Read the law, shiftless.

I was looking at this: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwi5tLvP967_AhUlElkFHdDQCGMQFnoECA0QAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.atf.gov%2Ffirearms%2Fdocs%2Fopen-letter%2Fall-ffls-jan-2023-open-letter-machinegun-dealer-sales-sample-letters%2Fdownload&usg=AOvVaw3aysxPj8PQWYifdcw9jihb

That's not the law. It is a memorandum. The actual law is contained in the test of the memorandum by reference.

If there was a possibility of the case being thrown out, it would have happen by now. Just the opposite, Jenkins attorneys are asking for more time to prepare for trial.

From the 23rd paragraph of the story, from an actual expert in firearms law:

”There are no written requirements to do a demonstration, but a licensee should conduct it regardless, Chris Thomas, an attorney who specializes in firearm law with Mark Barnes & Associates in Washington, D.C., previously told the News-Post.”

Your reference is from a legal interpretation of the law written after the alleged violations of the law, and not the law itself. I am intrigued since I had the same interpretation of the law as you did. Demonstration was mandatory, and all these guys had to do was have the sheriff show up at the range for five minutes, and watch someone put a few rounds downrange. I thought their lack of doing so was careless, but according to this firearms lawyer, it wasn’t an actual requirement in the written law.

Gabe; what I wrote in the upper post was from an official interpretation, but the law is what I quoted above: https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/27/479.105

Both can be correct. There are no written requirements to do a demo, but you still have to certify that they sheriff REQUIRES a demo, so if they sheriff does NOT require a demo, meaning they never got a demo, then you have filed the letter falsely. I would guess that it is Jenkins who is in the most trouble, because that is the FCSO saying they require the demo, when they clearly did not. The law also notes that this is not to circumvent the requirements for transfer.

@shiftless88 Jun 6, 2023 1:25pm

That is why I originally stated that it would have been so easy for the Sheriff to have himself videoed witnessing someone putting a few rounds downrange when this story first broke. Demo requirement satisfied. He is in that place regularly anyway. He is already licensed to acquire such firearms, provided there is a "Law Letter". He is also licensed to sell pre-1968 machine guns as a FFL. Again, it satisfies the letter of the law whether FCSO actually needed an automatic weapon, or not. There is no justification requirement. We will just have to wait for the trial to see if the lawyer in the story was correct.

I agree; it seems so simple and the fact that this wasn't done makes me wonder if there is something else going on. Can they be that stupid? Perhaps. Like I said, I think this is going to come down on Jenkins because he signed a letter that was false. The MGN dude probably did not do anything illegal; he cannot FORCE the sheriff to come down for a demo. Though the charge of an illegal firearm means perhaps he got one on the side (I think there were six letters and seven machine guns?). Jenkins either has to admit that he is stupid or that he lied. Neither is a good look for a sheriff/politician.

Sounds to me like he jumped through all of the required arcane legal hoops. This is just a good example of a vague and poorly written law. You’d think with all of the attorneys we send to Annapolis they’d be better at it. But I suppose this is what happens when a legislature has to write legislation that they full well know skirts the constitution, just to appease their political base.

Sounds like the law is straightforward enough, they just circumvented it.

Not at all, hay. Krop is allowed to possess pre-1986 machine guns, provided he is properly registered and pays a fee. Any of us could also do the same if we were willing to spend north of $20K, and if we could find an owner willing to part with their firearm. Availability is like hen's teeth. Post-1986 machine guns may be possessed to provide a demonstration to law enforcement, provided a law enforcement official signs off on a "Law Letter". According to what the legal expert in this article said, Krop met the letter of the law, but not the spirit. Post-1986 machine guns are also much less expensive to obtain directly from the manufacturer. There are a lot of businesses in the country that use this model for acquiring such firearms to rent in their establishment. The trial should be interesting.

@rogy Jun 6, 2023 8:19am

It is Federal law, not State law, rogy.

@shiftless88 Jun 6, 2023 9:20am

See also: Loophole

loop·​hole ˈlüp-ˌhōl

: a means of escape

especially : an ambiguity or omission in the text through which the intent of a statute, contract, or obligation may be evaded

So, if there was a loophole due to a poorly worded statute, the acquisition was legal. Time to update the statute to remove the loophole.

Why are you addressing me Gabe??

Hayduke2 Jun 6, 2023 11:34am

My 10:34 response was to your 7:47 AM post, hay. The rest of the responses are to others

Gabe - please check your responses. I posted nothing at 7:47 a.m.

Apologies, hay, my mistake. It was GregF that I was responding to.