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

[LittleLebowski]

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]

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]

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

[JodyH]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Years, I'd bet.

[Grey]

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...