Originally Posted by
whomever
"Nowhere in the ATF regulations does it require any portion of a trust as proof of registration.
Granted, only the name of the trust is listed on the ATF forms and not the trustees individually but there is still no requirement to produce a copy of the trust on request."
I know we can go back and forth. That is not my intent. I'm hoping to learn more this way.
Again, IANAL, but isn't the context here that you have been pulled over and the officer is trying to determine whether your possession of the NFA item is lawful? For something registered to a trust, the stamp only shows it is lawfully registered to the trust, not that *your* possession is lawful.
I was not aware that ATF agents pulled people over. The regulations require one to make available the proof of registration to an ATF agent not LEOs in general. And if one has been pulled over for a grossly stupid reason that gets their vehicle searched, possession of a NFA regulated item might be the least of one's worries, assuming that they have the required paperwork. Then again, that could be a crapshoot or worse.
Agreed that the form/stamp only shows the trust, but since I am the signor of the trust, my name is on the form. Granted if my wife had the item in question her name would not appear on the form. But, then again, she would not be pulled over by an ATF agent. I would think that I/she would be more likely to encounter a ATF agent at a range or class than in a general public setting.
For example, Fred creates the 'Acme NFA Trust' that names Fred and Fred's wife Mabel as people authorized to possess a given suppressor. Fred loans the suppressor to his buddy Bob without adding Bob to the trust. Bob gets pulled over going to the range - Bob's possession of the suppressor is not legal; Bob goes to Club Fed.
This is a given.
If Fred gets pulled over with the suppressor and shows only the form showing the can is registered to 'Acme NFA Trust', the LEO who pulled him over has no way to verify that Fred's possession is lawful, so he could choose to arrest Fred until it can be verified that Fred is a valid user under the terms of the trust. Avoiding that trip to jail is the point of carrying the paperwork in the first place, so it seems to me carrying the stamp form without the trust doesn't buy you much. It's possible the officer would say 'Hmmmm, it's registered to someone, I'll just take this guy's word that he's listed in the trust', but he could also decide 'Suppressors are presumptively illegal, and I haven't seen anything verifying this guy's possession is legal, so I'll book him and let the lawyers sort it out'.
Here again, unless Fred lives in one of the places where suppressors are, in fact, illegal (California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island) A local LEO would have no reason to question Fred's valid ownership. The regulations require one to make available proof of registration to an ATF agent. No mention of local LEO. NFA items are regulated federally not locally. Except in the above jurisdictions.
So if you are carrying paperwork so you can be 100% protected against getting arrested for what is actually legal protection, I'd think you need the trust.
I agree with you that from a common sense standpoint it stands to reason that one should retain a copy of their trust with the ATF forms/stamps (I do, electronically). It's just not spelled out that way in the regulations as being required.
Again, IANAL, and am happy to be corrected.