|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 22, 2013, 06:02 AM | #1 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Firearm Trust Rule changes
Another rule change in the works which seems to make the requirements for Trust users the same as those who have been going thru the regular NFA application process.
Quote:
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
__________________
Quote:
|
||
August 22, 2013, 06:20 AM | #2 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
__________________
Quote:
|
|
August 22, 2013, 09:09 AM | #3 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
From the ATF rule proposal:
Quote:
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
August 22, 2013, 10:09 AM | #4 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Wonder what they are going to do with the 40,000 backlogged applications sitting around and submitted before this rule goes into effect? Make them all resubmit?
|
August 22, 2013, 02:05 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,184
|
I think #4 relates to doing away with it all together for all applications. If it eliminates the CLEO certification requirement all together then this is actually a good thing. That is why most people do trusts in the first place.
The new requirements would seem to require that the CLEO be notified but it takes away their ability to deny applicants for NFA items. |
August 22, 2013, 02:54 PM | #6 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
I can understand why the ATF would prefer that people not use trusts and corporations. From the ATF perspective, it opens the door to a lot of issues they would just as soon not have to deal with, so removing the CLEO requirement ultimately benefits them.
However, unless they also loosen up the requirements on NFA firearms so that non-prohibited adult family members can have unsupervised access, people will still continue using the trust method since that is the other big ownership problem that a trust or corporation solves. |
August 22, 2013, 03:09 PM | #7 | |
Staff
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,059
|
Quote:
Of course, that removes one of the main factors that makes people go the trust route.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change. --Randall Munroe |
|
August 23, 2013, 01:55 PM | #8 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
*Under the proposed rule change, the CLEO would have to be sent a copy of each Form 1 (build) or Form 4 (transfer) submitted, but would have no authority to block it.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT |
|||
August 30, 2013, 11:48 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
UPDATE: What the AFT has actually proposed is significantly different. For one, rather than eliminate the CLEO sign-off (by substituting CLEO notification), they propose to expand it to trust and corporations, including any person who would have access to the NFA item. Rather than having to certify that he/she is unaware of reason to expect the recipient would use the NFA item for an illegal purpose, it require certification that the fingerprints and photos accompanying the application are of the applicant. Of course, unless the CLEO is the one who sends it in, he/she can't certify this.
For some reason I am not able to upload a PDF of the proposed rules from ATF. here is a link that might work: http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fil...r-firearms.pdf
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT Last edited by Armorer-at-Law; August 30, 2013 at 11:55 AM. |
August 30, 2013, 05:47 PM | #10 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
As noted, they are not getting rid of the CLEO requirement, they are just omitting one sentence and extending the requirement to "all responsible persons" within a Corporation or Trust.
If you have any desire to ever own NFA items, now is the time to leave ATF feedback on this proposed regulation and make your best case against it (this comment will be a matter of public record, along with your name and address - and will be published in an internet searchable format). Reference Docket Number ATF41P and follow instructions at www.regulations.gov or see page 49 of the attached PDF for how to send a hardcopy (confidential comment) Last edited by Bartholomew Roberts; August 30, 2013 at 05:58 PM. |
September 4, 2013, 03:33 AM | #11 |
member
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 8,462
|
Tom Odom at the Prince Law Blog has prepared an analysis of procedural problems with the proposed rule change: http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/08/30...raft-proposal/
This proposed rule change has not been published in the Federal Register yet so it appears the comment period has not yet started. Additionally, the Prince Law Blog has prepared sample letters to send to ATF for FFLs (http://princelaw.files.wordpress.com...-1-letter.docx) and for individuals who were denied a CLEO sign off (http://princelaw.files.wordpress.com...eo-letter.docx) Please do not just cut and paste these letters; but instead use them as a rough template to form your own personalized letters including specific relevant details. Remember ALl information will be public record so you may need to exercise INFOSEC during submission. |
September 4, 2013, 02:20 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 465
|
My understanding is that the comment period is not yet open. Comments submitted too early (or too late) will not be considered.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money... Armorer-at-Law.com 07FFL/02SOT |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|