Proposed ATF Trust "Responsible Person" Form on .gov website

[Bartholomew Roberts]

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/Dow...0966&version=1

Note how "Responsible Person" is defined:
"Definitions

4. Responsible Person:

(a) In the case of a trust, any individual, including any grantor, trustee, or beneficiary, who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any trust instrument or other document, or under State law, to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm;

(b) In the case of a partnership, any individual, including any partner or manager, who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any contract, agreement, article, certificate, bylaw, or instrument, or under State law, to direct the management and policies of the partnership to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on the behalf of the partnership;

(c) In the case of an association, any individual, including any member, officer, director, board member, owner, or manager, who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any contract, agreement, article, certificate, bylaw, or instrument, or under State law, to direct the management and policies of the association to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on the behalf of, the association;

(d) In the case of a company (including a Limited Liability Company (LLC)), any individual, including any member, officer, director, board member, owner, shareholder, or manager, who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any contract, agreement, article, certificate, bylaw, or instrument, or under State law, to direct the management and policies of the company to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the company; and

(e) In the case of a corporation, any individual, including any officer, director, board member, owner, shareholder, or manager, who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any contract, agreement, article, certificate, bylaw, or instrument, or under State law, to direct the management and policies of the corporation to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the corporation."

[Tom Servo]

It looks like they're getting their ducks in a row early. I was under the impression we wouldn't be seeing action until next year.

The information requested goes beyond what's requested on a normal Form 4.

[Sharkbite]

So, anyone listed on a trust that can posses NFA items under that trust must have a CLEO sign this form?

What about existing trusts in areas the CLEO refuses to sign?

[Machineguntony]

It looks like they're getting ready to implement 41p. This is going to adversely affect some high volume NFA dealers; maybe even put them out of business.

Just way too many people buying silencers using the trust route. Probably made the BATFE nervous.

[Lark]

I can see this really sucking for shared trusts with trustees in different states. I guess a trust is SOL if just one of the trustees can't get a CLEO signature.

[Tom Servo]

This is going to adversely affect some high volume NFA dealers; maybe even put them out of business.

Not really. The dealer isn't involved in the process put forth by 41P, only the initial sale.

Just way too many people buying silencers using the trust route. Probably made the BATFE nervous.

The ATF didn't propose this. Why would they? It increases workload but brings in no revenue.

The actual idea came from the Obama administration last year.

[Machineguntony]

My understanding is that if 41p is enacted, there will be a significant number of people who do not have access to a CLEO sign off. This will cut down on the number of people who are able to buy NFA items.

What I mean by the ATF being nervous, I was making a speculation based on the increased use of trusts to buy NFA items. I won't speculate further, as speculation without facts is irrelevant.

[Sharkbite]

What about trusts that already have NFA items in an area where CLEO signoff is not given. What happens to the currently owned NFA items?

As an example, Me. My CLEO will not sign off on NFA form. So ive got a trust with about 10 SBR's and cans in it. What happens to all those items if the CLEO still wont sign?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Sharkbite, there is no way to know. The original proposal gave some ridiculously short period of time for trusts to submit the Form 5320.23. Although given that it is taking ATF 8 months to over a year (I'm at 9-10 months since pending on my 7.62-SDN-6 and still waiting) to do a Form 4, I have zero idea how they are going to start doing a new, more involved Form for every single person in a non-individual entity in addition to a Form 4; let alone how they could possibly hope to make it retroactive.

Then again, there are major problems with a half dozen aspects of 41P that are going to cause giant problems both bureacratic and litigation wise and they are chugging right ahead. So who knows?

[Machineguntony]

Let the nail biting begin.

[Sharkbite]

After some further digging it appears the above form was put up in Sept 2013 (a year ago)

This is not some new development in the progress of 41P. Just new hystera about an OLD ITEM

Does anyone have any NEW info to add to this issue??

[Machineguntony]

Thanks, Sharkbite.

This is why one should never rely on information on the internet.

[Spats McGee]

Even if it's old news, I guess it really is time to get an NFA trust put together.

[Skans]

Even I'm thinking of doing an NFA trust for a suppressor and buy one, just in case I ever think I might want one. I don't really want a suppressor, but I do want one of those GRAD .22 knife guns which is an AOW.

[Machineguntony]

Here is a huge potential problem the day that ATF decides to implement 41p...

1. People use the trust route to circumvent the CLEO requirement.

2. 41p will implement the CLEO requirement for trusts and responsible persons.

3. There are many people who do not have access to a CLEO signature.

4. 41p does not compel a CLEO to sign off.

5. Many people, myself included, buy their NFA guns or items from out of state dealers. These purchases require a form 3 dealer to dealer transfer, which, as of now, take approximately 8 weeks. If during this 8 week period, ATF decides to implement 41p without a grace period, the people who do not have access to a CLEO sign off will have their guns stuck in limbo. These people, who have their guns stuck in limbo, can not complete the form 4 because of the lack of a CLEO sign off because they expected to circumvent the CLEO sign off by using s trust.

So the gun sits in limbo at the receiving dealer's store, and the buyer of the gun can not submit the form 4 because the CLEO won't sign.

What do you do? Ask the seller for a refund and send it back via another form 3 back to the original seller? Wait for a new sheriff to be elected (or chief to be appointed) who will sign off?

Be careful starting a trust at this late stage.

[Sharkbite]

Im concerned with already possessed via Trust items. Without the ATF compelling CLEOs to sign. How do i get "permission" to possess items i already have in my safe?

I think there is time to start a trust now and get the items on a form 4 before 41p goes into effect. Its not the limbo i worry about it the approved form 4 stuff i already have that i know i cant get a CLEO signature for

[Tom Servo]

Its not the limbo i worry about it the approved form 4 stuff i already have that i know i cant get a CLEO signature for

That's a good question. If I can't get my local CLEO to sign off on it, I'm out of luck.

That said, one of the barriers to CLEO signoffs was the wording on the Form 4:

I have no information indicating that the transferee will use the firearm or device described on this application for other than lawful purposes. I have no information that the receipt or possession of the firearm or device described in item 4 would be place the transferee in violation of State or local law.

Some folks in law enforcement see a possibility of accepting some degree of liability in the bolded language.

The new form is worded a bit differently:

I am satisfied that the fingerprints and photographs accompanying this form are those of the responsible person identified on the form. I have no information that receipt or possession of the firearm described in items 3a - 3d would place the responsible person in violation of State or local law.

Maybe that'll help in some areas. Maybe it won't. If this goes into effect, a great many people are going to be out in the cold.

[Skans]

Maybe that'll help in some areas. Maybe it won't.

I'm skeptical that it would help at all. Here's the problem that I experienced when I had to get a CLEO signoff on my AC556:

Our Sheriff, who was very pro-gun and pro-NFA used to do sign-off's routinely. Then he signed off on one who turned out to be a wife-beater. The newspapers had lots of fun with that which caused him to make you undergo a pretty serious investigation. By serious, I mean he sent a plain-clothes officer out to interview your neighbors...and your spouse, if you were married. The officer was fairly discreet about it. But, after the other county Sheriffs saw what happened to this one, CLEO signoff's started to dry up.

Most CLEO's are elected. Signing off on machineguns and silencers doesn't generally help them get elected.

[Machineguntony]

With the increased sales of silencers and NFA items, statistically, it is only a matter of time before a silencer is used in a crime. The CLEO sign offs will plummet to near zero or be near impossible to obtain.

[Skans]

statistically, it is only a matter of time before a silencer is used in a crime.

Hmm, perhaps, but do you really think someone who has been fingerprinted, photographed and on record with ATF would really use one in a crime? Why? It would be much easier and safer to make an illegal one if someone intends to use it in a crime.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Skans

Hmm, perhaps, but do you really think someone who has been fingerprinted, photographed and on record with ATF would really use one in a crime? Why? It would be much easier and safer to make an illegal one if someone intends to use it in a crime.

Skans, you're only thinking about one kind of crime: The pre-meditated type. Lots of crimes aren't pre-meditated and instead they're crimes where someone doesn't think something through ahead of time. Sometimes someone who has gone through the process of acquiring a legal gun (a process that -- in some states -- can be more complicated than getting a silencer) still uses it in an illegal manner. Now imagine if they already had a silencer on that gun: It's completely possible with the large increase in silencer sales nationwide.

Besides, you're assuming that all criminals are calculating and meticulous. But how many dumb criminals commit crimes driving their own registered cars? Heck, I've even seen stories of criminals leaving their wallets at the scene of the crime or wearing a jersey with their own name on the back. So it's not at all beyond the realm of possibility that someone might commit a crime with their own registered silencer.

[Tom Servo]

With the increased sales of silencers and NFA items, statistically, it is only a matter of time before a silencer is used in a crime. The CLEO sign offs will plummet to near zero or be near impossible to obtain.

I'm not sure what you're basing that on. Statistically, criminal usage of NFA firearms is nonexistent. The few "crimes" I've heard of were statutory paperwork violations, not crimes of violence.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I'm not sure what you're basing that on.

He's simply basing that on probability: If silencers continue to become more and more common, it's more and more likely that some moron will eventually use one in a crime. Now, whether CLEO sign-offs will plummet after that is a different question.

[Skans]

But how many dumb criminals commit crimes driving their own registered cars?

I understand what you're saying - it's just a numbers game. But, how many dumb criminals go through the trouble of obtaining a trust, learning how to use the trust, submit forms, fingerprints and photo to ATF, pay $200, and wait 7 months etc. just to get a legal silencer? It's a heck of a process. For the cost of a certain greasy car part they could make their own illegally.

Crimes of passion, etc....perhaps, I won't debate you on that - could happen.

What the NFA community should really do is attack this in another way. Debate the anti-gun lobby by telling them they are getting what they always wanted with the proliferation of NFA silencers: Owning NFA items is defacto federal firearms owner registration.

[Machineguntony]

While it is true that a person who went through the process would most likely not use an NFA item in a premeditated crime, it is very possible that someone could have a silencer stolen and then used in a crime or someone could take the item, without permission and use it in a crime, like how Adam Lanza took his mom's guns. Imagine if Adam Lanza's mom had some silencers in her collection.

Or it could be that someone, who legally owns an NFA item, just loses their temper or cool and uses the NFA item in a crime.

Just statistically speaking, when something is more common, there is the greater possibility that any event can occur. Mathematicians called it Poisson distribution.