The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old August 22, 2013, 06:02 AM   #1
alloy
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:
On Tuesday, the ATF sent the proposed regulation to the White House for a 90-day review, a final step before the draft rule is unveiled to the public.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pe...#ixzz2ch6Zwt7w
Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old August 22, 2013, 06:20 AM   #2
alloy
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
The clarification viewed here:

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAg...&RIN=1140-AA43
__________________
Quote:
The uncomfortable question common to all who have had revolutionary changes imposed on them: are we now to accept what was done to us just because it was done?
Angelo Codevilla
alloy is offline  
Old August 22, 2013, 09:09 AM   #3
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,639
From the ATF rule proposal:

Quote:
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.
The 4th part is the odd one, since CLEO certifications aren't required for trusts in the first place.
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 22, 2013, 10:09 AM   #4
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
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?
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old August 22, 2013, 02:05 PM   #5
vranasaurus
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 16, 2008
Posts: 1,175
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.
vranasaurus is offline  
Old August 22, 2013, 02:54 PM   #6
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old August 22, 2013, 03:09 PM   #7
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 10,639
Quote:
I think #4 relates to doing away with it all together for all applications.
That's what I was wondering. They've actually been talking about doing that for awhile, so I guess we'll have to accept the other provisions to get it.

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
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 23, 2013, 01:55 PM   #8
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 373
Quote:
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.
Exactly.

Quote:
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.
Correct. Requiring all "responsible persons" covered by a trust/corp/LLC to submit photos and fingerprints is what we would be giving up to completely get rid of the CLEO signoff requirement.

Quote:
Of course, that removes one of the main factors that makes people go the trust route.
If the only reason you used a trust was to avoid the CLEO signoff (often because the CLEO would not sign for anyone), then that problem would go away. If the reason you were using a trust/corp/LLC was so that multiple people would use the NFA item, that would still be available, but each of the persons would need to submit photos and fingerprints.

*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
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 11:48 AM   #9
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 373
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.
Armorer-at-Law is offline  
Old August 30, 2013, 05:47 PM   #10
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 03:33 AM   #11
Bartholomew Roberts
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 12, 2000
Location: Texas and Oklahoma area
Posts: 5,719
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.
Bartholomew Roberts is offline  
Old September 4, 2013, 02:20 PM   #12
Armorer-at-Law
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 29, 2002
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Posts: 373
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
Armorer-at-Law 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 03:46 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.10194 seconds with 9 queries