What to do if you find a machinegun in the attic

An SOT on Arfcom documented this, and it's informative.

Maybe my second career should be law, specifically firearms law....

Cryptocurrency Regulation

FinCEN apparently has a broader definition of a money services business than the state of Minnesota.  From the former:

  (uu) Money services business. Each agent, agency, branch, or office within the United States of any person doing business, whether or not on a regular basis or as an organized business concern, in one or more of the capacities listed in paragraphs (uu)(1) through (uu)(6) of this section. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, the term ‘‘money services business’’ shall not include a bank, nor shall it include a person registered with, and regulated or examined by, the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.
  (1) Currency dealer or exchanger. A currency dealer or exchanger (other than a person who does not exchange currency in an amount greater than $1,000 in currency or monetary or other instruments for any person on any day in one or more transactions).
  (2) Check casher. A person engaged in the business of a check casher (other than a person who does not cash checks in an amount greater than $1,000 in currency or monetary or other instruments for any person on any day in one or more transactions).
  (3) Issuer of traveler’s checks, money orders, or stored value. An issuer of traveler’s checks, money orders, or, stored value (other than a person who does not issue such checks or money orders or stored value in an amount greater than $1,000 in currency or monetary or other instruments to any person on any day in one or more transactions).
  (4) Seller or redeemer of traveler’s checks, money orders, or stored value. A <15>seller or redeemer of traveler’s checks, money orders, or stored value (other than a person who does not sell such checks or money orders or stored value in an amount greater than $1,000 in currency or monetary or other instruments to or redeem such instruments for an amount greater than $1,000 in currency or monetary or other instruments from, any person on any day in one or more transactions).
  (5) Money transmitter—(i) In general. Money transmitter:
  (A) Any person, whether or not licensed or required to be licensed, who engages as a business in accepting currency, or funds denominated in currency, and transmits the currency or funds, or the value of the currency or funds, by any means through a financial agency or institution, a Federal Reserve Bank or other facility of one or more Federal Reserve Banks, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or both, or an electronic funds transfer network; or
  (B) Any other person engaged as a business in the transfer of funds.
  (ii) Facts and circumstances; Limitation. Whether a person ‘‘engages as a business’’ in the activities described in paragraph (uu)(5)(i) of this section is a matter of facts and circumstances. Generally, the acceptance and transmission of funds as an integral part of the execution and settlement of a transaction other than the funds transmission itself (for example, in connection with a bona fide sale of securities or other property), will not cause a person to be a money transmitter within the meaning of paragraph (uu)(5)(i) of this section.
  (6) United States Postal Service. The United States Postal Service, except with respect to the sale of postage or philatelic products.

From the latter:

The Minnesota Department of Commerce licenses and regulates individuals and businesses that cash checks, transmit money, own and operate ATMs, and provide electronic funds transfers.

The MN license is $4k.  Didn't see a price on the FinCEN one.

Yet Another Link Dump

Hell, I have too many tabs open on my phone!!

• Mike Longo Trio, Only Time Will Tell -- I don't recall why I had this open....
• Raynor DuraGrille security grille -- I think I was looking for roll-up shutters for house security; or perhaps it was for a shed?
• Joel Anderson's World Coins -- WWII silver
• Isabel Leonard -- operatic beauty
• Setting up a Go-To AR-15 -- for a car gun?
• Odd Squad soundtrack Stop the Music
• Minnesota Judicial Branch Case Records site
• Norah Jones On Piano Jazz -- nice NPR session with Marian McPartland
• For All We Know lyrics -- from the above Norah Jones set

Actually, this is only a third of them, but it gets unwieldy with too many links....

FFL-Related

Link dump regarding FFLs.

• Minnesota Statute on firearms dealers: 624.7161
• Also relevant: legislative research on state firearms laws, circa 1999
• Minnesota Administrative Rules 7504 regarding security standards for firearms dealers
• Olmsted Planning Department; one would be wise to check
• Getting a home-based FFL, in four parts, from TFB.
• Department of State list of who must register with DDTC for manufacturing munitions list articles
• Tax and Trade Bureau's FAQ on the firearms excise tax
• ATF Ruling 2010-10 regarding what constitutes a manufacturer

There are a lot of ins and outs, but experienced legal advice is hard to get.

Joseph Olson & GOCRA

The lawyer I spoke with got her degree from Hamline University, and she mentioned that one of her professors was a Joe Olson, who she described as a big 2nd Amendment guy.  The name sounded familiar, like he was involved with the Permit to Carry law passing.  Well, I found his bio on the Hamline site, and he's got an impressive list of publications, including several with Clayton Cramer and David Kopel.

Furthermore, he founded GOCRA in 1989.  GOCRA was instrumental in passing the permit to carry law, as well as legalizing suppressors in 2015.  Prof. Olson stepped down as president of GOCRA in 2013, turning over the reigns to Andrew Rothman.

Firearms Laws

I loaned my copy of the ATF law book to my trust lawyer, and I realized I wanted to look up something.  Oops.  Well, it turns out that the guide is available in PDF, but picking out the individual constituent documents is useful too.

According to the National Archives, when a bill is signed into law, it's assigned a Public Law number, published as a Slip Law, and is included in the next Statutes at Large.

National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA34, Title II) [Wikipedia]

Public Law 73-474

Statutes at Large 48 Stat. 1236 [legislink]

26 USC 53 [GPO]

27 CFR 479 [GPO]

Destructive Devices weren't included in the text of the NFA, only MGs, SBRs, SBSes, and AOWs.  The SCOTUS case Haynes v. U.S. [Wikipedia] [Justia] essentially said that a person couldn't be compelled to register an NFA item because it could be incriminating based on the 5th Amendment, but this was remedied by the passage of GCA68.  (The case was decided Jan. 29, 1968, and GCA68 was passed Oct. 22, 1968.)  The effects of GCA68 on NFA34 are described in a document from the ATF.

Amusingly, the other legal challenge to NFA34, U.S. v. Miller [Wikipedia] [Justia] [LII] [rkba.org], was predicated on that a sawed-off shotgun isn't a militia weapon, and therefore wasn't protected under the 2nd Amendment.  This was patently false, since SBS "trench guns" were in fact used in World War I; unfortunately, the defendant didn't show up, due to being deceased, and the assertion was uncontested.  However, GCA68 reversed that line of assertion, in proclaiming that items without a sporting use are not protected.

Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA68, Title I) [Wikipedia] [GPO]

Public Law 90-618

Statutes at Large 82 Stat. 1213-2 [legislink]

18 USC 44 [GPO]

27 CFR 478 [GPO]

The Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 [Wikipedia] slightly predates GCA68, and prohibited inter-state trade in handguns.

The Wikipedia list of gun laws in the U.S. shows a bunch of other legal noise, too.

ATF NFA FAQ

Bardwell's NFA FAQ

Re the Pittman-Robertson Wildlife Restoration Act of 1937 that imposed an excise tax on firearms and ammunition: CRS 7-5700.

Suppressors

Holy hell, it happened!  Minnesota legalized sound suppressors!!  As per SF 878 / HF 849.  May 22nd was a beautiful day.

There's going to be one helluva backlog, though.  According to NFATracker.com, the Form 4 wait times are in the realm of 3 months from the time the check is cashed.  According to SilencerShop.com, the Form 4 wait times are at 4 months for trusts, and 6-8 months for individuals.  And that's after the Form 3 transfer between dealers!

The ATF isn't accepting e-file for Form 4 (transfer of NFA firearm) submissions, but they are for Form 1 (making NFA firearm).  Hence some people are recommending using a kit to build one's own for minimum wait time.  SD Tactical Arms makes one such kit, as detailed on ar15news.com.

Net Neutrality Noise

Well, this has been open in my browser since...February.  Time to dump it into here.

The Daily Caller had an article against NN that linked to Ajit Pai's dissenting statement and has a video with some remarks.  The FCC's "Open Internet" (a misnomer if I ever saw one, considering government regulation) page has some of the other remarks as well.

Of course I don't agree with the co-opted version of network neutrality (distinguished in uppercase) because it inserts government into something that's supposed to be open.  That ought to cause cognitive dissonance in anyone with a brain.  The prior net neutrality was to avoid such interference, and then the FCC picked up the name and changed what it meant.  Brilliant.  And people are stupid, so they fell for it.  Ah well.

Massive Link Dump

This is one dump sitting in my browser that needed to be taken.

A video of Alan Gura's comments on 2A rights, post-Newtown.

6 Harsh Truths That Will Make You a Better Person, a profanity-laced tirade that actually will make one a better person:

#6. The World Only Cares About What It Can Get from You (Skills, which lead to results, are everything)
#5. The Hippies Were Wrong ("If you want to work here, close"--your job is who you are)
#4. What You Produce Does Not Have to Make Money, But It Does Have to Benefit People
#3. You Hate Yourself Because You Don't Do Anything (Self-loathing originates from uselessness)
#2. What You Are Inside Only Matters Because of What It Makes You Do (History remembers deeds, not potential to do deeds)
#1. Everything Inside You Will Fight Improvement (Happiness takes effort)

In the comments of one forum thread was a stupid gun-control rant that did have one interesting point about having unrestricted weapons use at ranges.

In most discussions about gun control, the pro-gun advocates like to pretend a technical superiority, which they believe entitles them to decide the issue. They know the jargon, they understand the mechanical design, they're really into ballistics and product specifications, and they believe this somehow makes their opinion more informed, and therefore correct.

Hi. I'm a gun nerd, from a time when "nerd" meant something. I'm intensely interested in the history, design, and application of firearms. I spend an inordinate amount of my time going through formal and informal studies of various small arms and munitions. That includes their effects on society. I now firmly, irrevocably, believe in gun control.

These are some ideas for effective regulation and legislation based on technical and practical and psychological criteria, and refutations for common pro-gun arguments:

The most stupid pro-gun argument is that the press and gun control advocates mistake "automatic" with "semi-automatic." In gun-enthusiast jargon, "automatic" means the firearm will fire for as long as the trigger is pulled, like a machine gun, and "semi-automatic" means the gun will fie as fast as the trigger is pulled. So, when people describe a Glock as an automatic, the gun-nuts will scoff, as "automatic" firearms are already illegal save for those with very specialized licenses.

Well, they're wrong - the technical term for any self-loading weapon, that is, a weapon that ejects the spent round and loads a new round from a magazine or clip using energy from firing the weapon, is "automatic." Full automatic or semi automatic weapons are both automatic. Take this simple test - ask them if a Glock is a revolver or automatic. They will instinctually, without hesitation, tell you that a Glock is an automatic pistol… regardless of whether or not it has a full-auto mode or not. (It doesn't in the US.)

More, the real problem is semi-automatic weapons. You can't hit shit with a pistol or assault rifle set to full automatic.

The technology that enables mass murder, more than anything else, are high-capacity magazines. It allows the murderer to keep shooting and shooting and shooting and shooting. You can purchase a 33 round magazine for a 9mm Glock autopistol. You can point-and-shoot 33 times before needing to reload… and you reload by ejecting the spent magazine with a single button, and sliding in another 33 round magazine. Under heavy stress, maybe a 10 second operation, if you fumble a bit.

So. Here's a 5 point proposal that is simple, incremental, and respectful of hobbyists who spent thousands of dollars on murder/suicide machines instead of a bass boat or cruise on the Mediterranean or something.

1) Ban on the sale or manufacture of any magazine or clip larger than 6 rounds, for rifles and pistols. You can own them, you just can't buy or sell them anymore. This is enough, as the Amok in America prefer to buy new equipment at retail prices.

2) Ban the manufacture or sale of any other repeating firearm with a capacity larger than four rounds. If you can't take the turkey with four rounds, it wasn't meant to be.

3) Limit the sale of ammunition. You can buy four rounds a week, heavily taxed, and after a month, can only buy more when you bring back the brass. For those who like to load their own ammo, this means they're limited to 16 casings. This restriction is completely lifted for those shooting at registered and licensed gun ranges… shoot as much as you like. No taxes, either! Load as much as you like… so long as it stays at the range.

4) If you want to keep a gun at home, even a .22LR bolt action, a police officer will come to inspect how you're keeping it twice a year, and you will pay the police for this service. If you're being stupid about gun safety, you will be fined, and your license to own a gun revoked. If you want to keep a M2 heavy machine gun or any other firearm at the range… this is permitted, and cheaply. No tax, and the range deals with all of the inspections. Also, you need to pay a tax on the guns at home that covers the social cost of gun ownership in your community... no tax if you keep the gun at the range. The range needs to immediately report to the police if someone takes a gun off-site for any reason, legal or not.

5) Private gun sales need to be registered, just like auto sales. If you sell your gun to someone, and you don't register the sale after a background check, you get to keep paying the gun tax on it, and when the cops show up to see how you're storing it, and it's not there, you will go to jail. If your gun was stolen and used in a crime, and you were negligent in its storage, you will go to jail, and be on the hook for civil damages.

These points allow enthusiasts to keep shooting and hunting, and the living to keep breathing.

I don't believe for a second that this jackass actually knows much about guns.  He fails to notice the obvious point that it's not impossible to manufacture guns or ammunition at home, none of which would be registered.  But Big Government liberals are fucking stupid and don't think things through.  If I had a place to shoot it, though, it'd be neat to have a Ma Deuce....

From Jen, an article on where the GOP goes from here.

A blurb from the Republican Liberty Caucus of Minnesota about DMC.

Comparisons by "Food Babe" of junk food in the U.S. versus the version overseas--the U.S. versions have more crap in them!

Some composting tips...I need 'em....

Comparison of cross-platform VMs on Wikipedia (?!)

Anti-Gun Madness

A WSJ article on the President's gun control remarks, a transcript of the speech, and the White House's press release via WaPo.

Reagan was for the AWB.  A deceptive poll claiming that most NRA members are for universal background checks (who was polled? how many were polled? what's the margin of error?).  Salon published a shitty article, as expected, last year on "gun owners vs. the NRA".

Medications have been linked to these crazy shootings.

Link Dump, 2013.01.09

These have been sitting in my reader for a bit....

Roberts's Real Long Game?
The Permanent Militarization of America
The Power of Negative Thinking

And more recently:
Ten gun bills on Congress's first day

Proposed AWB Renewal

Several days ago, a shooting buddy forwarded a link to the latest toilet-paper bill from psychotic bitch Dianne Feinstein coming down the (shit) pipe when Congress convenes in January.  Basically, it bans the sale, importation, manufacturing, and transfer of most semi-automatic rifles and handguns, and requires grandfathered firearms to be registered under NFA.  (I'm assuming there's an exemption for production of such items for LEO/MIL, otherwise where would they get their gear.)  However, it would appear from the summary that since the transfer is prohibited, unlike current Title II firearms, once the registered owner passes, the registered Title I firearm would then be surrendered to the government.

I don't seriously think that this atrocity will pass—if it does, we're talking civil war.  What I think it's set up to do is attempt to distract the public from the watered-down version that will eventually pass.  It's twisted that something like this would even be proposed, though.

Post Sandy Hook

Some comments regarding the aftermath of Sandy Hook made on FB:

Now that more details are out.... Unlike the Aurora shooting, this wasn't a case of a looney being able to buy firearms legally--he killed his mother and stole her guns. As such, there's no way additional purchase checks would've helped, because his mother was a legal owner. The shooter was not of legal age to purchase any of those weapons. (One post I saw claimed that the shooter broke 40-some laws in the commission of the massacre. What he did was already illegal.) Well, in my case, if someone were to break into my home and kill me, all my guns are locked up--except for the one I carry. I'm curious as to whether the shooter's mother had her stuff locked, but after her son shot her, he could get access via key (or perhaps he knew the combination if that sort of lock).

I wasn't talking about suppressing discourse. I was talking about 1) not using the terrible incident to push a political agenda before the victims were buried, and 2) we didn't know all the details. What's up with all the inaccuracies in the media? The shooter was the younger brother, not the older one; the mother was killed at home, not at the school; and reports said the kid used handguns as the primary weapon, when it was really an AR-15. How the hell are people supposed to have meaningful discussion if they don't even have the facts right?

Note also that hating on "military-grade assault weapons" is pure spin. First of all, Mexico has a ban on civilian ownership of "military" calibers, and how's that working out for them so far? (Hint: It's not. It doesn't help when they've got so many crooked cops and soldiers, though.) Almost all of my guns are of military calibers: 9mm, .45ACP, 12ga, 5.56 NATO, 7.62 NATO, .30-06, etc. How about the "police caliber", .40S&W? Several non-semi-automatic ("assault weapon" is a bullshit term made up by hoplophobes) firearms I have are of former Eastern bloc military calibers: 7.62x38R, 7.62x54R, etc. The only non-military cartridges I use are .22LR and 20ga. So that's what you'd be comfortable leaving gun owners with?

Note also that .223 (5.56 NATO) is a fairly weak cartridge, despite its use by our military. Most hunting calibers have more power than this: .243, .22-250, etc. Many hunting calibers can pierce soft body armor (up to Level IIIA). So the end game of the hoplophobes is that all guns have to go, no exceptions. And the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting or sporting uses: it's about giving the government pause when thinking about subjugating the governed, and in order to do that, citizens must be able to own "military-grade" weapons. Some scoff at that, but consider that the hoplophobes are still reluctant to push through the kind of anti-gun legislation that you're suggesting--they know that it would result in a lot of bloodshed (the CCRKBA popularized the slogan that Charlton Heston later repeated, ending in "from my cold, dead hands"). And even if they do wipe us all out, we'll make them feel it, and the poor sons of bitches who didn't stand up for themselves will finally get the government that they deserve.

That's not to say that I don't think anything should be done in light of the shooting, or that the discussions regarding gun ownership shouldn't be had. I think it's just too easy for some people to take the easy way out intellectually and go for tried and failed policies.

There were two responses, one linking to an article pointing out that the NRA always says in response to a shooting that now is not the time for discussions of gun legislation, and another linking to a comment on an article that makes a proposal regarding dealing with gun ownership. But holy crap, all the AR-15 lower receivers online are sold out, everywhere....

Random Comment

GCA68 was partly racially motivated: the Black Panthers were unabashedly armed. The cover for passing that law was the assassinations of JFK and MLK, and people supported it based on emotion alone.

Never mind that anyone with basic handyman skills could build a black-powder zip gun and knock off any politician he can get within 10 yds of. Knocking off one person with a homemade gun is easy; resisting Brownshirts is another matter. And like most laws, the GCA only applies to people who follow the law, unless you enforce it with the threat of deadly force.

Suppressors in Minnesota, Part 2

Previously I noted that suppressors are now legal for firearm dealers, importers, and manufacturers in Minnesota to possess.  The text of the law, from §609.66:

(c) Notwithstanding subdivision 1a, paragraph (a), clause (1), a person who is licensed by the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives under United States Code, title 18, section 923, as a firearms importer, manufacturer, or dealer, who is acting in full compliance with all federal requirements under that license, may possess devices designed to silence or muffle the discharge of a firearm for the purpose of selling or otherwise transferring in any lawful manner the devices or firearms tested with the devices, to:

(1) the chief administrator of any federal, state, or local governmental agency;

(2) the commander or commander's designee of any unit of the United States Armed Forces; or

(3) a person who is licensed by the United States Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, under United States Code, title 18, section 923, as a firearms importer, manufacturer, or dealer, who is acting in full compliance with all federal requirements under that license.

The revision is documented as H.F. No. 1816, signed into law on April 18, 2012, and taking effect on August 1, 2012.

EIEI-EO

While I'm dumping links, here's an Executive Order, dated July 6, 2012, issued by President Obama regarding "National Security and Emergency Preparedness (NS/EP)".  What number is this?  Did they stop numbering them so we don't know how many there are?

Precedent for Birthright Citizenship

For whatever reason, I came across the Wikipedia entry for the 1898 Supreme Court case, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, that set the precedent for birthright citizenship in the U.S.  It's useful to read about the history prior to having debates on the subject, since most people don't bother to get informed prior to opening their mouths!

Cannons for Everyone

From NC Gun Blog, a little reading between the lines in the Constitution shows that private ownership of cannons were intended!  To wit:

What’s going to be really interesting is when he’s presented with the historical information about crew served weapons. He thinks that cannons are not covered. He’s going to be shocked when he learns that at the founding of this country to well past the writing of the Constitution, cannons and warships were privately owned. In fact, we can prove that the writers of the Constitution considered cannon and warship ownership by private citizens to be normal.

[Congress shall have Power...] To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

We don’t issue Letters of Marque anymore. While we are not a signatory to the treaty forbidding them, we generally follow that treaty. What is a letter of Marque? It’s basically an official commission from the government for a private person to attack enemy shipping without being branded a pirate. What do you think that a person would have to have in order to attack enemy ships with? You guessed it, a ship, armed with weapons appropriate to naval combat.

So there you have it. The very text of the Constitution tells us that it was not considered wrong for private citizens to own a ship nor to fill that ship with cannons.

Makes it pretty tough to argue that the Government has the power to prevent people from having cannons without running afoul of the Second Amendment, doesn’t it.

I'm all for it!

In a Christian Science Monitor article about America's "gun culture", reference is made to an essay that suggests that with the 2A, the notion of civic engagement implies that people ought to "participate in . . . law enforcement and defense of liberty":

The pro-gun movement has been expanding ever since, aided in part by favorable legal rulings and writings. In 1989, Mr. Levinson, the Texas law professor, wrote a notable essay in the Yale Law Review in which he suggested that citizen participation in government might extend to the Second Amendment.

Levinson looked specifically at whether "ordinary citizens [should] participate in the process of law enforcement and defense of liberty rather than rely on professionalized peacekeepers, whether we call them standing armies or police." Gun rights activists consider it a hinge moment in the gun debate, since it marked one of the first such dissections of the Second Amendment by a liberal legal scholar.

That's quite a notion, especially for a liberal scholar (as the article notes).  Sounds right to me—there haven't always been so many professional LEOs running around.  The essay, entitled The Embarrassing Second Amendment, is available online.

Link Dump

Some links that have been sitting in my tabs since last November....

• An opinion piece regarding the decision to bomb Japan in WWII.
• Detail on presidential candidate spending.
• How to browse securely on public WiFi.
• An opinion piece on why Ron Paul can't win; I don't agree, but the perceptions about his foreign policy seem to be a real issue with people who would otherwise support him.
• Harvey Golub's response to Obama's and Buffet's tax the "rich" stupidity.
• The "Jews in the Attic" Test for public policy.  (This one is actually very important, even though it sounds silly or perhaps even racist.  It's not either of those.)
• Supposed Libertarian Bob Barr is a dickhead, I mean, is anti-gun.
• The Secret Panel that can put Americans on a kill list.
• Democrats introduce a bill to seal up Obama's presidential records?!  No shame at all.
• Are we losing the grassroots vote to anti-gunners?
• "Learned Hand" is a screwed up name for anyone, must less a judge.  He should've had a son and named him "Hired".  He was mentioned in an intro to law book I was reading.  Sounds like he has some innovative ideas, but from his Wikipedia bio, he sounds like a statist.