, 2014 to Brandon Maddox of BMaddox Enterprises LLC, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) holds that unincorporated trusts are not “persons” as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a) and the Gun Control Act (GCA).





18 U.S. Code § 921(a) provides:



(1) The term “person” and the term “whoever” include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.









ATF further clarifies the character of the law by stating the following in the letter to Mr. Maddox:



"ATF has interpreted the GCA exception in sections 922(t)(3)(B) and 478.102(d)(2) to mean that firearms transfers are exempt from a NICS check when they have been approved under the NFA to the person receiving the firearm. Unlike individuals, corporations, partnerships, and associations; unincorporated trusts do not fall within the definition of “person” in the GCA. "









Since ATF holds that an unincorporated trust is not a “person” under the GCA, the prohibition on the transfer or possession of machineguns as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(1) and 18 U.S. Code § 922(o) cannot apply to unincorporated trusts.





18 U.S. Code § 922(o) provides:



(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to–

(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.









Therefore, included with this letter is an Application to Make and Register a Firearm (ATF Form 1 (5320.1)) and the appropriate accompanying documents, in order to register and pay the applicable tax on the manufacture a machinegun, as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(23) and 26 U.S. Code § 5845(b), on behalf of (((TRUST NAME))) Trust.







Sincerely,



(((NAME))) , Trustee



(((TRUST NAME))) Trust











ETA: 5/21/14





The Firearm Blog ran an article on this a few days ago:



Prince Law Asserts: ATF Opens the Door for New Machine Guns in Trusts?













***Four months of Silence.***



***No one heard any new developments on this until September.***













ETA : 9/10/14





On



This thing is growing legs and will probably go to court. Stand by, because we will surely need contributions to a legal fund if it goes to court.



All things considered, this looks like a realistic opportunity at taking back out rights to Machine Guns. If this fight starts moving forward, it's going to take a monumental amount of commitment to see it through. Hold fast, everyone. We're going to need all hands on deck for this one.









ETA: 9/11/14





The audio of the ATF call on page 18 (thanks Jaqufrost):



Originally Posted By jaqufrost:

Audio is up. I'm not going to say I handled this phone call the best, but here it is.

http://youtu.be/4s9GKoxnGcM



Audio is up. I'm not going to say I handled this phone call the best, but here it is. View Quote











ETA: 9/12/14







FAQ - - for the tl;dr crowd

(Started by Undefined, edited by Orpheus762x51)





What’s happening?



1. ATF ruled that a trust is not a person as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a) and the Gun Control Act (GCA).

2. Since ATF holds that an unincorporated trust is not a “person” under the GCA, the prohibition on the transfer or possession of machineguns as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(1) and 18 U.S. Code § 922(o) cannot apply to unincorporated trusts.

3. Numerous (See Footnote #1) trustees submitted Form 1 applications to build new machine guns.

4. ATF approved the applications and sent out stamps (See Footnote #2).

5. On or around 9/10/14, ATF began calling trustees that received stamps demanding that they be returned, or in the case of eForms, updating their online status from Approved to Disapproved. Those that were called were told they had to return the stamp. (See Footnote #3 for audio of one such call)

6. Attorneys are working on it now...



Footnotes:

1. Current estimates put the number of trusts that applied somewhere in the low hundreds. Unfortunately, there is no 100% accurate count that is publicly available.

2. Some stamps were received as early as the first week of August 2014. Others have not been received yet.

3. Jaqufrost's call from the ATF:





















































Does this mean if I have a trust I can get Form 1s approved to build machine guns?



No. BATFE is no longer sending out approvals. Your application will be rejected.





Should I submit a Form 1 through a trust right now?



Yes. As of right now, the ATF is aware of what is going on with these Form 1s. Your submission will likely be rejected, however it would add you to a class of trustees who have standing against the ATF in the event of future legal action. Even though your Form 1 application will likely be denied, it would be helpful to submit a Form 1.





What should I do if I was one of the trustees that submitted a Form 1 and received approval?



Presto97sl summed it up pretty well (see below). I would add that you should contact NoloContendere via IM and at nolocontendere@ar15.com as he is a rally point right now for coordinating and tracking efforts on this issue.

Here is what Nolo wants, in this particular order:

1) if you received an approval and subsequent to that approval manufactured And then had a disapproval.

2) if you received an approval and then were denied.

3) if you filed a form 1 and were denied.



Originally Posted By Presto97sl:

Let me begin with I am an attorney.



Anyone who had one of these approved and then denied needs to do the following

1. Cut off any contact with the ATF directly regarding this issue until you have sought legal counsel.

2. Keep a copy of any information they mail to you, I would photo copy and hang onto everything.

3. Contact an attorney who specializes in this area of law.

4. DO NOT cash the check they are going to send you refunding your paid tax ( you may waive your rights by doing so). View Quote





What can the rest of us do to help?



1. Keep the thread bumped.

2. Submit a Form 1 to manufacture a machine gun through a trust.

3. Stand by.



Where can I send donations?



Nowhere, yet! There will be a time and place for that, but no one wants to start collecting money until we know how and where it will be spent. Plaintiffs are discussing options with attorneys right now. Attorneys are working on a plan right now. As soon as funding is needed, it will be requested (after getting Strykers approval). Until then, be patient.



So the OP has an approved Form 1 and a machine gun?



No. Orpheus762x51 started this thread and is keeping Arfcom updated on the situation. Jaqufrost did receive an approval on his Form 1, then the ATF subsequently demanded that it be returned. Undefined, NoloContendere, I_am_Dan, and a few others in this thread are just plain awesome.



How do I Submit a Form 1?



For paper Forms:



For eForms:











ETA: 9/13/14





The die has been cast on





Originally Posted By FlyingGorilla:





I've been informed that one of my gunsmith's customers (Mr Ground Zero) received his stamp and converted an AR in early August.



His lawyer has opined that the ATF is VERY CAREFULLY choosing their words as they contact those people that they have issued stamps to. His take is that they are trying to intimidate people into surrendering their stamps and any MGs that have been manufactured since those stamps were received. No words stating that the stamp holders MUST surrender were used in the audio recording posted here, it has merely been implied.



No certified letters have been received by Mr Ground Zero as is required by law when ATF ORDERS an FFL to surrender stamps or firearms. No other such official communications have taken place, either. Simply a phone call, which does not constitute an official communication. It sounds just like the telephone games IRS plays with people trying to entrap them into admitting to tax fraud.



This one individual has already contacted his congressman and is working to provide the information requested by the congressman's office to verify this complaint, which may be the prelude to congressional action on ATF making a policy change that required congressional action to be legal.



ATF is scurrying around trying to cover this mess up like a cat with diarrhea, and they are not doing a very good job of things as everything they've done has uncovered more shit they don't want exposed. View Quote





So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.

One of the first machine guns produced in civilian hands in nearly thirty years...

With ATF approval.







Yes. You heard right.





A machine gun.





Manufactured after 1986.





With ATF Form 1 approval.







Is in the WILD!!!











Also, this issue has been making it's way around the internet in the form of several articles in just a couple days:



The Firearm Blog: ATF Approves Post-86 Machine Gun Form 1



The Firearm Blog: BATFE Phone Call Asking For Return of Approved Trust Form 1



The Truth About Guns: ATF Just Approved the First New Civilian Machine Gun in 28 Years. By Accident.



NFA Gun Trust Lawyer Blog: ATF Approves some Form 1 to Make Machine Guns by a Gun Trust and then Rescinds the Approval



Prince Law Offices, P. C. : Did ATF Approve Your Making of a New Machinegun and Then Rescind It? Contact Us To Discuss













ETA: 9/15/14







A side note to anyone anticipating a "run" on auto parts:





***disclaimer***



This is NOT advice on what to do/aquire, this is only a brief insight that I have gained through my examination of ATF policy, manufacturer behavior, and the laws as written and interpreted.



/disclaimer





In the case of the AR15, BATFE considers a machine gun to be "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger" (taken from 26 USC 5845 (b)).



Now, there has been determination letters over the years that state anything from mere possession of auto parts is illegal possession of a machine gun, all the way up to it's not a machine gun unless it explicitly meets the definition in 26 USC 5845.



The safest play is not to mess with auto parts.



That being said, mechanically speaking, a M16 trigger assembly, by itself, will not make an AR15 fire automatically. You still need a sear and a M16 selector.



Whether or not that puts your rifle in the "readily restored/readily convertable" catagory, I have no idea. I know there was some case back in the 30's or 40's where BATFE essentially came out and said "if it can be made to fire full auto after 8 hours in a machine shop, it's readily convertable"



Some savvy machinists later demonstrated that a simple sub machine gun could be made from raw bar stock in less time, and everyone laughed at the ATF.



All that being said, there are examples out there of early Colt SP1s, pre AWB ARs, and others that essentially use all the M16 FCG parts, minus the sear and selector, and I don't see ATF hauling off the undoubtedly thousands of people who have rifles with that combination of parts.



Also, I know that when Geissele was making their commemorative John Noveske triggers, those were select fire

trigger groups. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that everyone who bought and used the Noveske SSF triggers either owns a pre-86 transferable or are committing a felony?



Negative Ghost Rider.



I have no idea how many people out there are using M16 trigger groups in their ARs, but I would be willing to say with confidence, the answer is "more than you think".



However, if you do like the dumb ass in Wisconsin and put a M16 trigger, BCG, and selector in your AR, go find some shitty ammo combination that makes it slam fire 3-5 round bursts, and then brag about it while shooting it at your local range.... better pepper your angus













ETA: 9/16/14





An excerpt from page 59, according to Nolo, it looks like this issue may have the potential to strike at the heart of the NFA:



Originally Posted By NoloContendere:

Originally Posted By Undefined:

Originally Posted By NoloContendere:

Originally Posted By Undefined:

If this holds up, ATF is going to go from a cost center to a net revenue generator pretty damned fast. View Quote



If the taxing stands. View Quote



Don't tease me.



I have waited my entire adult life to see a viable challenge of the Hughes Amendment. To even consider a challenge that takes on Miller and could take down the NFA is almost beyond my ability to imagine... that thought falls just beyond winning the Powerball and just ahead of science discovering a drug than grants immortality on my scale of extreme dreams. Don't tease me.I have waited my entire adult life to see a viable challenge of the Hughes Amendment. To even consider a challenge that takes on Miller and could take down the NFA is almost beyond my ability to imagine... that thought falls just beyond winning the Powerball and just ahead of science discovering a drug than grants immortality on my scale of extreme dreams. View Quote



I have spent a bunch of time researching and reviewing and speaking to various experts. A lawsuit will be filed. The case will not be quick. You will hear other attorneys gnashing their teeth about how we did something wrong, or didn't do it how they would do it. That's okay. Attorneys have different litigation strategies, and there is nothing wrong with that. I ask that everyone be patient. This is worth it, and it is worth taking the time to do it right. The complaint will include a challenge and attack on the entire NFA. This will not be a single issue case. View Quote





Be patient everyone. This is going to take time, money, and faith.







ETA 9/18/14:



According to NoloContendere on



Keep your heads high everyone, the ball is rolling.







ETA 10/7/14:



From



Originally Posted By NoloContendere:



Lawsuit #3 in the works. View Quote







ETA 10/10/14:





The legal team is now accepting donations!





http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk



Originally Posted By NoloContendere:

This fund-raising request has been approved by Striker. Please note that AR15.com is not involved in this, and if you have any questions regarding the fund-raising or anything else, please direct them to me.



http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk



My name is Stephen Stamboulieh. And I approve this message.



I am an attorney in Mississippi that has tirelessly worked to further our 2nd Amendment rights.



Now, my sights are set on 18 USC sec 922(o). This is known as the machinegun ban. I don't believe this is constitutional in light of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Likewise, the National Firearms Act ("NFA"), which taxes the making and transferring of Title II weapons (machineguns, suppressors, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, etc) is ripe to be attacked on Second Amendment grounds.



We have the avenue to attack both the machinegun ban and the NFA with the BATFE's recent approval of a number of Form 1s. I have a number of clients that I will be filing a lawsuit on behalf of to seek to overturn the ban and the NFA in different states.



This will be expensive. I am in the process of collecting donations to offset the legal fees in this case. If you are interested in assisting, please donate. No donation is too small. These lawsuits will be funded strictly off donations. Unlike the government, we do not have an unlimited war chest to fund this. That is where the grass roots come into play. We can do this, but we need your help!



All donations will be held in my lawyer trust account. As we work on the cases and "bill" time to the case, the trust account will be debited. If we get $10,000 in donations, and my fees/expenses total $50,000, then I will only be paid the $10,000. If we get $100,000 in donations, and my fees/expenses are $50,000, we will hold the funds in trust until such time as the appeals are exhausted (if necessary) or the remainder is donated to a Second Amendment rights group. It is important to know that I WILL NOT KEEP ANY UNEARNED DONATED FUNDS! Period. I doubt that will be an issue due to the breadth and number of cases, but I want to be upfront.



If you cannot donate, please keep us in your thoughts and prayers that we are successful in overturning the ban and the NFA, and that "the right to keep and bear arms" can continue to be restored through the courts.



Thank you,



Stephen Stamboulieh, Esq.



Disclaimer - Your donation does not create an attorney-client relationship with me or any other attorney I associate on these cases. You are donating to the lawsuits and not paying for legal advice. You should not consider information on this page to be an invitation for any attorney-client relationship. The content of this page does not convey legal, accounting, tax, career or other professional advice of any kind. You should not rely on the information as legal advice for any purpose as it may not reflect current legal developments. No person viewing this page should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information included on this page, and this page should not be relied upon or used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors.



My website is:

My email is stephen @ sdslaw.us





This fund-raising request has been approved by Striker. Please note that AR15.com is not involved in this, and if you have any questions regarding the fund-raising or anything else, please direct them to me.My name is Stephen Stamboulieh. And I approve this message.I am an attorney in Mississippi that has tirelessly worked to further our 2nd Amendment rights.Now, my sights are set on 18 USC sec 922(o). This is known as the machinegun ban. I don't believe this is constitutional in light of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Likewise, the National Firearms Act ("NFA"), which taxes the making and transferring of Title II weapons (machineguns, suppressors, short barrel rifles, short barrel shotguns, etc) is ripe to be attacked on Second Amendment grounds.We have the avenue to attack both the machinegun ban and the NFA with the BATFE's recent approval of a number of Form 1s. I have a number of clients that I will be filing a lawsuit on behalf of to seek to overturn the ban and the NFA in different states.This will be expensive. I am in the process of collecting donations to offset the legal fees in this case. If you are interested in assisting, please donate. No donation is too small. These lawsuits will be funded strictly off donations. Unlike the government, we do not have an unlimited war chest to fund this. That is where the grass roots come into play. We can do this, but we need your help!All donations will be held in my lawyer trust account. As we work on the cases and "bill" time to the case, the trust account will be debited. If we get $10,000 in donations, and my fees/expenses total $50,000, then I will only be paid the $10,000. If we get $100,000 in donations, and my fees/expenses are $50,000, we will hold the funds in trust until such time as the appeals are exhausted (if necessary) or the remainder is donated to a Second Amendment rights group. It is important to know that I WILL NOT KEEP ANY UNEARNED DONATED FUNDS! Period. I doubt that will be an issue due to the breadth and number of cases, but I want to be upfront.If you cannot donate, please keep us in your thoughts and prayers that we are successful in overturning the ban and the NFA, and that "the right to keep and bear arms" can continue to be restored through the courts.Thank you,Stephen Stamboulieh, Esq.Disclaimer - Your donation does not create an attorney-client relationship with me or any other attorney I associate on these cases. You are donating to the lawsuits and not paying for legal advice. You should not consider information on this page to be an invitation for any attorney-client relationship. The content of this page does not convey legal, accounting, tax, career or other professional advice of any kind. You should not rely on the information as legal advice for any purpose as it may not reflect current legal developments. No person viewing this page should act or refrain from acting on the basis of information included on this page, and this page should not be relied upon or used as a substitute for consultation with professional advisors.My website is: http://www.sdslaw.us My email is stephen @ sdslaw.us View Quote





Originally Posted By NoloContendere:

I completely left this out earlier. For anyone that wants to donate via check/MO, send it here:



Stamboulieh Law, PLLC

P.O.. Box 4008

Madison, MS 39130



Please write "NFA cases" on the check/MO.



If you would write your screen name on a separate piece of paper so I can thank you, that would be appreciated! View Quote









ETA 10/11/14:



NoloContendere's Freedom of Information Act request:





Originally Posted By NoloContendere:

https://www.scribd.com/doc/242584702/BATFE-FOIA-on-Machine-Guns

View Quote







ETA 10/14/14:





Today I started sharing the donation link on twitter.



#Stop922o

Take back our #2A right to machine guns! http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk?pc=tw_f_m











ETA 10/31/14: Last one out, get the lights!









NoloContendre has started a new thread on the lawsuit targeted at 922(o) here:



http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1681489_Hollis_v__Holder___Lawsuit_over_922_o___NFA_and_various_other_items.html&page=1





Gentlemen, it has been an honor and a pleasure posting with you over the past few months.



Regardless of the outcome, the reward, or where this journey will take us, know this: There is victory in our resolve.



Many doubt us, indeed many demonize us, but today we just fired a righteous shot across the bow of those who continue to restrict our liberty.



Onward to victory!





Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law' because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.



-Thomas Jefferson



I'll keep this short and sweet. This will be my last update to this thread.NoloContendre has started a new thread on the lawsuit targeted at 922(o) here:Gentlemen, it has been an honor and a pleasure posting with you over the past few months.Regardless of the outcome, the reward, or where this journey will take us, know this:Many doubt us, indeed many demonize us, but today we just fired a righteous shot across the bow of those who continue to restrict our liberty.Onward to victory! ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////Read about it here:I know it's a long shot, but this could have seriously implications.Here's a cover letter I typed up for anyone interested in submitting any Form 1s.I think I covered everything, but I'm not a lawyer, so if any of you legal types want to chime in and add/edit anything, feel free.Also, the cover letter references the ATF letter to Brandon Maddox, so it would be in your best interest to print a copy of it and send it in with this cover letter.Attention: NFA ExaminerNational Firearms Act BranchBureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives244 Needy Road, Suite 1250Martinsburg, WV 25405According to the Firearms Industry Programs Branch letter dated March 17, 2014 to Brandon Maddox of BMaddox Enterprises LLC, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) holds that unincorporated trusts are not “persons” as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a) and the Gun Control Act (GCA).18 U.S. Code § 921(a) provides:(1) The term “person” and the term “whoever” include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.ATF further clarifies the character of the law by stating the following in the letter to Mr. Maddox:"ATF has interpreted the GCA exception in sections 922(t)(3)(B) and 478.102(d)(2) to mean that firearms transfers are exempt from a NICS check when they have been approved under the NFAUnlike individuals, corporations, partnerships, and associations;Since ATF holds that an unincorporated trust is not a “person” under the GCA, the prohibition on the transfer or possession of machineguns as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(1) and 18 U.S. Code § 922(o) cannot apply to unincorporated trusts.18 U.S. Code § 922(o) provides:(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for anyto transfer or possess a machinegun.(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to–(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.Therefore, included with this letter is an Application to Make and Register a Firearm (ATF Form 1 (5320.1)) and the appropriate accompanying documents, in order to register and pay the applicable tax on the manufacture a machinegun, as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(23) and 26 U.S. Code § 5845(b), on behalf ofTrust.Sincerely,, TrusteeTrustThe Firearm Blog ran an article on this a few days ago:On Page 9 a Form 1 came back approved for a new Machine Gun. Jaqufrost was quickly contacted by the ATF saying he has to send back the stamp.This thing is growing legs and will probably go to court. Stand by, because we will surely need contributions to a legal fund if it goes to court.All things considered, this looks like a realistic opportunity at taking back out rights to Machine Guns. If this fight starts moving forward, it's going to take a monumental amount of commitment to see it through.The audio of the ATF call on page 18 (thanks Jaqufrost):(Started by Undefined, edited by Orpheus762x51)1. ATF ruled that a trust is not a person as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a) and the Gun Control Act (GCA).2. Since ATF holds that an unincorporated trust is not a “person” under the GCA, the prohibition on the transfer or possession of machineguns as defined by 18 U.S. Code § 921(a)(1) and 18 U.S. Code § 922(o) cannot apply to unincorporated trusts.3. Numerous (See Footnote #1) trustees submitted Form 1 applications to build new machine guns.4. ATF approved the applications and sent out stamps (See Footnote #2).5. On or around 9/10/14, ATF began calling trustees that received stamps demanding that they be returned, or in the case of eForms, updating their online status from Approved to Disapproved. Those that were called were told they had to return the stamp. (See Footnote #3 for audio of one such call)6. Attorneys are working on it now...Footnotes:1. Current estimates put the number of trusts that applied somewhere in the low hundreds. Unfortunately, there is no 100% accurate count that is publicly available.2. Some stamps were received as early as the first week of August 2014. Others have not been received yet.3. Jaqufrost's call from the ATF:No. BATFE is no longer sending out approvals. Your application will be rejected.As of right now, the ATF is aware of what is going on with these Form 1s. Your submission will likely be rejected, however it would add you to a class of trustees who have standing against the ATF in the event of future legal action. Even though your Form 1 application will likely be denied, it would be helpful to submit a Form 1.Presto97sl summed it up pretty well (see below). I would add that you should contact NoloContendere via IM and at nolocontendere@ar15.com as he is a rally point right now for coordinating and tracking efforts on this issue.Here is what Nolo wants, in this particular order:1) if you received an approval and subsequent to that approval manufactured And then had a disapproval.2) if you received an approval and then were denied.3) if you filed a form 1 and were denied.1. Keep the thread bumped.2. Submit a Form 1 to manufacture a machine gun through a trust.3. Stand by.Nowhere, yet! There will be a time and place for that, but no one wants to start collecting money until we know how and where it will be spent. Plaintiffs are discussing options with attorneys right now. Attorneys are working on a plan right now. As soon as funding is needed, it will be requested (after getting Strykers approval). Until then, be patient.No. Orpheus762x51 started this thread and is keeping Arfcom updated on the situation. Jaqufrost did receive an approval on his Form 1, then the ATF subsequently demanded that it be returned. Undefined, NoloContendere, I_am_Dan, and a few others in this thread are just plain awesome.For paper Forms: Complete Guide of how to complete a Form 1 For eForms: Visual guide: How to fill out a Form 1 using EFORMS The die has been cast on Page 36 So there you have it, ladies and gentlemen.One of the first machine guns produced in civilian hands in nearly thirty years...Yes. You heard right.Also, this issue has been making it's way around the internet in the form of several articles in just a couple days:A side note to anyone anticipating a "run" on auto parts:***disclaimer***This is NOT advice on what to do/aquire, this is only a brief insight that I have gained through my examination of ATF policy, manufacturer behavior, and the laws as written and interpreted./disclaimerIn the case of the AR15, BATFE considers a machine gun to be "any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger" (taken from 26 USC 5845 (b)).Now, there has been determination letters over the years that state anything from mere possession of auto parts is illegal possession of a machine gun, all the way up to it's not a machine gun unless it explicitly meets the definition in 26 USC 5845.That being said, mechanically speaking, a M16 trigger assembly, by itself, will not make an AR15 fire automatically. You still need a sear and a M16 selector.Whether or not that puts your rifle in the "readily restored/readily convertable" catagory, I have no idea. I know there was some case back in the 30's or 40's where BATFE essentially came out and said "if it can be made to fire full auto after 8 hours in a machine shop, it's readily convertable"Some savvy machinists later demonstrated that a simple sub machine gun could be made from raw bar stock in less time, and everyone laughed at the ATF.All that being said, there are examples out there of early Colt SP1s, pre AWB ARs, and others that essentially use all the M16 FCG parts, minus the sear and selector, and I don't see ATF hauling off the undoubtedly thousands of people who have rifles with that combination of parts.Also, I know that when Geissele was making their commemorative John Noveske triggers, those weretrigger groups. Are you going to tell me with a straight face that everyone who bought and used the Noveske SSF triggers either owns a pre-86 transferable or are committing a felony?Negative Ghost Rider.I have no idea how many people out there are using M16 trigger groups in their ARs, but I would be willing to say with confidence, the answer is "more than you think".However, if you do like the dumb ass in Wisconsin and put a M16 trigger, BCG, and selector in your AR, go find some shitty ammo combination that makes it slam fire 3-5 round bursts, and then brag about it while shooting it at your local range.... better pepper your angusBe patient everyone. This is going to take time, money, and faith.According to NoloContendere on page 66 , at least 2 lawsuits are in the works already.Keep your heads high everyone, the ball is rolling.From Page 82 NoloContendere's Freedom of Information Act request:Today I started sharing the donation link on twitter.#Stop922oTake back our #2A right to machine guns! http://www.gofundme.com/fmxlnk?pc=tw_f_m