BUY NOW IF YOU WANT TO USE A TRUST, Obama requiring background checks for NFA [Archive]

LittleLebowski

01-04-2016, 07:44 PM

Yes, it's time to panic. Literally texting Hansohn Bros right now. BUY NOW. Contact Hansohn, they are moving quick to get paperwork in. I'm putting my money where my mouth is. I'm told this may take a few weeks to implement.

If there is something local on a Form 4 that you want and you don't want to deal with CLEO sign off, BUY IT NOW. If you have an anti NFA CLEO and don't live in a shall sign state, buy what you want that is available on a Form 4 locally and do it NOW.

From Obama's press conference scheduled for tomorrow (http://jamiedupree.blog.wsbradio.com/2016/01/04/details-of-obama-executive-actions-on-guns/#sthash.XK8fAmNV.dpuf)

Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation. The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014. ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.

LOKNLOD

01-04-2016, 07:56 PM

Well fuck me runnin'.
:mad:

olstyn

01-04-2016, 08:00 PM

The bit at the end about encouraging federal agencies to look into using "smart guns" is laughable, no? Encourage all you want, but I don't think that people who depend on their guns functioning properly in order to protect their lives as they do their jobs are going to be happy about introducing additional points of failure into those guns.

Grey

01-04-2016, 08:02 PM

Fuck.... Guess I better make some calls tomorrow. Need a supressor or two and at least 1 more sbr....

orionz06

01-04-2016, 08:04 PM

Is it killing the use of trusts or will trustees just need to pass a BG check? I've read mixed summaries on this one in the past.

Guinnessman

01-04-2016, 08:08 PM

When was the last time you heard a NFA firearm was used in a crime?

This will not solve any problems......it's all about control.

LOKNLOD

01-04-2016, 08:12 PM

Is it killing the use of trusts or will trustees just need to pass a BG check? I've read mixed summaries on this one in the past.

Well, it would actually be somewhat logical for trustees to require a background check, and not too terribly onerous - so yeah, it means NO MORE TRUSTS.

jc000

01-04-2016, 08:35 PM

This is confusing (sorry). I'd like a trust so I don't have to worry about my immediate family having access to my future NFA purchases. I have none currently.

Does this mean that I will no longer be able to share ownership with another person for an NFA item? Or just that we'd all need background checks?

Can I set up a trust to purchase NFA items even if I'm not planning on purchasing any in the near future?

Luke

01-04-2016, 08:37 PM

so now you'll have to have a background check? Don't we already do that every time we buy a gun? What will be different about this?

I have the trust paper work (in a PDF if anybody wants it) and really really want a supressor and SBR but it's gonna be a couple months before I has the money :(

Grey

01-04-2016, 08:37 PM

A sensible thing would be to just have people buy NFA items like a normal firearm, and abolish the whole NFA tax stamp... but no... lets not be sensible and pretend we are doing something to prevent gun violence...

JodyH

01-04-2016, 08:44 PM

TR675

01-04-2016, 08:51 PM

Is this different than the existing proposed 41p regulatory rewrite?

This is confusing (sorry). I'd like a trust so I don't have to worry about my immediate family having access to my future NFA purchases. I have none currently.

Does this mean that I will no longer be able to share ownership with another person for an NFA item? Or just that we'd all need background checks?

Can I set up a trust to purchase NFA items even if I'm not planning on purchasing any in the near future?

IIRC - I haven't really been following very closely and no longer do NFA trusts except as a favor - the ATF is going to start requiring trustees and corporate officers to get fingerprinted, photographed and have their local CLEO sign off on their NFA applications. Which last bit effectively kills NFA purchasing in jurisdictions where the local CLEO refuses to sign off. Trusts are (used to be?) a way around the CLEO sign off, fingerprint and photo requirements.

So to answer your question, assuming 41p gets implemented - a pretty good guess at this point - and that you live in an NFA unfriendly jurisdiction, I wouldn't bother with a trust if you're not going to get it finished and buy a whole bunch of NFA stuff tomorrow.

LittleLebowski

01-04-2016, 08:59 PM

Preliminary, not carved in stone, etc but Hansohn Bros thinks it will take a few weeks to implement.

jc000

01-04-2016, 09:04 PM

My CLEO will sign off on NFA purchases. No worry there.

My only concern is my wife / kids having access to or "possessing" any NFA items I purchase. Sounds like this proposed order won't effect that.

Is this different than the existing proposed 41p regulatory rewrite?

IIRC - I haven't really been following very closely and no longer do NFA trusts except as a favor - the ATF is going to start requiring trustees and corporate officers to get fingerprinted, photographed and have their local CLEO sign off on their NFA applications. Which last bit effectively kills NFA purchasing in jurisdictions where the local CLEO refuses to sign off. Trusts are (used to be?) a way around the CLEO sign off, fingerprint and photo requirements.

So to answer your question, assuming 41p gets implemented - a pretty good guess at this point - and that you love in an NFA unfriendly jurisdiction, I wouldn't bother with a trust if you're not going to get it finished and buy a whole bunch of NFA stuff tomorrow.

orionz06

01-04-2016, 09:08 PM

A trust or corporation as a legal entity for the purchase of NFA items isn't going away.
That EO wouldn't hold up to even a half assed legal challenge.
At best they might require the person receiving the NFA on behalf of the trust or corporation to undergo a NICS.
Requiring all trustees or all corporate officers to undergo a background check will not stand up to a legal challenge either.
This shit has been talked about for years (as long as I can remember and I've been doing the trust thing since before Obama) all the NFA lawyers have said it would not stand.
Obama can sign anything he wants, making it stick past when the ink dries is a whole other story.

This is my understanding as well. I don't wanna concede anything but the extra step isn't an issue if it's a NICS check to pick the shit up. I wanna save a trip to the local courthouse or sheriff's office as well as have my wife able to use and possess NFA items, as well as allow her to keep things should I go Carradine somewhere.

LittleLebowski

01-04-2016, 09:15 PM

My CLEO will sign off on NFA purchases. No worry there.

My only concern is my wife / kids having access to or "possessing" any NFA items I purchase. Sounds like this proposed order won't effect that.

They will have to have background checks as well according to 41p which is what we assume is what Obama is implementing.

If there is something local on a Form 4 that you want and you don't want to deal with CLEO sign off, BUY IT NOW. If you have an anti NFA CLEO and don't live in a shall sign state, buy what you want that is available on a Form 4 locally and do it NOW.

HCM

01-04-2016, 09:15 PM

When was the last time you heard a NFA firearm was used in a crime?

This will not solve any problems......it's all about control.

It is all BS - but ex LAPD officer Christopher Dorner - he moved to Nevada and bought his SBR and suppressor via trust. Otherwise no.

LittleLebowski

01-04-2016, 09:19 PM

It is all BS - but ex LAPD officer Christopher Dorner - he moved to Nevada and bought his SBR and suppressor via trust. Otherwise no.

And tried like hell to dime out the "loophole" in his idiotic manifesto. Rot in peace, Dorner.

HCM

01-04-2016, 09:21 PM

And tried like hell to dime out the "loophole" in his idiotic manifesto. Rot in peace, Dorner.

Agreed - Piss on that dude.

TR675

01-04-2016, 09:23 PM

Preliminary, not carved in stone, etc but Hansohn Bros thinks it will take a few weeks to implement.

I'm being hyperbolic, but, what the hey, that's keeping in the theme of the thread ;).

My CLEO will sign off on NFA purchases. No worry there.

My only concern is my wife / kids having access to or "possessing" any NFA items I purchase. Sounds like this proposed order won't effect that.

The NFA is stupid. That's the first thing to understand. So, say you set up a trust with yourself as trustee and only person authorized to use the firearm until your death. You pass the new "background check" with flying colors and collect your new fun toy. Later that night, you add your spouse and her Uncle Larry to the trust as co-trustees, which you can do because the trust is revocable and can be changed at will. Hey presto, now they can use the NFA firearm without the background check.* AFAIK there is no requirement in 41p for additional checks after the purchase for new authorized persons. See? Stupid

*Like I said, I haven't fooled with the NFA or looked at 41p in a while so DO NOT rely on this analysis. Consult your lawyer, who is someone other than me.

LittleLebowski

01-04-2016, 09:26 PM

I'm being hyperbolic, but, what the hay, that's keeping in the theme of the thread ;).

The NFA is stupid. That's the first thing to understand. So, say you set up a trust with yourself as trustee and only person authorized to use the firearm until your death. You pass the new "background check" with flying colors and collect your new fun toy. Later that night, you add your spouse and her Uncle Larry to the trust as co-trustees. Hey presto, now they can use the NFA firearm without the background check.* See? Stupid

*Like I said, I haven't fooled with the NFA or looked at 41p in a while so DO NOT rely on this analysis. Consult your lawyer, who is someone other than me.

I'll try not to be too hyperbolic for you but please feel free to make a comment shall I go too far for you again.

You are wrong. The trust as examined by the ATF and then approved by the ATF defines who can legally possess and use the weapons sans your presence. You cannot simply change the now approved trust on your own, you must submit a change in order to do it legally and it's not that big of a deal.

TR675

01-04-2016, 09:40 PM

I'll try not to be too hyperbolic for you but please feel free to make a comment shall I go too far for you again..

The title of the thread says Obama is "ending trusts." Unless you know something I don't, to the best of my understanding that is not a correct statement. I used "hyperbole" as opposed to saying something else like "bullshit" because I do not believe you would intentionally make an incorrect statement.

You are wrong. The trust as examined by the ATF and then approved by the ATF defines who can legally possess and use the weapons sans your presence. You cannot simply change the now approved trust on your own, you must submit a change in order to do it legally and it's not that big of a deal.

Do you have a source for this statement? And by source I mean statute or regulation or even an opinion letter. This is not consistent with my understanding of the law. And I have successfully done things the Internet tells me I can't, like change the name of a trust without the ATF saying anything other than "ok, thanks".

JodyH

01-04-2016, 09:40 PM

What the courts don't slap down, President Trump or Cruz can reverse with the same pen Obama used.

JodyH

01-04-2016, 09:44 PM

Way smarter NFA lawyers than me have beat this subject to death and have said what Obama is doing doesn't have a chance of standing up to legal scrutiny.
90,000 trusts used in 2014 is a lot of people with disposable income (and who are probably politically active and aware) to piss off.
We'll see how it all shakes out, but I'm not worried and I buy all my NFA toys via trust.

Josh Runkle

01-04-2016, 09:49 PM

The way the paragraphs on private sales read, it seems as if it would be illegal for a private citizen to sell a title I firearm to an FFL without the citizen having a license to sell, as the requirement does not say that one party must conduct a background check of the purchaser or seller, but rather that the seller must have a license to sell, even for as few as one or two transactions.

Additionally, it appears that private sale of title II weapons would be illegal, even with the proper forms, taxes and background checks, as the seller would not be licensed to sell.

LittleLebowski

01-04-2016, 09:58 PM

The title of the thread says Obama is "ending trusts." Unless you know something I don't, to the best of my understanding that is not a correct statement. I used "hyperbole" as opposed to saying something else like "bullshit" because I do not believe you would intentionally make an incorrect statement.

In my haste (in between kid's baths and texting Hansohn Bros) to get the word out, I did not write the thread title as "Obama ending benefits of NFA trusts in that everyone on the trust will now need a background check" or "Obama signs EO requiring background checks for all NFA items." The last one sounds good, I'll prolly edit the thread title. I don't think the old thread title is bullshit but I worry very little about your opinion on my thread titles given my distaste for pedantry.

Do you have a source for this statement? And by source I mean statute or regulation or even an opinion letter. This is not consistent with my understanding of the law. And I have successfully done things the Internet tells me I can't, like change the name of a trust without the ATF saying anything other than "ok, thanks".

Nope. I was flat out wrong for now. Right now, you can hand edit your trust and simply initial off. However, that is not Obama's stated worry. His worry is:

The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014. ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.

LittleLebowski

01-04-2016, 10:02 PM

What the courts don't slap down, President Trump or Cruz can reverse with the same pen Obama used.

I find your optimism refreshing but we are nowhere near that yet.

nalesq

01-04-2016, 10:03 PM

Way smarter NFA lawyers than me have beat this subject to death and have said what Obama is doing doesn't have a chance of standing up to legal scrutiny.

I actually agree with this, but it might take a while for the "legal scrutiny" to tear it down.

Therefore, I just bought another silencer. Thanks, Mr President, for helping me finally make a decision on a 5.56mm can.

LittleLebowski

01-04-2016, 10:03 PM

I actually agree with this, but it might take a while for the "legal scrutiny" to tear it down.

Years, I'd bet.

Grey

01-04-2016, 10:04 PM

I find your optimism refreshing but we are nowhere near that yet.

And are we actually planning on relying these guys to do anything for the 2A? Seriously, I don't know if they are actual 2A proponents that have the balls to do something once in office...

JodyH

01-04-2016, 10:08 PM

I find your optimism refreshing but we are nowhere near that yet.
We're not anywhere near trusts being knocked out of the NFA either.
EO's cannot make law they can only clarify it.
Trusts and corporations are both settled law as to what they are and what they aren't and any changes to their definition or how they're treated in the NFA would cause a ripple effect in other areas that the people who really run things (big corporations and wealthy trustees) don't want.

I aint skeerd.
:cool:

BWT

01-04-2016, 11:02 PM

While I agree with the sentiments expressed here.

This is actually a much, much better situation than I feared.

http://blog.princelaw.com/

If the Cliff notes are to be trusted; No CLEO signature will be required just finger prints, pictures, NICS, and CLEO Notification. The first three your state LE has if you file for a CWP anyway.

While the publication is over 240 pages, a quick review suggests that ATF has gone away from its CLEO certification requirement and implemented a CLEO notification requirement. However, it will now require any person involved in the fictitious entity that “has the power and authority to direct the management and policies of the entity insofar as they pertain to firearms” to submit photographs, fingerprints and submit to a NICS check.

Perhaps just the owner of the trust (I need a lawyer to interpret this into English)?

God Bless,

Brandon

ETA: Also, any/all New Proposed Rule Makings (NPRM) out of the ATF have a delay until enactment. This one has (from the first page of the reply .PDF) 180 days from January 4th until enactment. (Located Here: https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download).

I'm not thrilled about this whatsoever. However, I can deal with fingerprints, photographs, and NICS checks.

I'll be donating to the appropriate organizations to try to see this policy reversed.

ETA 2: I forgot to mention if your paperwork is still pending before the date of enactment; you will still be able to get your items processed under the old criteria. Atleast, that's the way it's always been done.

Hansohn Brothers

01-04-2016, 11:41 PM

I will be opening early tomorrow at 8:00am EST.

SeriousStudent

01-04-2016, 11:58 PM

I will be opening early tomorrow at 8:00am EST.

Bring lots of coffee, you will need it.

Crusader8207

01-05-2016, 12:11 AM

ETA 2: I forgot to mention if your paperwork is still pending before the date of enactment; you will still be able to get your items processed under the old criteria. Atleast, that's the way it's always been done.

Good to hear, I just got one Form 1 back after 138 days and one more pending (sitting at about 80 days right now).

olstyn

01-05-2016, 12:26 AM

No CLEO signature will be required just finger prints, pictures, NICS, and CLEO Notification. The first three your state LE has if you file for a CWP anyway.

Not that it matters much in terms of this thread, but that's not strictly true. I don't know about other states' requirements, but MN didn't fingerprint me for my carry permit.

BWT

01-05-2016, 12:32 AM

Not that it matters much in terms of this thread, but that's not strictly true. I don't know about other states' requirements, but MN didn't fingerprint me for my carry permit.

My apologies; I assumed every state was similar to mine. That being said; you won't have to get your CLEO's approval (it appears you don't have to send in notification to them specifically either; you could send to other sources as well).

Good to hear, I just got one Form 1 back after 138 days and one more pending (sitting at about 80 days right now).

I was browsing another forum and a poster relayed the text from the .PDF.

The final rule is not retroactive and therefore the final rule will not apply to applications that are in "pending" status, or to previously approved applications for existing legal entities and
trusts holding NFA items.

God Bless,

Brandon

Hansohn Brothers

01-05-2016, 12:33 AM

No NICS.

olstyn

01-05-2016, 12:49 AM

My apologies; I assumed every state was similar to mine. That being said; you won't have to get your CLEO's approval (it appears you don't have to send in notification to them specifically either; you could send to other sources as well).

No apologies necessary. It's all moot for me regardless; NFA toys are too rich for my blood. Hopefully this EO doesn't screw things up too badly for those of you who can afford to play. :)

HCM

01-05-2016, 02:51 AM

Not that it matters much in terms of this thread, but that's not strictly true. I don't know about other states' requirements, but MN didn't fingerprint me for my carry permit.

When I lived in GA, I was fingerprinted for my CWP but I don't believe a photo was required with the application. The permit itself bore a print but not a photo.

HCM

01-05-2016, 03:49 AM

So just so I'm understanding this correctly:

- No CLEO sign off
- No NICS

Every stamp application (Form 1 or Form 4) filed by a trust, will require fingerprint cards and photos but only of the principal of the trust, not all persons listed on the trust?

BATFE will notify my local LE of my application or stamp approval ? Or do I have to notify my local LE ?

Personally, as long as no CLEO is gun off is required - I really don't care.

olstyn

01-05-2016, 06:51 AM

When I lived in GA, I was fingerprinted for my CWP but I don't believe a photo was required with the application. The permit itself bore a print but not a photo.

Yeah, MN permits don't explicitly require a photo either, but state law requires you to carry your DL or other state-issued photo ID at the same time, so they don't really need to.

GJM

01-05-2016, 08:48 AM

https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/

Analysis here

ffhounddog

01-05-2016, 09:36 AM

So lets say I want to buy a suppressor or a factory SBR, I need my prints, my wifes prints, and Dads prints along with their pictures? Seems like someone is not doing their job if you must print each time you submit.

ravensfan87

01-05-2016, 10:21 AM

I used a trust to purchase my first can which is still in jail. I bought mine for silencershop.com Does it matter if I buy local or online for my next one? or should I go ahead and order another one before this takes effect?

23JAZ

01-05-2016, 02:07 PM

None of that crap he said will ever take effect. It will be held up in the courts for at least a year. Look at his immigration EO from 2014 if you need an example. Now if a Dem becomes 45 then I would start to worry. Right now chill out and do whatever you can to contribute to make sure a Dem does not become the next president.

House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-WI) on Tuesday slammed President Obama's new executive actions on guns (http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/obama-announces-executive-action-gun-control), which will expand background checks needed to purchase firearms.
"From day one, the president has never respected the right to safe and legal gun ownership that our nation has valued since its founding. He knows full well that the law already says that people who make their living selling firearms must be licensed, regardless of venue," Ryan said in a statement (http://www.speaker.gov/press-release/president-obamas-executive-order-guns-undermines-liberty). "Still, rather than focus on criminals and terrorists, he goes after the most law-abiding of citizens. His words and actions amount to a form of intimidation that undermines liberty."
Ryan promised that the Republican Congress would work to challenge Obama's orders.
"No matter what President Obama says, his word does not trump the Second Amendment. We will conduct vigilant oversight," he said in the statement. "His executive order will no doubt be challenged in the courts. Ultimately, everything the president has done can be overturned by a Republican president, which is another reason we must win in November."

HCM

01-05-2016, 02:35 PM

https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/

Analysis here

Ok this has me confused. This seems to be saying if I am using a trust a CLEO sign off IS required.

Additionally, amendments to a Form 1 or Form 4, where the applicant is a trust, or corporation, proposed to:

1. Provide that the applicant must be identified on the Form 1 / Form 4 application by the name and exact location of the place of business, including the name of the county in which the business is located or, in the case of a trust, the address where the firearm is located. In the case
of two or more locations, the address shown must be the principal place of business (or principal office, in the case of a corporation) or, in the case of a trust, the principal address at which the firearm is located;

2. Require the applicant to attach to the application:

• A completed ATF Form 5320.23 for each responsible person. Form 5320.23 would require certain identifying information for each responsible person, including each responsible person’s full name, position, Social Security number (optional), home address, date and place of birth, and country of citizenship;
• 2 x 2-inch passport style photographs of each responsible person taken within 1 year prior to the date of the application;
• Two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card) for each responsible person. The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them; and
• In accordance with the instructions provided on Form 5320.23, a certification for each responsible person completed by the local chief of police,.sheriff of the county, head of the State police, State or local district attorney or prosecutor, or such other person whose certification may in a particular case be acceptable to the Director. The certification for each responsible person must be completed by the CLEO who has jurisdiction over the area in which the responsible person resides. The certification must state that the official is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph

StraitR

01-05-2016, 03:13 PM

In response to the comments submitted regarding hearing loss.

The Department recognizes that the use of a silencer while shooting a firearm may help to reduce hearing loss. Neither the proposed rule nor the final rule prohibit the manufacture or sale of silencers; the primary premise of the comments is that silencers will become less available as a result ofthe proposed rule, thereby increasing societal costs from shooting related hearing loss. The Department disagrees that the final rule will significantly reduce the availability ofsilencers. The final rule no longer requires CLEO certification, the aspect ofthe proposed rule most commonly cited by commenters as an impediment to consumers obtaining silencers and other NFA weapons (from either retailers or private transfers). With the elimination of the CLEO certification requirement for all NFA applications, including individuals, the process for individuals who wish to purchase a silencer to protect from hearing loss becomes less, not more, burdensome.

Reference Page 160..- https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

So, it seems CLEO certification requirement has been removed from the NFA buying process all together, based on the above statement.

TR675

01-05-2016, 03:16 PM

Gun trust lawyer is confusing a proposed change for the actual rule. The final rules start on page 238 and do not require certification.

Looks like dude was rushing to publish without reading or understanding the complete document; he wouldn't be the first but I would call that a warning sign for anyone citing that website as a source of authority.

StraitR

01-05-2016, 03:34 PM

Additionally...

Form 1 - (pages 240-243)

§ 479.62 Application to make.

A-B omitted

(c) Notification of chief law enforcement officer. Prior to the submission of the application to the Director, all applicants and responsible persons shall forward a completed copy of Form 1 or a completed copy of Form 5320.23, respectively, to the chief law enforcement officer of the locality in which the applicant or responsible person is located. The chief law enforcement officer is the local chief of police, county sheriff, head ofthe State police, or State or local district attorney or prosecutor. If the applicant is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company, association, or corporation, for purposes ofthis section, it is considered located at its principal office or principal place of business; ifa trust, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at the primary location at which the firearm will be maintained.

Form 4 - (pages 243-245)

§ 479.84 Application to transfer.

A-B omitted.

(c) Notification of chief law enforcement officer. Prior to the submission ofthe application to the Director, all applicants and responsible persons shall forward a completed copy of Form 4 or a completed copy of Form 5320.23, respectively, to the chief law enforcement officer ofthe locality in which the applicant or responsible person is located. The chief law enforcement officer is the local chief of police, county sheriff, head of the State police, State or local district attorney or prosecutor. If the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company, association, or corporation, for purposes ofthis section, it is considered located at its principal office or principal place of business; if the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a trust, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at the primary location at which the firearm will be maintained.

Page 4 -

To lessen potential compliance burdens for the public and law enforcement, DOJ has revised the final rule to eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) and instead require CLEO notification.

Link posted again for convenience, page numbers given above. https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

In a nut shell, it says the CLEO must be notified of the NFA item being manufactured (form 1) or transferred (form 4), but nothing about needing their approval.

ETA: It doesn't copy/paste well from the .gov website, so excuse the grammatical errors I didn't catch and correct.

HCM

01-05-2016, 03:52 PM

joshs

01-05-2016, 04:00 PM

Ok this has me confused. This seems to be saying if I am using a trust a CLEO sign off IS required.

Certification will no longer be required for individuals or legal entities, only notification to local CLEOs. Notification will be accomplished by sending the applicable completed form to the CLEO before submitting it for approval.

"Responsible persons" of legal entities, defined generally to include anyone with power to control acquisition, disposition, or transport of firearms by the legal entity, will be required to submit identifying information, unless the entity has an approved application from the last two years and the document that controls the entity has not been amended since that application.

Clusterfrack

01-05-2016, 04:08 PM

Additionally...

Form 1 - (pages 240-243)

Form 4 - (pages 243-245)

Page 4 -

Link posted again for convenience, page numbers given above. https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

In a nut shell, it says the CLEO must be notified of the NFA item being manufactured (form 1) or transferred (form 4), but nothing about needing their approval.

ETA: It doesn't copy/paste well from the .gov website, so excuse the grammatical errors I didn't catch and correct.

I'm not thrilled about this given the very anti-gun government here in the Portland area.

TR675

01-05-2016, 04:18 PM

Certification will no longer be required for individuals or legal entities, only notification to local CLEOs. Notification will be accomplished by sending the applicable completed form to the CLEO before submitting it for approval.

"Responsible persons" of legal entities, defined generally to include anyone with power to control acquisition, disposition, or transport of firearms by the legal entity, will be required to submit identifying information, unless the entity has an approved application from the last two years and the document that controls the entity has not been amended since that application.

Josh, that was my initial reading of the rules as well but on re-reading it looks like the documents that do not need to be re-submitted are the trust or Corp formation docs, and the applicant would need to resubmit the Id'ing information - which doesn't make much sense to me, so I am wondering if I missed something in my quick read of the full doc. Look at p 214-17 where they mention the costs to the public are lessened because they will not have to resubmit entity documentation but do not say the same thing about identification information.

I'm not thrilled about this given the very anti-gun government here in the Portland area.

Why not? CLEO can't do anything about the application. Other than put you on a list, which might be your concern.

HCM

01-05-2016, 04:20 PM

StraitR

01-05-2016, 04:26 PM

Do we have a choice of CLEO ? Here in Texas, the chief of police for my city, the Constable for my precinct and the County Sheriff all appear to meet the CLEO definition for me.

From my postings above...

the chief law enforcement officer of the locality in which the applicant or responsible person is located. The chief law enforcement officer is the local chief of police, county sheriff, head ofthe State police, State or local district attorney or prosecutor.

In your case, if you have a city Police Chief, I'd say that's closest to your locality.

joshs

01-05-2016, 04:28 PM

Josh, that was my initial reading of the rules as well but on re-reading it looks like the documents that do not need to be re-submitted are the trust or Corp formation docs, and the applicant would need to resubmit the Id'ing information - which doesn't make much sense to me, so I am wondering if I missed something in my quick read of the full doc. Look at p 214-17 where they mention the costs to the public are lessened because they will not have to resubmit entity documentation but do not say the same thing about identification information.

That was my concern as well, but I don't see how they can read 479.63(b)(2) that way.

TR675

01-05-2016, 04:39 PM

That was my concern as well, but I don't see how they can read 479.63(b)(2) that way.

I think your reading is correct but I'm getting hung up on the word "documentation". Bad drafting.

Clusterfrack

01-05-2016, 04:53 PM

Josh, that was my initial reading of the rules as well but on re-reading it looks like the documents that do not need to be re-submitted are the trust or Corp formation docs, and the applicant would need to resubmit the Id'ing information - which doesn't make much sense to me, so I am wondering if I missed something in my quick read of the full doc. Look at p 214-17 where they mention the costs to the public are lessened because they will not have to resubmit entity documentation but do not say the same thing about identification information.

Why not? CLEO can't do anything about the application. Other than put you on a list, which might be your concern.

Yes, that's the concern. Here's a link to what they tried in 2013
http://www.oregonfirearms.org/massive-gun-ban-introduced

Mr. Goodtimes

01-05-2016, 04:54 PM

I don't see why to panic here, it just sounds like they're going to force people on a trust/corp/whatever to get a background check. That's all it sounds like to me, and I've got no problem with that.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

StraitR

01-05-2016, 05:02 PM

This is the part I'm still trying to figure out.

Pages 241-243

************************

§479.63 Identification of applicant.

(a) If the applicant is an individual, the applicant shall:

(1) Securely attach to each copy ofthe Form 1, in the space provided on the form, a 2 x 2-inch photograph ofthe applicant, clearly showing a full front view ofthe features ofthe applicant with head bare, with the distance from the top of the head to the point of the chin approximately 1Y4 inches, and which shall have been taken within 1 year prior to the date of the application; and

(2) Attach to the application two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card). Thefingerprintsmustbeclearforaccurateclassificatio nandshouldbetakenbysomeone properly equipped to take them.

(b) If the applicant is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company (including a Limited Liability Company (LLC)), association, trust, or corporation, the applicant shall:

(1) Be identified on the Form 1 by the name and exact location ofthe place ofbusiness, including the name and number ofthe building and street, and the name ofthe county in which the business is located or, in the case of a trust, the primary location at which the firearm will be
.maintained. In the case oftwo or more locations, the address shown shall be the principal place of business (or principal office, in the case of a corporation) or, in the case of a trust, the primary location at which the firearm will be maintained;

(2) Except as provided in paragraph (c) ofthis section, attach to the application-

(i) Documentation evidencing the existence and validity ofthe entity, which includes complete and unredacted copies ofpartnership agreements, articles ofincorporation, corporate registration, and declarations oftrust, with any trust schedules, attachments, exhibits, and enclosures;

(ii) A completed A TF Form 5320.23 for each responsible person. Form 5320.23 requires certain identifying information, including each responsible person's full name, position, home address, date of birth, and country of citizenship if other than the United States;

(iii) In the space provided on Form 5320.23, a 2 x 2-inch photograph of each responsible person, clearly showing a full front view ofthe features ofthe responsible person with head bare, with the distance from the top ofthe head to the point ofthe chin approximately 1Y4 inches, and which shall have been taken within 1 year prior to the date of the application;

(IV) Two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card) for each responsible person. Thefingerprintsmustbeclearforaccurateclassificatio nandshouldbetakenby someone properly equipped to take them.

(c) If the applicant entity has had an application approved as a maker or transferee within the preceding 24 months, and there has been no change to the documentation previously provided, the entity may provide a certification that the information has not been changed since the prior approval and shall identify the application for which the documentation had been submitted by form number, serial number, and date approved.

*****************************

So, if you've had an approval, via trust, within 24 months you don't have to submit fingerprint cards and pics, but reference the prior approval? If so, does this only apply to approvals that have fingerprint cards/pics previously?

What am I missing here?

Grey

01-05-2016, 05:07 PM

StraitR

01-05-2016, 05:26 PM

Again if all they want is background check for nfa items then just let us buy them over the counter and conduct a NICS check just like the sale of every other firearm. Going to let the dust settle before I try to make heads or tails out of this.

You're missing the point. This is to add steps to an already long and complicated (in comparison to purchasing a non-NFA item) process, for people buying "some of the most dangerous weapons", not remove them. Think of the children. :p

That said, I bet if they offered an "NFA Express Service" for $400 a pop right at the dealer counters, they'd cut submitted applications by 75%. In my opinion, most people, not all, purchasing NFA items are doing so with discretionary income and would gladly pay the convenience fee for instant gratification.

*cough* I would.

Grey

01-05-2016, 05:27 PM

You're missing the point. This is to add steps to an already long and complicated (in comparison to purchasing a non-NFA item) process, for people buying "some of the most dangerous weapons", not remove them. Think of the children. [emoji14]

That said, I bet if they offered an "NFA Express Service" for $400 a pop right at the dealer counters, they'd cut submitted applications by 75%. In my opinion, most people, not all, purchasing NFA items are doing so with discretionary income and would gladly pay the convenience fee for instant gratification.

*cough* I would.
Doh I forgot about how this keeps children safe at night from the crazies...

LittleLebowski

01-06-2016, 05:27 PM

Took my own advice.

Ordered: http://hansohnbrothers.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=59_69&product_id=294

ffhounddog

01-06-2016, 05:36 PM

Good Can. I got the Sandman-S on order, thinking about another Sandy.

LittleLebowski

01-17-2016, 06:49 PM

July 13th is it. (http://blog.silencershop.com/atf-41f-published-today/)

Zhurdan

01-26-2016, 09:08 PM

According to the original post, this is an Executive Action, not an Executive Order. There is a drastic difference in their legality, or enforcement. Just fyi.

LittleLebowski

01-27-2016, 09:30 AM

According to the original post, this is an Executive Action, not an Executive Order. There is a drastic difference in their legality, or enforcement. Just fyi.

Yes but is the ATF not enforcing said action?

joshs

01-27-2016, 10:15 AM

Yes but is the ATF not enforcing said action?

What is now 41F is a final rule of an agency that followed the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act in its implementation. When it goes into effect in July it will be added to the code of federal regulations and be part of the law of the United States. The "executive action" portion was just the President directing the agency to finalize the rule, the rule itself is not part of the executive orders/actions. As a duly enacted regulation, there isn't much of a question of whether or not it is enforceable. ATF's authority to promulgate the reg could be challenged, but regulations that comply with the APA are generally enforceable law.

Risto

01-28-2016, 10:21 PM

StraitR

01-28-2016, 10:55 PM

In case anyone was wondering if all of your trustees (family members for me) will have to be printed, photographed, and checked; it appears so. I can assure you that none of them would be a prohibited person, but I don't want to subject them to that stuff just because I put their name down as a trustee. This really kills the trust part of it for me.

from ATF website document:

"Examples of who may be considered a responsible person include settlors/grantors,
trustees, partners, members, officers, directors, board members, or owners. An example of who
may be excluded from this definition of responsible person is the beneficiary of a trust, if the
beneficiary does not have the capability to exercise the powers or authorities enumerated in this
section"

Generally speaking, most people are added to a trust for beneficiary purposes, but named as trustees for "freedom to operate" so to speak. If that's the case, you could amend the trust and list them as beneficiaries only. For example, my wife is the successor trustee on our trust, but we don't need her to be, it's more for convenience (freedom to operate) and so she could receive the NFA items if something happens to me. We can still achieve the same with her as a beneficiary. It's not like she wants to hit the range with my suppressors when I'm out of town. That said, we'll keep her as the successor trustee so there's never a doubt of her eligibility to possess the items within the trust.

Now, if you want additional people on the trust for the purpose of having access to the items within the trust, or if they want that privilege, they'll have to submit prints and pics for any transfer submissions after July 13th. I totally get what you're saying though, it's an added layer of hassle, especially for those with trustees that do not live local.

A friend of mine has five family members on his trust as trustees, all of which will be getting moved to beneficiaries or dropped. I foresee a lot of people being removed from trusts, and a good number simply named as beneficiaries.

SteveB

01-29-2016, 07:35 AM

http://www.wsj.com/articles/gun-silencers-sell-briskly-ahead-of-new-regulation-1453996153?mod=itp&mod=djemITP_h

Robinson

01-29-2016, 08:50 AM

Generally speaking, most people are added to a trust for beneficiary purposes, but named as trustees for "freedom to operate" so to speak. If that's the case, you could amend the trust and list them as beneficiaries only. For example, my wife is the successor trustee on our trust, but we don't need her to be, it's more for convenience (freedom to operate) and so she could receive the NFA items if something happens to me. We can still achieve the same with her as a beneficiary. It's not like she wants to hit the range with my suppressors when I'm out of town. That said, we'll keep her as the successor trustee so there's never a doubt of her eligibility to possess the items within the trust.

Now, if you want additional people on the trust for the purpose of having access to the items within the trust, or if they want that privilege, they'll have to submit prints and pics for any transfer submissions after July 13th. I totally get what you're saying though, it's an added layer of hassle, especially for those with trustees that do not live local.

A friend of mine has five family members on his trust as trustees, all of which will be getting moved to beneficiaries or dropped. I foresee a lot of people being removed from trusts, and a good number simply named as beneficiaries.

Wait a minute -- I was under the impression that a successor trustee does not have legal freedom to operate while the trustee is capable of acting in that capacity. That is why I've decided to name my wife as a co-trustee instead of the successor trustee. If I'm wrong then I just learned something.