The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 11, 2013, 08:29 PM   #51
Rikakiah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2013
Posts: 183
Don't trustees still get filed with the ATF in some fashion? Or do they JUST see the trust and not know there's 200 trustees listed unless they go out and actually look it up? I'd think they'd automatically look into any trust with >x number of trustees. That'd be a better start to limiting misuse of trusts than adding more procedures.

Related, does every trustee need to go through any type of background check?
Rikakiah is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 10:12 PM   #52
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 17,947
Quote:
Don't trustees still get filed with the ATF in some fashion?
Those who are on the initial trust do. I'm not an expert but it sounds like adding trustees can be done without ATF getting involved.
Quote:
...does every trustee need to go through any type of background check?
Apparently not.

http://thegunwriter.blogs.heraldtrib...f-a-gun-trust/

Background Check Not Required- while most Class 3 dealers do it anyway, there is no requirement of a background check when an NFA gun trust is used.
http://mrsilencer.com/GUN_TRUSTS.html
They don't have to process fingerprints and do an individual background check.
__________________
Did you know that there is a TEXAS State Rifle Association?
JohnKSa is offline  
Old September 11, 2013, 11:19 PM   #53
Rikakiah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2013
Posts: 183
I think that's a bigger isssue than trying to get some CLEO who has the right to refuse based on his personal opinion sign off on everything.
Rikakiah is offline  
Old September 12, 2013, 08:48 AM   #54
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,468
Quote:
Background Check Not Required- while most Class 3 dealers do it anyway, there is no requirement of a background check when an NFA gun trust is used.
According to the NFA Handbook,

Quote:
9.12.1 NFA Transfers to other than individuals. Subsequent to the approval of an application requesting to transfer an NFA firearm to, or on behalf of, a partnership, company, association, trust, estate, or corporation, the authorized person picking up the firearm on behalf of, a partnership, company, association, trust, estate, or corporation from the FFL must complete the Form 4473 with his/her personal information and undergo a NICS check.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 12, 2013, 09:41 AM   #55
Willie Lowman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: March 5, 2009
Location: Uh-Hi-O
Posts: 2,316
My trust has two trustees. Me and my lovely lady. When I send in new form 4(s) the amendment that names her as a trustee goes with the trust to ATF.

My dealer used to attach photos of us with the trust. Some of my trust's approved form 4s have my photo attached when they were sent back.

A few months back, my dealer got a call from his inspector (Nickie) telling him to stop sending the photos because they were confusing the temporary help that they had there.
Willie Lowman is offline  
Old September 13, 2013, 11:26 AM   #56
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,468
I'm hearing this one a lot:

Quote:
(150% - 3,900% increase in NFA Tax.) The Transfer & Manufacture Stamp Taxes are being raised from $200 per item to $500 per item, AOW's will go from $5 to $200. This is most likely because the NFA Branch of the ATF will be receiving so many fewer applications, and just an excuse in general to increase tax revenue per item.
However, I'm not seeing it anywhere in the proposal. Anyone know where this is coming from?
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 13, 2013, 01:04 PM   #57
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 323
Quote:
Anyone know where this is coming from?
It's not in the proposed ATF rulemaking. That is in a bill proposed in Congress (with zero chance of passing in the House) by an anti-gunner.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...

Armorer-at-Law.com
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old September 13, 2013, 02:11 PM   #58
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,468
Quote:
That is in a bill proposed in Congress (with zero chance of passing in the House) by an anti-gunner.
I saw that (and good luck reallocating Pittman-Robertson funds!), but the rumor that it's in the rulemaking is being repeated pretty often and pretty loudly. Just wanted to make sure I wasn't missing something.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 16, 2013, 12:53 PM   #59
sf46
Junior Member
 
Join Date: October 13, 2001
Location: Louisiana
Posts: 13
Yeah, I was reading recently how they, the ATF considers trusts to be a loop hole that allows convicted felons to own NFA firearms, and they are (have) taken measures to change it.
sf46 is offline  
Old September 16, 2013, 04:00 PM   #60
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,598
That is nonsense. Even more nonsense because the measure they are taking doesn't solve the problem they claim exists. It just creates an additional barrier for legal ownership.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 16, 2013, 04:33 PM   #61
Rikakiah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2013
Posts: 183
Quote:
That is nonsense. Even more nonsense because the measure they are taking doesn't solve the problem they claim exists. It just creates an additional barrier for legal ownership.
Well, the problem may very well exist, as there are examples even here of unscrupulous uses of the trust method. Although, really, is a felon going to actually get himself put on a trust for the purpose of owning an NFA item? "Ooh, can't get me now, copper--see, I'm legal now. Says so 'cause my name's on a trust!" Huh?

However, this new proposal , while it might stem some unintended uses of trusts is by FAR about the most backward and inefficient way to do so.

Now, IF there was a CLEO for every area (heard there isn't always?) and IF that CLEO could only refuse to sign if there was documented evidence the applicant had or was planning to stray outside the law, then the proposal wouldn't be so terrible.

As to the separate proposed tax increase, what they should do is offer an expedited service for that $500. You want it in 1-3 months, pay $500. Don't mind a 6-9 month wait, $200. Honestly, I'd bet that arrangement could really impact the national debt...
Rikakiah is offline  
Old September 16, 2013, 05:27 PM   #62
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,468
Quote:
Well, the problem may very well exist, as there are examples even here of unscrupulous uses of the trust method.
Could people have cheated? Maybe. Have there been any prosecutions? No. Have any violent crimes been traced to this? No.

Quote:
As to the separate proposed tax increase, what they should do is offer an expedited service for that $500.
If they can offer an "expedited" service at all, that shows they're dragging their feet on regular approvals. No can do.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 16, 2013, 06:57 PM   #63
Rikakiah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2013
Posts: 183
Quote:
Could people have cheated? Maybe. Have there been any prosecutions? No. Have any violent crimes been traced to this? No.
True, but I can't fault them for trying to shore up a potentially loose system, especially when it comes to something like firearms. However, like I stated after that, I strongly disagree that the proposed way is the proper way to do this.

Quote:
If they can offer an "expedited" service at all, that shows they're dragging their feet on regular approvals. No can do.
My comment was really purely hypothetical. However, 6-9 months for basically a background check and filing a few papers? It's fairly obvious they're not exactly prioritizing anything when it comes to NFA approvals.
Rikakiah is offline  
Old September 16, 2013, 09:16 PM   #64
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,468
Quote:
True, but I can't fault them for trying to shore up a potentially loose system, especially when it comes to something like firearms
I certainly can. If a practice cannot be shown to have caused harm, why are we regulating it out of existence?
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 16, 2013, 09:22 PM   #65
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,598
Quote:
Well, the problem may very well exist, as there are examples even here of unscrupulous uses of the trust method.
A felon cannot legally possess a firearm, even as a trustee of a trust. The only way for him to obtain one via a trust is if a trustee who can legally possess a firearm picks up the firearm for him and then turns it over to him. At that point, the only thing being a trustee might do is protect him from unregistered NFA weapon charges beng tacked on to all the other laws being violated.

Further, requiring CLEO sign-off on all trustees does not solve this problem since a trust can legally be amended after it has been approved by ATF. It is like every other gun control law proposed by this Administration. The law does nothing to solve the problem they claim they are trying to solve but it creates giant burdens for good, law-abiding citizens who are trying to stay law-abiding but still own firearms.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 17, 2013, 08:37 AM   #66
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 323
Quote:
Further, requiring CLEO sign-off on all trustees does not solve this problem since a trust can legally be amended after it has been approved by ATF.
The proposed rule would require a new form (with prints, pics and CLEO sign-off) to be submitted within 30 days of anyone being added to a trust/corp/LLC as a "responsible person." Presumably, this would not require another fee and would add to the backlog in the NFA section.
__________________
Send lawyers, guns, and money...

Armorer-at-Law.com
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old September 17, 2013, 11:40 AM   #67
Rob62
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 28, 1999
Location: Georgia, USA
Posts: 424
Some of the last few comments are really troubling to me. First off, if a felon or prohibited person were to try and circumvent any law by being on a Trust they would still be in violation of the law - i.e. breaking the law.

A prohibited person (Felon) in possession of an NFA item or any firearm for that matter is already AGAINST the law. It does not matter how that item was obtained. Why do we need any more laws, Executive Orders, Executive Actions, etc ??!?!?!? It is plain simple language that is already in place.

Second point. Why should I or anyone have to pay a fee for an "expedited" BATFE approval - i.e. Tax Stamp. Absolutely not, and one can make a strong argument that will all the taxes already in place, and the 2nd Amendment there should not even be a $200 tax stamp requirement to own NFA items.

Bottom line. This proposed action, be it law, Excecutive this or that, is a stupid feel good proposal that will - once again - ONLY effect us law abiding citizens.

Regards,

Rob
__________________
NRA & NAHC Life Member
Rob62 is offline  
Old September 17, 2013, 01:26 PM   #68
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,598
Quote:
The proposed rule would require a new form (with prints, pics and CLEO sign-off) to be submitted within 30 days of anyone being added to a trust/corp/LLC as a "responsible person." Presumably, this would not require another fee and would add to the backlog in the NFA section.
I don't want to go into detail for obvious reasons; but if you are a felon who is at the same time willing to pay a $200 tax stamp to the ATF and register the firearm that proves you are committing an illegal act, then the new regulation doesn't solve that problem. It can be circumvented easily enough if someone who is not a prohibited person is willing to commit a federal firearms felony for you (and if someone isn't, then a trust still doesn't help you).

And ATF seems uncertain on that rule yet. They discussed something like that in the proposal but were specifically asking for comments regarding how feasible that was. Realistically, I don't think it is that feasible - if you define responsible person broadly enough to make it useful in excluding the odd felon, you will blow away the ATF estimate of 2 people per trust by a large factor (In my trust it would be 7 responsible persons - and this is a fairly simple trust). If you limit "responsible persons" to only those who can alienate trust property, then there are still several loopholes that can still be abused by felons who are desperately seeking ATF attention that would allow them to escape the "Unregistered possession of NFA item" charge; but not the 20 other charges.

And for what? Hell, a Form 3 between dealers is taking months as it is right now. I could probably add a felon to a trust, submit the appropriate form to ATF notifying them of the fact in the exact fashion ATF wishes to be notified and it might be a year or more before they noticed it.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 20, 2013, 03:09 PM   #69
rawiron1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2009
Posts: 10
This all sounds like a giant pain in the arse for all parties involved.

I'd like to see them drop 'ol Cleo from the requirement and grandfather current tax stamps and trusts.

If they are hell bent on making changes then make the rookies getting their first NFA gun jump through the hoops or anyone wanting to add a new person to their trust or a new gun.

Just my 2 cents.

Serbu Super Shorty 12ga (my skeet gun)
Rock River SBR AR-15, 5.56mm, Sig red dot, GI sling
Yankee Hill 9mm suppressor (for my G-19)
rawiron1 is offline  
Old September 20, 2013, 03:21 PM   #70
rawiron1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: March 25, 2009
Posts: 10
NFATCA just had to go over and poke their finger in the Hornet's nest...

NFA firearms collectors group initiated ATF gun trust rule change

http://www.examiner.com/article/nfa-...st-rule-change

If you are a member of NFATCA (which I am not), I would drop my membership like a hot potato.
rawiron1 is offline  
Old September 20, 2013, 09:54 PM   #71
Rikakiah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2013
Posts: 183
Re: ATF Extending CLEO Sign Off to Trusts and Corporations

Quote:
Originally Posted by rawiron1 View Post
If they are hell bent on making changes then make the rookies getting their first NFA gun jump through the hoops or anyone wanting to add a new person to their trust or a new gun.
See, I never understood the process to begin with. Once you go through the process once, it should be a relatively simple process to just verify everything's still valid. So, have thorough background checks, 6 month wait time, etc... Everytime after that should be able to be processed in a matter of weeks.
Rikakiah is offline  
Old September 22, 2013, 11:52 PM   #72
bamaee04
Member
 
Join Date: January 14, 2009
Location: Birmingham, Alabama
Posts: 18
I am a newbie in the NFA area, and I have been working on learning more about the rules and regulations as I already have a Class 01 FFL. I have strongly considered obtaining my Class 03 tax stamp to be able to sell/transfer NFA items with my Class 01 FFL, but this has made me step back. The last thing I want to do is make a bad business decision with jumping in on that while these proposed changes are in the works.

I agree that it looks like they are trampling on our 2nd Amendment rights yet again and trying to make an already trying process even more difficult to push people away from NFA items including dealers...
bamaee04 is offline  
Old September 23, 2013, 12:39 AM   #73
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 9,468
Quote:
The last thing I want to do is make a bad business decision with jumping in on that while these proposed changes are in the works.
It won't directly affect you. The burden will be on your customers.
__________________
In the depth of winter I finally learned that there was in me an invincible summer.
--Albert Camus
Tom Servo is offline  
Old September 23, 2013, 01:11 AM   #74
Theohazard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 19, 2012
Location: Western WA
Posts: 1,672
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo
Quote:
Originally Posted by bamaee04
The last thing I want to do is make a bad business decision with jumping in on that while these proposed changes are in the works.
It won't directly affect you. The burden will be on your customers.
I think he's referring to the fact that it may be a bad business decision to get into NFA sales if they're about to make it much more difficult to buy an NFA item. If this new Executive Action ends up being as bad as we think it might be, it will be a lot harder to buy NFA items and sales will drop nationwide. Heck, they might even plummet.
__________________
0331: "Accuracy by volume."
Theohazard is offline  
Old September 23, 2013, 09:24 AM   #75
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,598
Not only would this cut back on demand for NFA items, there is also the issue of what happens to all the already paid-for but still pending NFA applications when this goes into effect. A giant cut in demand + a huge dump of NFA items at the same time is going to hurt. It almost looks like this regulation was designed to put people out of business as its primary goal.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2013 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.13989 seconds with 8 queries