The Firing Line Forums

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

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old November 24, 2020, 10:24 AM   #1
dedrevil
Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2015
Posts: 34
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?
dedrevil is offline  
Old November 24, 2020, 04:29 PM   #2
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,113
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.
raimius is offline  
Old November 25, 2020, 09:50 PM   #3
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 2,692
Quote:
dedrevil First off are trusts even worth it now?
Yes.
A trust allows multiple persons to be in lawful possession vs an individual.



Quote:
I know I have read some stuff talking about how ATF was not a fan of trusts and changed some things regarding them.
ATF doesn't give a rats hiney about trusts vs individual. ATF implemented a rule change in 2016 that made NFA form submission by trusts, individuals, corporations identical in the requirements.



Quote:
Is it a problem that I and the other person on the trust live in two different states?
No.
But make sure the other person can possess an NFA firearm in that state.



Quote:
I already own a suppressor, can that be added to the trust? How annoying is this process?
It would be a Form 4 transfer from you to the trust. $200 tax stamp to transfer.
__________________
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
dogtown tom is offline  
Old November 30, 2020, 05:06 PM   #4
dedrevil
Member
 
Join Date: January 24, 2015
Posts: 34
Thanks ya'll
I'll let my brother know to hold off on his form 1 and we will get a trust going.
dedrevil is offline  
Old December 2, 2020, 02:08 AM   #5
Txhillbilly
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 5, 2008
Posts: 467
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.
Txhillbilly is offline  
Old December 7, 2020, 10:04 PM   #6
langenc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 19, 2007
Location: Montmorency Co, MI
Posts: 1,471
Ive been told when you have a trust you dont own anything, the trust owns everything??
langenc is offline  
Old December 8, 2020, 01:19 AM   #7
Eight_is_enough
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2013
Posts: 149
Quote:
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.
I respectfully disagree, and if I am right, and someone does what you just said they can do, they will have committed a felony. With Biden about to put anti-gun people in charge of ATF, it is a bad time to be committing an NFA felony, even if it is a technical one.

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.
Eight_is_enough is offline  
Old December 8, 2020, 01:25 AM   #8
Eight_is_enough
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2013
Posts: 149
Quote:
Ive been told when you have a trust you dont own anything, the trust owns everything??
A trust is a distinct legal entity, like a corporation. And, yes, the trust technically owns the suppressor(s) transferred to it.

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.
Eight_is_enough is offline  
Old December 8, 2020, 11:58 AM   #9
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 2,692
Quote:
Eight_is_enough
Quote:
Quote:
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.
I respectfully disagree, and if I am right...
Well, you're wrong.
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:
The answer depends on what the effect of Rule 41F was. It went into effect July 15, 2016.
Huh?
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:
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..
Wrong.
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:
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.
100% horsehockey.

You don't have a clue as to anything about 41F, the NFA application process, trusts or what ATF requires.



Quote:
Eight_is_enough
Quote:
Quote:
Ive been told when you have a trust you dont own anything, the trust owns everything??
A trust is a distinct legal entity, like a corporation.
No, it isn't. It isn't at all like a corporation.


Quote:
And, yes, the trust technically owns the suppressor(s) transferred to it.
Again, horsehockey.
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
dogtown tom is offline  
Old December 9, 2020, 11:07 AM   #10
Eight_is_enough
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2013
Posts: 149
Quote:
Well, you're wrong.
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:
The answer depends on what the effect of Rule 41F was. It went into effect July 15, 2016.
Huh?
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.
Yes, I understand that is your interpretation, but until there is a case in federal court deciding the issue (including, perhaps an appeal), you have no clue whether you are right are not, and if you are wrong the person has potentially committed a felony. If DoJ prosecutes for the felony the court may rule that the CFR's (and ATF's statements interpreting them) make them unconstitutionally vague, as far as the criminal prosecution goes, but the defendant is still going to lose his NFA item, not to mention a couple hundred thousand dollars in legal defense fees spent.

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.
Eight_is_enough is offline  
Old December 9, 2020, 12:50 PM   #11
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 2,692
Quote:
Eight_is_enough

Yes, I understand that is your interpretation, but until there is a case in federal court deciding the issue (including, perhaps an appeal), you have no clue whether you are right are not...
Yeah, I do have a clue. And ATF gave me that clue.


Quote:
..... 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.
Horsehockey. Keep reading.



Quote:
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.
Your opinion is not shared by ATF. And judges aren't going to be ruling on "subterfuge", thats not their job, but the job of the prosecution. What is your legal training, if any?. Keep reading.



Quote:
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 why do you think Silencer Shop, multiple attorneys and nearly every NFA Trust allow members to be added after the stamp has been issued? Think about why your forty years of predictions doesn't mean a darned thing. Think about state laws (not federal) governing trusts. But keep reading.




Quote:
And for what? Because they were too lazy to have all known, intended RP's fill out the paperwork at the time of application.
Really? You wonder why someone would want a trust where they can add additional members? While you may be happy with you and yur son.....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?

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:
Q: Will new responsible persons, added after the making or transfer, be subject to the same
requirements?

A: Once an application has been approved, no documentation is required to be submitted to ATF when a new responsible person is added to a trust or legal entity. However, should a responsible person change after the application has been submitted, but before it is approved, the applicant or transferee must contact the NFA Branch for guidance.
Still hold that same opinion?
__________________
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.
dogtown tom is offline  
Old December 9, 2020, 04:48 PM   #12
Eight_is_enough
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2013
Posts: 149
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.
Eight_is_enough is offline  
Old December 9, 2020, 09:43 PM   #13
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 2,692
Quote:
Eight_is_enough Yes, I have read all that before and, yes, I still hold the same opinion.

You obviously are not a lawyer....
Are YOU a lawyer?


Quote:
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.
Huh. Suppose you educate me. Provide a cite that proves me wrong. I provided one straight from the horses mouth. Now its your turn.



Quote:
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.
What kind of conspiracy nonsense are you inventing?
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:
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.
Horsehocky. You need to go back to watching Peoples Court and guessing the outcomes.
__________________
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
dogtown tom is offline  
Old December 10, 2020, 11:14 AM   #14
Eight_is_enough
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2013
Posts: 149
Quote:
Are YOU a lawyer?
Yes. I have been doing litigation and appeals for going on four decades.

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.
Eight_is_enough is offline  
Old December 10, 2020, 12:23 PM   #15
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 2,692
Quote:
Eight_is_enough
Quote:
Are YOU a lawyer?
Yes. I have been doing litigation and appeals for going on four decades.
I'm shocked, really.


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.
See, your recollection is faulty. The case is Abramski vs US. It did not involve a friend, but Bruce Abramski's uncle. Bruce Abramski bought a Glock pistol using his expired LE credentials to get the "Blue Label" discount at a gun store in his state. He then took the pistol to a gun store in Pennsylvania to have it transferred to his uncle. Bruce Abramski was under investigation for a series of bank robberies. During a search of his home a check from his uncle with "Glock 19" was in the memo line. The charge was lying on the Form 4473 where it asks if you are the actual buyer/transferee of the firearm.

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:
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.
Again, cite the law that prohibits adding members after the tax stamp is issued. You keep writing what is important to a judge, but you completely fail at pointing out WHAT LAW IS BEING VIOLATED!!!! I think YOU don't know how this really works.



Quote:
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.
Sure, I fully expect Biden's ATF to be as antigun as ATF has been under EVERY FREAKING PRESIDENT SINCE DAY ONE! "Taken over"? are you kidding? where have you been? ATF hasn't been pro Second Amendment ever.

And BTW, Trump's ATF was far more anti gun in four years than Obama's ATF was in eight.



Quote:
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.
Well Mr Lawyer......show us how you prosecute something that isn't a crime, doesn't violate any federal law or ATF regulation and in fact isn't regulated by federal law to begin with. If you are basing your entire cockeyed legal theory on "what ifs" ......answer this: What if YOU and your son are prosecuted for possessing the silencer you currently own? Its as cockeyed as you theory on trust members.


Quote:
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.
Thats not the definition of transfer using a trust. It's now not just wrong, but sad.
"Flirting" btw isn't illegal. And neither is adding members to a trust.

Quote:
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.
Again, for the 87th time......cite the crime.


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
dogtown tom is offline  
Old December 11, 2020, 04:45 PM   #16
Eight_is_enough
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 17, 2013
Posts: 149
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:
§ 479.84. Application to transfer

(a) General. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, no firearm may be transferred in the United States unless an application, Form 4 (5320.4), Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm, in duplicate, executed under the penalties of perjury, to transfer the firearm and register it to the transferee has been filed with and approved by the Director. The application shall be filed by the transferor. If the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company (including a Limited Liability Company (LLC)), association, trust, or corporation, all information on the Form 4 application shall be furnished for each responsible person of the transferee.
The government will argue that "for each responsible person of the transferee" mean exactly that, and irrespective of when they become a responsible person. They will argue there was no Form 4 submitted for your later-added RP, so there was a violation. They will argue the fact that AFT will not allow later Form 4's to be filed is immaterial.

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.
Eight_is_enough is offline  
Old December 11, 2020, 08:21 PM   #17
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 2,692
Quote:
Eight_is_enough 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.
Don't put words in my mouth. He threw himself under the bus by lying on his 4473. You and I may not agree that the USSC came to the correct decision, but there was a law, and he violated it.



Quote:
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.
The facts of the case...you should read them. You should also read the instructions on the Form 4473.

Quote:
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.
And if the Queen had balls she'd be King. Again, the fact is Kagan and Sotomayor WERE and ARE on the USSC.


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
dogtown tom is offline  
Old December 11, 2020, 08:49 PM   #18
dogtown tom
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 23, 2006
Location: Plano, Texas
Posts: 2,692
Quote:
Eight_is_enough:

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:
Quote:
§ 479.84. Application to transfer

(a) General. Except as otherwise provided in this subpart, no firearm may be transferred in the United States unless an application, Form 4 (5320.4), Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm, in duplicate, executed under the penalties of perjury, to transfer the firearm and register it to the transferee has been filed with and approved by the Director. The application shall be filed by the transferor. If the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company (including a Limited Liability Company (LLC)), association, trust, or corporation, all information on the Form 4 application shall be furnished for each responsible person of the transferee.
Really? You are an attorney?
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:
The government will argue that "for each responsible person of the transferee" mean exactly that, and irrespective of when they become a responsible person. They will argue there was no Form 4 submitted for your later-added RP, so there was a violation. They will argue the fact that AFT will not allow later Form 4's to be filed is immaterial.
Huh? The government will argue its own regulations, forms, and instructions are "irrelevant"? Sorry bub, it don't work that way.

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:
The burden to show that later added RP's are somehow exempt will be on the defendant, not the other way around.
Again......THERE IS NO PROHIBITION against adding additional members to the trust, hence no burden and no defendant. Sure, the law may change, the ATF regulations may change........but that doesn't invalidate the lawful possession of NFA firearms RIGHT NOW. You go apoplectic when you realize that there are literally hundreds of thousands of trusts where NONE of the members, absolutely NONE have submitted fingerprints. And they can add members to their trust today just as they could in 2015.


Quote:
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.
Your argument is laughable. I counter that nowhere in the CFR's or Federal Register is there any language that mentions or hints that members of a trust added after approval would be required to submit fingerprints. Did you not learn in law school that what is not prohibited, is allowed? Thays how laws work sir, they restrict.


Quote:
The clearly stated purpose of the 41F changes was to require all RP's to have to undergo a background check.
Well no kidding.....AT THE TIME OF APPLICATION!!!! Everyone but you knows this!



Quote:
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.
1. There isn't a prohibition from adding members after the stamp is approved.
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:
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.
They can and do right now. They just have to wait for that tax stamp to be mailed to that dealer.



Quote:
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.
And I don't want to see my fellow patriots mislead by someone claiming to be a lawyer and who has no grip on realty.
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.
dogtown tom is offline  
Old December 12, 2020, 04:11 AM   #19
raimius
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2008
Posts: 2,113
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.
raimius is offline  
Old December 12, 2020, 04:34 AM   #20
JohnKSa
Staff
 
Join Date: February 12, 2001
Location: DFW Area
Posts: 23,431
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?
JohnKSa is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 04:52 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2020 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.12766 seconds with 10 queries