The next target: NFA trusts

[LHS]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/in-gun-trusts-a-legal-loophole-for-restricted-firearms.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&smid=tw-nytimes&_r=0

All the standard bugaboos are hit: No background checks! Sheriffs and police chiefs won't sign off, because they know civilians shouldn't have such weapons! Dorner used a trust! Felons could get a machine gun! A gun dealer thinks it's scary!

I worried that this would happen, given the increasing popularity of NFA items in general and suppressors/SBRs in general, and the resulting increase in trusts to get around obstructionist CLEOs and for responsible estate planning. Now it looks like, having been stymied in their attempts at banning 'assault weapons' and 'assault clips', they're pulling another rabbit out of the hat.

[Tamara]

This has been gathering steam on the down-low for a while now, so I kinda flinched when I saw that psycho referenced them in his "manifesto".

[helothar]

Didn't the ATF just change the rules so anyone on a trust has to submit a fingerprint card now too?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

[Serpico1985]

from the article:

"Mr. Campbell confirmed that under current regulations, background checks were not required for the buying of restricted firearms through trusts. The agency, he added, was aware of the loophole and was reviewing changes to close it."

Anyone care to take a guess at what % of nfa weapons (SBR's, SBS's, suppressors, automatic machine guns) that are legaly owed are used in crime? My quess would be maybe a handful in the last 40 years at the most.

So if they're not doing it to save the children why then are they doing it? They just simply don't want us to have these weapons because our possessing it makes them FEEL unsafe. I feel unsafe due to the large masses of people who vote without having the slightest idea as to what they're voting on. That's terrifying. Can we pass a few laws that addresses that?

[TR675]

Didn't the ATF just change the rules so anyone on a trust has to submit a fingerprint card now too?

No, they are moving in that direction but have a bunch of hoops to jump through before they can change the regulations. For example, drafting new regulations and putting them out for public comment. IIRC they don't have the new regulations drafted yet.

[orionz06]

I am far from a lawyer and play with numbers all day but it was my understanding, and explained quite clearly before, that to kill the trusts would require making a trust no longer an entity and that would have a major impact on pretty much all walks of life. True or false?

[HCM]

No, they are moving in that direction but have a bunch of hoops to jump through before they can change the regulations. For example, drafting new regulations and putting them out for public comment. IIRC they don't have the new regulations drafted yet.

They have taken the first step - this would not be open for comment if they did not have draft regs

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43

The Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. The proposed regulations would
(1) add a definition for the term "responsible person";
(2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints;
(3) require that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the locality in which the maker or transferee is located; and
(4) eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by the CLEO.

[LOKNLOD]

They have taken the first step - this would not be open for comment if they did not have draft regs

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43

The Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. The proposed regulations would
(1) add a definition for the term "responsible person";
(2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints;
(3) require that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the locality in which the maker or transferee is located; and
(4) eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by the CLEO.

Would the "copy to the CLEO but not require sign off" apply to individual transfers as well?

[HCM]

Would the "copy to the CLEO but not require sign off" apply to individual transfers as well?

I believe so since Transfers can be to / from an individual or a trust.

At this time, individuals need a CLEO sign off. Trusts do not.

It appears under the prposed rules :
1 & 2 would apply to trusts
3 would apply to both
4 would only apply to individuals since trust / corporations do not require a CLEO sign off.

Basically this would be trade off - eliminate the CLEO signature requrement for individuals in esxchange for extending the Print/ photo requirement to the members of a trust.

[TR675]

They have taken the first step - this would not be open for comment if they did not have draft regs

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43



I'm not an agency/regulatory attorney, but unless I'm way off base I believe this is an advance notice of rulemaking. AFAIK, they haven't submitted proposed new rules yet. When they do they will be published in the Federal Register and opened to public comment.

Don't mean to split hairs, but the proposed rules haven't been released in the wild yet.

[TR675]

I believe so since Transfers can be to / from an individual or a trust.

At this time, individuals need a CLEO sign off. Trusts do not.

It appears under the prposed rules :
1 & 2 would apply to trusts
3 would apply to both
4 would only apply to individuals since trust / corporations do not require a CLEO sign off.

Basically this would be trade off - eliminate the CLEO signature requrement for individuals in esxchange for extending the Print/ photo requirement to the members of a trust.

This is my understanding as well. Might put some of the gun trust lawyers in a bad spot.

[LOKNLOD]

Basically this would be trade off - eliminate the CLEO signature requirement for individuals in exchange for extending the Print/photo requirement to the members of a trust.

Also appears it would require notification to the CLEO of transfers, including trusts, right? While I don't want to make tin foil issue out of it, I don't particularly think some of the anti-gun CLEOs will be thrilled with a stream of paperwork coming in telling them people in their district are buying things he doesn't want them to have. Might stir up some angst amongst the more outspoken antis.

Since this is already registration, I don't have much heartburn about requiring the print/photo requirement for trust members. Trusts as a tool for joint ownership, estate planning, and avoiding crappy anti-gun CLEOs is good. The print/photo thing is a hassle though.

It would sure be nice if the system could be automated/modernized/improved to a more reasonable lead time on approvals....

[HCM]

This is my understanding as well. Might put some of the gun trust lawyers in a bad spot.

Would have save me $600 but trusts will still be attractive to those who want others (Family etc) to be able to use their NFA items

[Odin Bravo One]

Keeping in the spirit of journalism, they made sure not to let anyone get confused with actual facts.

As a Beneficiary of my trust, I have a background investigation everytime I submit a Form 1, or Form 4. One of my very good buddies happens to work for the NFA branch, and is an invaluable resource in helping me out with my NFA purchases.

BATFE does the exact same thing the local LEA would do. They ensure the forms are filled out properly and entirely. Then name and DOB off to LEDS/NCIC/CCH. That takes all of a couple of minutes unless one the systems is slow or down. Then they take it a step further, and ensure that the applicant would be in legal possession in his/her state, county, and city/town. As laws vary state to state, county to county, and city to city, the ATF has to be sure they are not approving an illegal transfer of an NFA item.

It doesn't take the 3-9 months for a Tax Stamp to be returned because they are picking their asses.............



Whatever........I'm over it.

[HCM]

Then they take it a step further, and ensure that the applicant would be in legal possession in his/her state, county, and city/town. As laws vary state to state, county to county, and city to city, the ATF has to be sure they are not approving an illegal transfer of an NFA item.

Wasn't this the purpose (or at least the stated purpose) of the CLEO sign off ? To ensure that NFA items are not prohibited by state or local laws ?

[BWT]

Wasn't this the purpose (or at least the stated purpose) of the CLEO sign off ? To ensure that NFA items are not prohibited by state or local laws ?

Nope. This predates the NCIS background check established in 1993. The intention was the the CLEO determined eligibility of the individual in their locale.

[Chemsoldier]

So would each of the trustees have to submit the fingerprints, etc. every time the trust added an item or just up front? Some people have trust members is more than one state, that would be a pain in the petunia.

[BWT]

So would each of the trustees have to submit the fingerprints, etc. every time the trust added an item or just up front? Some people have trust members is more than one state, that would be a pain in the petunia.

Hate to say it the entire NFA Process was designed to discourage ownership, honestly.

ETA: I mean with inflation, $200 tax was equivalent to $3,000 during the Great Depression. Who spent $3,000 on taxes alone to get an item transferred to them? That's more than I recieved in my tax return this year.

ETA 2: And if that wasn't enough they made you talk to a CLEO, Sheriff, Judge, or D.A. etc. to determine your eligibility.

Then they wanted your finger prints and a picture.

And they won't let you leave the state of residence without a prior notification and their approval for everything but AOWs and Suppressors.

That's just the truth, either they wanted people to be too intimidated by the people involved, confused by the process itself or couldn't afford ownership.

[Odin Bravo One]

Hate to say it the entire NFA Process was designed to discourage ownership, honestly.

That's just the truth, either they wanted people to be too intimidated by the people involved, confused by the process itself or couldn't afford ownership.

A number of years ago when I bought my Uzi, it was not at all uncommon to see the corruption and disdain for firearms by those inside the NFA branch at ATF. Applications were routinely rejected for the simplest "typos". Meaning there was a smudge on the paper, or a pen mark. There was no internet, so you had to rely on a dealer for things like the Form 1/Form 4, etc. If you made a mistake, you had to start over. If there was the slightest indication that an eraser was used with the typewriter to correct a mistake, it would be disapproved, and sent back informing the applicant that it would not be processed further due to indications of deception. Then you would be required to re-submit a brand new form.

Fingerprints were also notorious for hang ups, returns, and denials. I don't know how many horror stories (antecdotal, but first hand at least) I listened to where a smudge on the fingerprint form caused a return for a re-do. And not on the prints themselves, but where the information on the person was filled out. Not illegible. Just a smudge.

My NFA "Mentor" endured a 31 month wait after submitting 3 times for an Hk53. It was painful. And painfully obvious that they really don't even want you exercising your 2nd ammendment NFA and GCA infringed rights.

[Jay]

Yeah, this sucks! I currently have Myself, My Wife, My Brother, Her Father & My Parents all listed as Trustees with my Nephew as the trusts beneficiary. All the parents are listed purely for their protection in the event that for one reason or another something would have to be stored temporarily or otherwise under their control. Having to get that many sets of fingerprints and passport photos is going to be a no go.

So I imagine I will be taking advantage of some of the benefits of a living trust in regard to being able to add and remove trustees with relative ease. Stripping down the number of trustees during a purchase period and then having everyone added back on after everything has been transferred, at least that is my hope. My brother and I are really the only persons that will ever use the items (for all lawful purposes) and everyone else really was just added to protect them in the event of what I imagine would be rather extreme circumstances.

The good news is that this tactic, while being a bit of a hassle appears to still be a valid option in the event of these new rules coming to pass, that or I wasted a bunch a money and time on all this paperwork.

We will see.

[Odin Bravo One]

My trust actually saves me money. My Attorney fees were less than $200.

Local PD charges $30 for background and signature.
Local PD charges $30 for fingerprints.
Passport Photos $12 from local drugstore.

My gorrilla math has that at $72 per NFA purchase.

Trust paid for itself after the 3rd item was added.

[HCM]

I moved from jurisdiction with a very Friendly / Pro NFA CLEO ( $5- per Fingerprint card plus the photos) to one where Trusts are the only option. Our new sheriff is pretty pro 2nd A so hopefully this may change ...