Just had my WWII hero Dad's TRW M14NM retirement gift rifle confiscated by ATF
- Thread starter M14NM illegally seized
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
.png)
Do you have paperwork from the US government stating when/under whose authority ownership of that weapon was transferred to your father?
If you do, then there's the possibility the MG registry can be amended to include that rifle under your father's name since it was intentionally transferred to him by an official acting under authority of the federal government. NFA Branch has done that in the past for war souvenirs that have such documentation.
If he took possession of it in the 1970s that's well before the registry was closed in 1986.
If you do, then there's the possibility the MG registry can be amended to include that rifle under your father's name since it was intentionally transferred to him by an official acting under authority of the federal government. NFA Branch has done that in the past for war souvenirs that have such documentation.
If he took possession of it in the 1970s that's well before the registry was closed in 1986.
BATFE
Always
Think
Forfeiture
Expediently
Why would you ever think of selling such an item or alerting the ATF especially with the history and paperwork and court case info you had.
You keep that kinda stuff due to family history or donate to a proper museum. Never alert the most jackbooted organization in the government to anything. The live to phuck Americans.
Talk about autofornicating.
I hope you get it back and be sure to ask for attorney fees and any damages to the gun cause they will phuck it up. Just cause they can.
Always
Think
Forfeiture
Expediently
Why would you ever think of selling such an item or alerting the ATF especially with the history and paperwork and court case info you had.
You keep that kinda stuff due to family history or donate to a proper museum. Never alert the most jackbooted organization in the government to anything. The live to phuck Americans.
Talk about autofornicating.
I hope you get it back and be sure to ask for attorney fees and any damages to the gun cause they will phuck it up. Just cause they can.
Axxe55
Retiretgtshit stirrer
No updates from the OP that I can see.
While I would really like to see the OP prevail in this debacle of a government fiasco, perpetrated by bureaucratic federal agency that routinely changes it's mind on definitions of all things concerning firearms, the realistic part of my mind is that he won't.
I can clearly envision some bureaucrat flunky destroying the firearm out of spite even if the OP were to prevail in court and wind another one for the little guy. So even if he were to win, he could still end up losing. That is sad, and very unfortunate.
I do wish him the best of luck, and hope he gets the rifle returned, in an unmolested condition.
While I would really like to see the OP prevail in this debacle of a government fiasco, perpetrated by bureaucratic federal agency that routinely changes it's mind on definitions of all things concerning firearms, the realistic part of my mind is that he won't.
I can clearly envision some bureaucrat flunky destroying the firearm out of spite even if the OP were to prevail in court and wind another one for the little guy. So even if he were to win, he could still end up losing. That is sad, and very unfortunate.
I do wish him the best of luck, and hope he gets the rifle returned, in an unmolested condition.
Damn, this is a sad story. Wish the OP well in recovering the rifle, I get being strapped for cash, that's an heirloom gun I'd rather keep in the family and pass down if there's anyone to pass it on to, but I get being cash strapped. I think this makes reason 4,938,328 the ATF should be abolished and all gun laws stricken from the books.
Axxe55
Retiretgtshit stirrer
There are many reasons the ATF should be abolished, this just being another one.
I know I’m preaching to the choir here but…
(begin rant)
NFA 1934 is an unconstitutional abomination, and so is every gun control law since. As confirmed in US v Miller 1939 and corrected by DC v Heller 2008, suitability for military use is not a reason for making a firearm illegal or restricted. In fact it is a basis for specifically including military style firearms as part of the God-given right of the people protected by the second amendment.
To say a military firearm (“machine guns” included) is illegal or restricted and not protected by 2A is like saying printing presses are illegal because they are suitable for printing newspapers in high volume and therefore not protected by 1A. Or mega churches are illegal because they allow too many people to freely exercise their religion and therefore not protected by 1A. It’s backwards.
But y’all knew that already.
(rant over)
(begin rant)
NFA 1934 is an unconstitutional abomination, and so is every gun control law since. As confirmed in US v Miller 1939 and corrected by DC v Heller 2008, suitability for military use is not a reason for making a firearm illegal or restricted. In fact it is a basis for specifically including military style firearms as part of the God-given right of the people protected by the second amendment.
To say a military firearm (“machine guns” included) is illegal or restricted and not protected by 2A is like saying printing presses are illegal because they are suitable for printing newspapers in high volume and therefore not protected by 1A. Or mega churches are illegal because they allow too many people to freely exercise their religion and therefore not protected by 1A. It’s backwards.
But y’all knew that already.
(rant over)
Emphasis mine.
I'm always surprised when I find someone who has actually read US v Miller. That ruling, that ostensibly upheld the NFA, is very, very clear in its reasoning. It provides the blueprint to overturn the NFA.
Miller dealt with a sawed-off shotgun and the court upheld the NFA on the basis that no one had shown in court that a sawed-off shotgun was a valid militia/military weapon. If such had been shown, the NFA would have failed.
Why was no court shown pictures of a "trench broom" in use during WWI? I think it pretty much boils down to the fact that Miller's counsel was incompetent or absent, as was Miller himself in the later stages.
The language of the decision can actually be read as the author begging someone to do a competent job of showing that sawed-off shotguns (and, by extension, machine guns) are valid weapons of war so that they could overturn the NFA.
Why no one took up that challenge before 1968, I don't know. After the 68 GCA, the whole mess just seems like it was too complex and entrenched for someone to clean up and no one has bothered to strike at the root of the problem, the NFA. Some people have done some good work around the edges; the Thompson Center case comes to mind. But no one has tried (that I know of; educate me if I'm ignorant) to simply walk around the 68 GCA and directly attack the NFA, using the blueprint provided by SCOTUS.
Damn shame, that is.
Good points. I wasn’t sure how to respond but eventually decided I couldn’t do better than Justice Scalia’s words in the Heller decision (I don’t think there’s a copyright issue with this since it’s public information; sorry if I’m mistaken):
“It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment. JUSTICE STEVENS claims, post, at 42, that the opinion reached its conclusion "[a]fter reviewing many of the same sources that are discussed at greater length by the Court today." Not many, which was not entirely the Court's fault. The respondent made no appearance in the case, neither filing a brief nor appearing at oral argument; the Court heard from no one but the Government (reason enough, one would think, not to make that case the beginning and the end of this Court's consideration of the Second Amendment). See Frye, The Peculiar Story of United States v. Miller, 3 N. Y. U. J. L. & Liberty 48, 65-68 (2008). The Government's brief spent two pages discussing English legal sources, concluding "that at least the carrying of weapons without lawful occasion or excuse was always a crime" and that (because of the class-based restrictions and the prohibition on terrorizing people with dangerous or unusual weapons) "the early English law did not guarantee an unrestricted right to bear arms." Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, at 9-11. It then went on to rely primarily on the discussion of the English right to bear arms in Aymettev. State, 21 Tenn. 154, for the proposition that the only uses of arms protected by the Second Amendment are those that relate to the militia, not self-defense. See Brief for United States, O. T. 1938, No. 696, at 12-18. The final section of the brief recognized that "some courts have said that the right to bear arms includes the right of the individual to have them for the protection of his person and property," and launched an alternative argument that "weapons which are commonly used by criminals," such as sawed-off shotguns, are not protected. See id., at 18-21. The Government's Miller brief thus provided scant discussion of the history of the Second Amendment--and the Court was presented with no counterdiscussion. As for the text of the Court's opinion itself, that discusses none of the history of the Second Amendment. It assumes from the prologue that the Amendment was designed to preserve the militia, 307 U. S., at 178 (which we do not dispute), and then reviews some historical materials dealing with the nature of the militia, and in particular with the nature of the arms their members were expected to possess, id., at 178-182. Not a word (not a word) about the history of the Second Amendment. This is the mighty rock upon which the dissent rests its case.24
“We may as well consider at this point (for we will have to consider eventually) what types of weapons Miller permits. Read in isolation, Miller's phrase "part of ordinary military equipment" could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act's restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939. We think that Miller's "ordinary military equipment" language must be read in tandem with what comes after: "[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms "in common use at the time" for lawful purposes like self-defense. "In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same." State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P. 2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6-15, 252-254 (1973)). Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment's operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns. That accords with the historical understanding of the scope of the right, see Part III, infra.”
A couple of points then:
1. All that was needed was for Miller’s defense to have proven that short barreled shotguns had a military/militia use, and he would probably have won.
2. He almost says that machine guns are not protected by the second amendment because they are not in lawful use for other purposes. He then later confirms this position:
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service--M-16 rifles and the like--may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
And here I think he may be even too much of an originalist—but I think more likely he was simply trying to accommodate the court’s previous opinion in Miller. In my opinion infringement is infringement.
Heller is a useful illustration of how even theoretically 2A-favorable decisions can include unwarranted "gotchas".
Yep. That's the plain English reading of Miller. It's perfectly obvious to anyone who simply reads the words.
Yet Scalia goes on to say...
...and then opine that full auto isn't in common use and, therefore, may remain prohibited under the NFA.
Nobody's guns are in common use, depending on how you want to interpret that phrase. My guns don't get used every day. Does that disqualify them from "common use"? I've used full-auto firearms many more times than, apparently, Scalia has. I consider them common enough; I just think Scalia doesn't have the right friends with enough tax stamps. His argument is like saying that a Ferrari isn't a car because you don't see them on every commute to work; it's just stretching things too far.
When the 2A was written, Puckle guns weren't common but they would have been known to the authors and no one can realistically argue that they weren't protected at that time.
Yet the Heller decision, for all the good it did, breaks that simple logic.
Wild speculation: It seems political to me. Scalia goes off the topic when writing Heller; the case wasn't even about the NFA yet he felt the need to affirm the constitutionality of the NFA. He actually justifies his "but we're not saying machine guns might be legal" tangent by starting with the words "We may as well..." WTF? Since when does SCOTUS, famous for writing very narrow decisions that frustratingly fail to address key issues, just decide to throw in some extra language to say "Oh, yeah, and this other law that we're not talking about, that's not the subject of this case...it passes constitutional muster, too"?
I can only speculate that if the Heller language (unnecessarily, almost parenthetically) defining "common use" had not excluded machine guns the majority of justices (or at least Scalia) were afraid that there would be a legislative backlash that might have more fundamentally, existentially threatened the 2A.
Yep. That's the plain English reading of Miller. It's perfectly obvious to anyone who simply reads the words.
Yet Scalia goes on to say...
...and then opine that full auto isn't in common use and, therefore, may remain prohibited under the NFA.
Nobody's guns are in common use, depending on how you want to interpret that phrase. My guns don't get used every day. Does that disqualify them from "common use"? I've used full-auto firearms many more times than, apparently, Scalia has. I consider them common enough; I just think Scalia doesn't have the right friends with enough tax stamps. His argument is like saying that a Ferrari isn't a car because you don't see them on every commute to work; it's just stretching things too far.
When the 2A was written, Puckle guns weren't common but they would have been known to the authors and no one can realistically argue that they weren't protected at that time.
Yet the Heller decision, for all the good it did, breaks that simple logic.
Wild speculation: It seems political to me. Scalia goes off the topic when writing Heller; the case wasn't even about the NFA yet he felt the need to affirm the constitutionality of the NFA. He actually justifies his "but we're not saying machine guns might be legal" tangent by starting with the words "We may as well..." WTF? Since when does SCOTUS, famous for writing very narrow decisions that frustratingly fail to address key issues, just decide to throw in some extra language to say "Oh, yeah, and this other law that we're not talking about, that's not the subject of this case...it passes constitutional muster, too"?
I can only speculate that if the Heller language (unnecessarily, almost parenthetically) defining "common use" had not excluded machine guns the majority of justices (or at least Scalia) were afraid that there would be a legislative backlash that might have more fundamentally, existentially threatened the 2A.
From the OP....
"My brother died of covid earlier this year and I got the TRW M14NM. My attorney advised me to notify ATF so there would be no doubt of the legality of it.
I notified them on May 19. I felt that even if they ruled it was a machine gun I would be best off if I had an 07 FFL so I applied, was interviewed and got it in the mail on Saturday 8/23. I sent ATF an email that day. FIRST THING MONDAY AFTER A FOUR MONTH WAIT:"
So we will file that under worst legal advice ever given.
No need in Texas to ever notify anybody about a S/A Rifle xfer.
Not sure why you would think it would be ruled a MG, well unless you already knew it was a MG.
Then you get an 07 thinking that allows you to own a contraband MG?
The Fail Train is full on this one.
Dream on! BATFE has no problems destroying history! IIRC one of the belt feeds Sgt. York captured almost got destroyed!
Thank you and your family for their service to our country. What they are putting you through is wrong in so many ways!
l am not computer literate enough to do it for you but you need to set up a Go Fund Me page to pay for your legal bills. If you can get one set up, post the details here on TGT and I’ll pony up some $’s to help.
l am not computer literate enough to do it for you but you need to set up a Go Fund Me page to pay for your legal bills. If you can get one set up, post the details here on TGT and I’ll pony up some $’s to help.
Members online
- webb971
- pupjoint
- TxStetson
- DoubleDuty
- reddog
- 10-96inTexas
- Army 1911
- kbaxter60
- festering
- Geezer
- cfish1963
- TNHoosier
- wiredgeorge
- Lead Belly
- WT_Foxtrot
- leVieux
- OutlawStar
- Dakar34
- DaBull
- Wmb556
- skfullgun
- jetcycles
- brashears9567
- crystalphoto
- xkon
- RickLovesBacon
- Lunyfringe
- TX LR308
- eyefold
- ZX9RCAM
- Neat57
- TicToc26
- vmax
- Txdweeb
- Coop's Dad
- randomthought
- Buffalo Bob
- Double Naught Spy
- myroverleaks
- uilim
- Saguy46
- agg1
- Mescobarrpls
- Hoji
- texcross
- shooter60
- pbratton
- texas.270
- McCrapper
- billtool
