The next target: NFA trusts

[LHS]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us...w-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/eAg...&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/eAg...&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/eAg...&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.