Here it comes... In Obama's Executive Order

[JeffWard]

Here's the text from the Whitehouse website:

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-of ... d-make-our

Require background checks for people trying to buy some of the most dangerous weapons and other items through a trust or corporation.
The National Firearms Act imposes restrictions on sales of some of the most dangerous weapons, such as machine guns and sawed-off shotguns. But because of outdated regulations, individuals have been able to avoid the background check requirement by applying to acquire these firearms and other items through trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. In fact, the number of these applications has increased significantly over the years—from fewer than 900 applications in the year 2000 to more than 90,000 applications in 2014. ATF is finalizing a rule that makes clear that people will no longer be able to avoid background checks by buying NFA guns and other items through a trust or corporation.

Coming via Executive Order...

JW

[poikilotrm]

You still had to do a NCIC check when you did the 4473. Nothing has changed.

[savage54]

You still had to do a NCIC check when you did the 4473. Nothing has changed.

Previously, a NICS check was performed on the individual who picked up the NFA item from the dealer (after the Form 4 was approved). New regs require fingerprints and photographs for ALL "responsible persons" in the trust/corporation be submitted with the Form 4. Sounds like a change to me.

[Fulliautomatix]

There's going to be lots of arguing and lawsuits over what defines a "responsible person". The way the ruling is written, and the way some trusts are written, co-trustees could be and beneficiaries definitely are excluded from that group of people.

[doubloon]

I'm totally irresponsible so that makes me exempt from all the paperwork.

[Fulliautomatix]

lol, if it only worked that way.

[T-Rex]

There's going to be lots of arguing and lawsuits over what defines a "responsible person". The way the ruling is written, and the way some trusts are written, co-trustees could be and beneficiaries definitely are excluded from that group of people.

If NFA items are to pass on to beneficiaries, who, themselves, must be eligible to posses, how are they not defined as a responsible party?

Believe me, I find this absurd, but,unfortunately, it's the game we must play.

[Fulliautomatix]

There's going to be lots of arguing and lawsuits over what defines a "responsible person". The way the ruling is written, and the way some trusts are written, co-trustees could be and beneficiaries definitely are excluded from that group of people.

If NFA items are to pass on to beneficiaries, who, themselves, must be eligible to posses, how are they not defined as a responsible party?

Believe me, I find this absurd, but,unfortunately, it's the game we must play.

I'm sure that beneficiaries will need to be vetted at the time the NFA devices are transferred to them, but the beneficiary is specifically excluded by the new rules (it totally depends on how your trust was drafted). This is an excerpt from the rules portion that defines who is a responsible person.

An example of who may be excluded from this definition of responsible person is the beneficiary of a trust, if the beneficiary does not have the capability to exercise the powers or authorities enumerated in this section.