November 24, 2020, 10:24 AM | #1 |
Member
Join Date: January 24, 2015
Posts: 43
|
Trust Questions
First off are trusts even worth it now?
I know I have read some stuff talking about how ATF was not a fan of trusts and changed some things regarding them. Is it a problem that I and the other person on the trust live in two different states? I already own a suppressor, can that be added to the trust? How annoying is this process? |
November 24, 2020, 04:29 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
Trusts are valuable if you want more than one person to legally be allowed to possess the item.
As to living in different states, it probably depends on laws covering trusts in those states. If you are the registered owner of a suppressor, you would need to transfer it to the trust, which would incur the normal NFA tax and transfer process...as far as I know. |
November 25, 2020, 09:50 PM | #3 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
A trust allows multiple persons to be in lawful possession vs an individual. Quote:
Quote:
But make sure the other person can possess an NFA firearm in that state. Quote:
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
||||
November 30, 2020, 05:06 PM | #4 |
Member
Join Date: January 24, 2015
Posts: 43
|
Thanks ya'll
I'll let my brother know to hold off on his form 1 and we will get a trust going. |
December 2, 2020, 02:08 AM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 5, 2008
Posts: 512
|
You can always do an individual trust, then once it is approved you can add on whomever you want to the trust. That keeps from having to do all the fingerprints, etc. for other members of the trust.
Just know that if any other item's are purchased for the trust, then everyone listed on it will have to get all the requirements done then. |
December 7, 2020, 10:04 PM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,551
|
Ive been told when you have a trust you dont own anything, the trust owns everything??
|
December 8, 2020, 01:19 AM | #7 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2013
Posts: 168
|
Quote:
The answer depends on what the effect of Rule 41F was. It went into effect July 15, 2016. If the transfer (of the suppressor) to the trust occurred on or before July 15, 2016, then Responsible Parties ("RP's") can still be added at any time after that, just as before.. However, if the transfer to the trust occurred after July 15, 2016, then RP's cannot be added, period. That was the whole point of the 2016 rule change. As to transfers made after July 15, 2016, no one can be a RP unless they have applied to ATF and been approved, but there is no way to obtain approval of an RP from ATF unless it has been applied for with the transfer. The only way to "add" or change RP's for trusts created post-7/15/16 is to do a transfer to a new trust, which requires another $200 stamp and 6(?)-month wait, but in that process you can add anyone you want as a RP so long as they apply and get approved by ATF in the initial application. Last edited by Eight_is_enough; December 8, 2020 at 04:44 AM. |
|
December 8, 2020, 01:25 AM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2013
Posts: 168
|
Quote:
But that is never going to matter. I share my suppressors with my son. Because of the trust, either one of us can legally possess any of our suppressors. |
|
December 8, 2020, 11:58 AM | #9 | ||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
The most popular trust used in the last four years is Silencer Shops Single Shot Trust: https://www.silencershop.com/service...hot-trust.html A trust submitted with one persons name only. When the tax stamp is returned additional persons can be added with no fingerprints, photos or RP questionnaires. No notification to ATF either. 80-90% of my NFA customers apply as a trust and the overwhelming majority use the Single Shot vs traditional gun trust. Quote:
We know about 41F. It merely required the submission of fingerprints, photo and a Responsible Person Questionnaire for each member of a trust AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION. Quote:
First, it's Responsible Person's, not "Parties". Second, "on or before"? 41F only applied to Form 1/4 applications not postmarked prior to July 16, 2016. That's application, not "transferred". Thirdly, "Responsible Person(s)" is a term used only during the Form 1/4 application process. You don't add RP's later, you add members, trustees or whatever your state law regulating trusts calls them. Quote:
You don't have a clue as to anything about 41F, the NFA application process, trusts or what ATF requires. Quote:
Quote:
You confuse ownership with possession.
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
||||||||
December 9, 2020, 11:07 AM | #10 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2013
Posts: 168
|
Quote:
Now, if unforeseen (at the time the stamp is issued) changes in officers, trustees, etc., of an entity result in the need to add new RP's, then the court may rule such additions may be done without background checks. But the comments by DOJ in the Federal Register concerning 41F make it crystal clear to me that the main purpose of 41F was to put a stop to the practice of one RP of a trust, corporation, etc., getting approval and then adding people who could not have passed a background check. My opinion, therefore, based on nearly four decades of predicting how judges and appellate justices are going to rule on specific issues (with a high degree of success, I might add), is that if the post-41F applicant intentionally omits (as an RP) someone they planned to add later, then they have engaged in a subterfuge to avoid the background check, fingerprints, etc., that most U. S. District Judges are not going to allow. You, and the Silencer Shop are telling people they can have one person apply as the only RP and then, as soon as they get the stamp, add their relatives, friends, etc., to their heart's desire, even if they knew at the time of application those others were going to be added as RP's. My opinion is that you are encouraging a flouting of the law that may eventually get a lot of people in serious trouble and cause them huge financial losses, with the concomitant legal ramifications for you, the Silencer Shop and anyone else who they relied on and who can be viewed in court as a professional. And for what? Because they were too lazy to have all known, intended RP's fill out the paperwork at the time of application. Good luck. Last edited by Eight_is_enough; December 9, 2020 at 11:16 AM. |
||
December 9, 2020, 12:50 PM | #11 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
ATF will return any prints you send for those new trust members because guess what.......they don't want, need or require them! Now, for your viewing pleasure I give you what ATF has published: https://www.atf.gov/file/107196/download Pay particular attention to the fourth question: Quote:
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE Last edited by dogtown tom; December 9, 2020 at 12:55 PM. |
||||||
December 9, 2020, 04:48 PM | #12 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2013
Posts: 168
|
Yes, I have read all that before and, yes, I still hold the same opinion.
You obviously are not a lawyer, so I do not expect you to understand how it all works, but I can assure you that your reliance upon what ATF says on the matter is misplaced. If the new Biden-controlled DoJ gets one of your unfortunate customers indicted the federal judge/magistrate is not going to care how ATF interprets the rules. He of she is going to read the rules in the CFR, read the legislative history and decide what the rules require. What ATF says about the rules will be interesting to the judge, but not dispositive. As I said, because of what ATF has said concerning its interpretation of 41F, your customer(s) may be able to avoid conviction, but if the judge decides there was an unapproved transfer of a suppressor then that suppressor will be kept by the government, not to mention the huge amount of legal fees your customer incurred. |
December 9, 2020, 09:43 PM | #13 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. Before us "unfortunates" appear before a judge we need to be indicted. 2. Who is it that does the investigation leading to an indictment? ATF. 3. Again, ATF and the federal government do not regulate trusts, state do. 4. You aren't a lawyer are you? Quote:
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
||||
December 10, 2020, 11:14 AM | #14 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2013
Posts: 168
|
Quote:
I am reminded of the gentleman who, back when Obama was president, bought a pistol after a standard NICS check, planning to later sell it to friend who was looking for that particular model pistol. He later did sell it to that friend, with the friend also passing a NICS check for the purchase. The DoJ charged him with a felony, and case drew national (and NRA) attention. NUMEROUS so-called "gun attorneys" opined that the man had done absolutely nothing wrong, many pointing out that every person who ever acquires a firearm intends to sooner or later sell or give to someone, or leave to their heirs or devisees. Obama's DoJ insisted on taking him to trial, and got a jury to convict him of lying on the 4473 (because, they said, he was not the "actual transferee"), and he was send to prison for several years. Your ignorance of how all this works is leading you to two mistakes. The first is as I describe above -- you seem to think that ATF's opinion on whether a violation occurred is going to be important to a federal judge, when it probably will not be, and even if it is it will cost your customer a fortune in legal fees. Second, you fail to account for what is going to happen inside ATF if Biden takes over -- it will be taken over by anti-gun (and certainly anti-NFA items) zealots just itching to send "gun-clinging" conservatives to prison irrespective of how law-abiding the defendant may have thought he was being. So while such transfers to newly added RP's might never be prosecuted under a Trump administration, they very well may be under a Biden/Harris administration. It is therefore my opinion that anyone who says or believes it is perfectly okay for one RP to get approval for transfer to a trust, and, upon receipt of the tax stamp to immediately transfer the NFA item to a "newly added" RP, regardless of whether the newly added person would, if he had applied, been approved by AFT or not, is a fool flirting with disaster. And the really sad thing is that they may go to prison, while the dolts who assured them it was perfectly okay to do, will not. |
|
December 10, 2020, 12:23 PM | #15 | |||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
Quote:
Every gun dealer in America knew it was a crime, as ATF warnings to be vigilant about straw purchases are frequent. Not only the NRA,NUMEROUS so-called "gun attorneys" but four Supreme Court Justices though he had not committed a crime. Unfortunately five USSC Justices DID. Abramski wasn't the first person convicted for lying on the 4473, just the first to have his case heard by the Supreme Court. But, sorry bub.........Abramski has nothing at all to do with the issue at hand. Abramski violated existing federal law. Adding additional members to a trust after receiving the tax stamp doesn't! I've asked for a citation to any federal law that prohibits such and you claim I "don't know how all of this works". Quote:
Quote:
And BTW, Trump's ATF was far more anti gun in four years than Obama's ATF was in eight. Quote:
Quote:
"Flirting" btw isn't illegal. And neither is adding members to a trust. Quote:
Please answer the question I asked above: ".what happens when your grandson turns eighteen? Is he out of luck? No ability to be added to your trust? Do you seriously think members of a trust don't die, move, have children, gain new friends or want others to share in the ability to lawfully use and possess an NFA firearm?"
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
|||||||
December 11, 2020, 04:45 PM | #16 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 17, 2013
Posts: 168
|
You are happy to throw Abramski under the bus because "he violated federal law," but another U.S. Circuit Court held, in another case, that because the person for whom the firearm was being purchased would have passed a NICS check the purchaser had made no criminal misrepresentation.
And, as you noted, 4 of the 9 U.S. Supreme Court believed that Abramski did not commit any crime. So I am not content to throw Abramski under the bus. Just because you buy a firearm intending to sell it to another person should NOT mean that it is a "strawman" transaction. The warning on the 4473 was against buying the firearm "on behalf of" the other person. I don't believe Abramski bought "on behalf of" his uncle, because his plan was to transfer it to the uncle only if the uncle could pass a NICS check, which was, in fact, done. If the two Obama appointees, Kagan and Sotomayor, had not been on the court, Abramski's conviction would have been overturned. The four dissenters needed only one more justice to join them. You bring the fact that Abramski was arrested for a bank robbery. But the charges were dropped, so, so what? And as far as Trump's ATF vs. Obama's, well, Trump's never did anything remotely as bad as Fast & Furious, which was an out-and-out attempt to get A/R's banned. But, to the main point, the government, in order to get conviction, does not have to "cite a statute" saying you cannot add Responsible Persons after a stamp has been issued. They merely need to point to the applicable CFR, which says: Quote:
The burden to show that later added RP's are somehow exempt will be on the defendant, not the other way around. And nowhere in the CFR's or in the Federal Register discussing the proposed 2016 changes (which can be read here: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/...2016-00192.pdf ) is it even hinted that later added RP's will be exempt. The clearly stated purpose of the 41F changes was to require all RP's to have to undergo a background check. Letting a trust circumvent that by adding RP's immediately after the stamp is issued is highly likely to get shot down if this issue is ever before a judge. Believe me, I wish it were otherwise. I do not believe there should be any more restrictions on suppressors that there are on long guns. In other words, any person who can pass a NICS check should be able to walk into gunshop in America and walk out with all the suppressors he can afford. I just do not want to see my fellow patriots going to prison because they listened to people who did not know what they were talking about, and who in their zeal to make another sale told people what they wanted to hear. Last edited by Eight_is_enough; December 11, 2020 at 08:14 PM. |
|
December 11, 2020, 08:21 PM | #17 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
But again, Abramski is irrelevant to the issue of a trust.
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE |
|||
December 11, 2020, 08:49 PM | #18 | |||||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 3,057
|
Quote:
I'm clearly not, but even I know what that cite from the CFR is referring to and sir........you've lost the plot. The "transferee" is the trust........not the members of the trust. No one, ATF included, gives a rats hiney who is listed as a member of a trust as long as they are not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law. Quote:
To be clear: 1. You believe that "the government" (presumably ATF) will arrest members of a trust that have not violated any law or regulation? 2. ATF (who made the arrest for the violation of a law that doesn't exist) will then be deemed immaterial ? 3.That same "government", a jury and judges will disregard said lack of law or regulation and convict anyway? 4. You funny. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
2. ATF says so. 3. "this issue" isn't going before a judge because its not a violation of anything. 4. Reality escapes you. Good grief man. Quote:
Quote:
Further, silencer sales have had a tremendous increase in the last five years. There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of law firms and attorneys selling trusts specifically for NFA firearms. I have yet to see one that has no means to add additional members. I don't earn a penny more on a silencer sale to a person who will file as a trust vs someone filing as an individual. Your expert views on trusts are not shared by any of those attorneys or law firms. Not shared by ATF. Not shared by any US Attorneys Office. Not a judge or jury. Not shared by anyone other than YOU. Think about why that might be. I don't have to be a lawyer or go to law school to recognize the horsehockey you are spewing. Your credibility is zero. I've asked this question now for the third time: ".what happens when your grandson turns eighteen? Is he out of luck? No ability to be added to your trust? Do you seriously think members of a trust don't die, move, have children, gain new friends or want others to share in the ability to lawfully use and possess an NFA firearm?" Any further discussion kinda hinges on you answering that.
__________________
Need a FFL in Dallas/Plano/Allen/Frisco/McKinney ? Just EMAIL me. $20 transfers ($10 for CHL, active military,police,fire or schoolteachers) Plano, Texas...........the Gun Nut Capitol of Gun Culture, USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pELwCqz2JfE Last edited by dogtown tom; December 11, 2020 at 09:18 PM. |
|||||||||
December 12, 2020, 04:11 AM | #19 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,199
|
If I recall correctly, Abramski was largely convicted based on the check, written by the uncle for the cost of the gun (and noted on the check), that was done PRIOR to Abramski's initial purchase. Therefore, he had already been paid to buy the gun on behalf of someone else, and thus lied on the 4473, committing a straw purchase.
So, if a "future RP" paid for the NFA item, there may be a good case. If they were simply added later, it would be tough to prove any illegality, as adding a RP down the road (without fingerprints/photos, etc) is not illegal. |
December 12, 2020, 04:34 AM | #20 |
Staff
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 24,910
|
I'm sure if I leave this open, more will be said, but for the life of me I can't see that anything else needs to be said. I think it's been covered thoroughly.
__________________
Do you know about the TEXAS State Rifle Association?
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|