FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

General silencer discussion. If you want to talk about a specific silenced rifle or pistol, it is best to do that in the rifle or pistol section for that brand.

All NFA laws apply.

Moderators: mpallett, renegade, bakerjw

User avatar
KSmoker
Member
Posts: 49
Joined: Tue May 13, 2008 1:37 pm

FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by KSmoker » Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:26 pm

Just in case no one heard about this. Link courtesy of the NFATCA

http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pendi ... ntrol-rule

qballis
Silent Operator
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:53 am
Location: FL - Gunshine State

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by qballis » Thu Aug 22, 2013 3:39 pm

This disgusts me.

User avatar
este
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2235
Joined: Sun Aug 10, 2008 10:22 pm

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by este » Thu Aug 22, 2013 4:13 pm

You know.... to keep criminals off the streets or something. War on Terrorism... Um... I have no idea.

To be realistic, I heard in 2008 when I did my first forms, that the "ATF wasn't going to allow trusts much longer"... and I'm sure it had come up before that. So this shouldn't exactly be a surprise to anyone that the administration wants to appear serious about "gun crime" or in this case perfectly legal things they just don't like.

CThomas
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1274
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 3:48 pm

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by CThomas » Thu Aug 22, 2013 5:03 pm

Everything in their world is a loophole

johndoe3
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 2681
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 5:02 am
Location: N. Colorado

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by johndoe3 » Thu Aug 22, 2013 6:40 pm

We should all be against this change, and during the 90 day review process, they are likely to put online a place where citizens can voice their opinion for or against it.

It is a pro gun-control bureaucracy looking to solve a non-existent problem. BTW, if you are for this change, then you are a fascist seeking to further control by the .feds.

They call legitimate tax deductions by previous Congresses "loopholes" when in fact they are public tax policy previously enacted, and not loopholes. Using "loophole" by anti-gun people is like calling anyone who politically disagrees with this president a racist.

On the other hand, I would reluctantly agree to the change IF and ONLY IF, they removed silencers, SBRs and SBSs from the NFA and they remove all Federal statutes and regulations restricting them.
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time...and those are pretty good odds.
Brett Maverick, gambler on TV (also used by Progressive leaders everywhere)

telero
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 161
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 11:05 pm

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by telero » Thu Aug 22, 2013 7:02 pm

The "loophole" they are trying to close is the Second Amendment.

The problem is that there are gun laws to begin with. Just make the punishment for the actual crime (robbery, murder, etc.) more substantial if a gun is used -- or a board with a nail in it, etc.

MrM2hb
Member
Posts: 17
Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 11:43 pm

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by MrM2hb » Thu Aug 22, 2013 9:45 pm

The government trying to fix a problem that does not exist. I thought at one time they were thinking about getting rid of the local PD sign off to stream line the process? Looks like Obama has other plans.

User avatar
renegade
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 4545
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:19 am
Location: Texas

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by renegade » Thu Aug 22, 2013 10:50 pm

Maintaining the current system is better than what they propose.

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by Bendersquint » Thu Aug 22, 2013 11:18 pm

MrM2hb wrote:The government trying to fix a problem that does not exist. I thought at one time they were thinking about getting rid of the local PD sign off to stream line the process? Looks like Obama has other plans.
It wasn't to streamline the process it was a trade off, no CLEO signoff in trade for notification for ALL transfers.

Ultrastealth
Member
Posts: 18
Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 7:08 pm

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by Ultrastealth » Fri Aug 23, 2013 9:23 am

Well, no chief law enforcement officer here will sign off on anything. I just submitted a form 4 for a suppressor. I wonder if this would effect applications already in line. There will be somewhat of a way around it in that the address for a trust can be wherever you want it to be, so you can likely find a friendly sheriff or police chief somewhere that will sign off on your trust.

rimshaker
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 1038
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 11:15 am
Location: FL

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by rimshaker » Fri Aug 23, 2013 10:05 am

Normally this news would just be old talk and rumor, as always.

But the fact the ATF actually sent a proposed regulation is a very real reason to worry now.

Time to really think long and hard about getting NFA items asap via Trust before any legislation sneaks in. Especially given the current 2-3 month wait times just to get pending status in the system.

User avatar
eastern_hunter
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 966
Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 10:34 pm
Location: Charleston, WV

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by eastern_hunter » Fri Aug 23, 2013 12:26 pm

Unless a can is in stock at your local dealer, it seems unlikely that you can get one sent to him from a distributor or maker in time.

Wish they'd take cans of the list of NFA items! Oh well ...

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by Bendersquint » Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:39 pm

Ultrastealth wrote:Well, no chief law enforcement officer here will sign off on anything. I just submitted a form 4 for a suppressor. I wonder if this would effect applications already in line. There will be somewhat of a way around it in that the address for a trust can be wherever you want it to be, so you can likely find a friendly sheriff or police chief somewhere that will sign off on your trust.
The part you are missing is that it requires NO signoff, just Sheriff NOTIFICATION.

ncorry
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:17 pm

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by ncorry » Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:25 pm

Anyone have any insight (or just a flat out guess) when the proposed changes pertaining to trusts will take effect?

User avatar
Armorer-at-Law
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:39 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by Armorer-at-Law » Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:34 pm

The part you are missing is that it requires NO signoff, just Sheriff NOTIFICATION.
^^^^ This.

While NFA trusts would still have purpose and benefits, this would essentially eliminate the main reason most people use the: to avoid the CLEO signoff requirement. Under the proposed rule, an individual (w/o a trust) would use the Form 4 same as now, except instead of the CLEO sign off there would just be a copy sent to the CLEO. For those using a trust or corporation/LLC, there would still be no CLEO signoff required, but each "responsible person" covered by the trust/corp/LLC would have to submit the photos and fingerprints and the CLEO would just be sent a copy.

You can be for it or against it. Just know what you're opposing (or supporting).
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT

ncorry
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:17 pm

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by ncorry » Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:15 pm

Armorer-at-Law wrote:
The part you are missing is that it requires NO signoff, just Sheriff NOTIFICATION.
^^^^ This.

While NFA trusts would still have purpose and benefits, this would essentially eliminate the main reason most people use the: to avoid the CLEO signoff requirement. Under the proposed rule, an individual (w/o a trust) would use the Form 4 same as now, except instead of the CLEO sign off there would just be a copy sent to the CLEO. For those using a trust or corporation/LLC, there would still be no CLEO signoff required, but each "responsible person" covered by the trust/corp/LLC would have to submit the photos and fingerprints and the CLEO would just be sent a copy.

You can be for it or against it. Just know what you're opposing (or supporting).
Assuming "responsible person" is defined as anyone in a trust (or corp or LLC) that the trustee or grantor wants to include in a group of people that can take the NFA item to the range by themselves, as I understand it, each such "responsible person" would be required to submit the passport photo, Certification of Compliance and fingerprint cards to the ATF. I assume this submission would then be followed by a FBI background check. The title of the proposed rule is Background Checks for Principal Officers of Corporations, Trusts, and Other Legal Entities. OK, I follow. For the original Form 1 or Form 4 submission by a new trust, this seems pretty much the same as an individual submitting a Form 1 or Form 4, even more so if the CLEO signoff is eliminated.

As I think this through in my feeble brain, I for one would happily trade having each responsible person being required to be printed, subject to the background check, required to submit photo and Certification of Compliance and CLEO notification in exchange for losing the CLEO signoff AND an administrative change that streamlines the whole process for the second and subsequent Form 1/4 submissions for individuals AND entities. Jim Bob's first Form 4 takes somewhere between 4 and 12 months? FINE BY ME, but, if he passed the FBI background check the first time, rubber stamp the Form 4 he submits two months after getting to play with his new toy and realizing that he needs a suppressor for another caliber. If he wouldn't / couldn't pass the background check for the second transfer, wouldn't he already be a "prohibited person" under the 1968 GCA, and be in illegal possession of the first one?

Question: Say my trust just received its first approved Form 1 or 4. Now I want to add a co-trustee. Would the new co-trustee be looking at, say, a $50 fee for the processing of his background check, and a similar 9 to 12 month wait for processing? I would think that for a big corp with an in-house security force, any multi-month waiting period for a new security hire to be able to pack a fully-papered MP5 around the CEO would be a major PITA. What am I missing here?

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by Bendersquint » Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:39 pm

ncorry wrote: Question: Say my trust just received its first approved Form 1 or 4. Now I want to add a co-trustee. Would the new co-trustee be looking at, say, a $50 fee for the processing of his background check, and a similar 9 to 12 month wait for processing? I would think that for a big corp with an in-house security force, any multi-month waiting period for a new security hire to be able to pack a fully-papered MP5 around the CEO would be a major PITA. What am I missing here?
What you are missing is that scenarios like that are handled differently than Joe Citizen buying a cool toy for the range.

ncorry
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:17 pm

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by ncorry » Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:45 pm

Bendersquint wrote:
ncorry wrote: Question: Say my trust just received its first approved Form 1 or 4. Now I want to add a co-trustee. Would the new co-trustee be looking at, say, a $50 fee for the processing of his background check, and a similar 9 to 12 month wait for processing? I would think that for a big corp with an in-house security force, any multi-month waiting period for a new security hire to be able to pack a fully-papered MP5 around the CEO would be a major PITA. What am I missing here?
What you are missing is that scenarios like that are handled differently than Joe Citizen buying a cool toy for the range.[/quote]

For the big corp with in-house security force, I can see their paperwork moving a bit , no I mean WAY faster. But what about for an existing trust wanting to expand its responsible person to responsible people, under the proposed changes? Similar processing time as current transfers?

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by Bendersquint » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:28 pm

ncorry wrote:
Bendersquint wrote:
ncorry wrote: Question: Say my trust just received its first approved Form 1 or 4. Now I want to add a co-trustee. Would the new co-trustee be looking at, say, a $50 fee for the processing of his background check, and a similar 9 to 12 month wait for processing? I would think that for a big corp with an in-house security force, any multi-month waiting period for a new security hire to be able to pack a fully-papered MP5 around the CEO would be a major PITA. What am I missing here?
What you are missing is that scenarios like that are handled differently than Joe Citizen buying a cool toy for the range.[/quote]

For the big corp with in-house security force, I can see their paperwork moving a bit , no I mean WAY faster. But what about for an existing trust wanting to expand its responsible person to responsible people, under the proposed changes? Similar processing time as current transfers?
The ATF does NOT care if you are an individual or a Fortune 500 company, they all have the same hoops to jump through. Bbefore Renegade busts my chops again, there are exceptions but few and rare in between.

For an existing trust it is unknown how they will handle adding responsible persons to it. Just speculation. I have heard from legal some scenarios they are considering but not going to get into that until THEY put something out about it. It will make things more difficult for trusts but it will make it easier for the individual to acquire the NFA items.

You can't have it easy for everyone.

User avatar
Armorer-at-Law
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 338
Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 2:39 pm
Location: Cincinnati, OH
Contact:

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by Armorer-at-Law » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:55 pm

To "clarify" a bit, it is unclear just how all this would work. It remains unclear whether every person who has access to the NFA item under the trust would have to submit photos/fingerprints or whether there would simply have to be one or more "responsible persons" who would be held accountable. Doing it for every person could be an administrative nightmare

For example, an FFL (for a corp. or LLC) has one or more "responsible persons" who have to submit photos/fingerprints, but other employees can still, for example, handle 4473 transfers on behalf of the FFL.
Send lawyers, guns, and money...
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by Bendersquint » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:18 pm

Armorer-at-Law wrote: For example, an FFL (for a corp. or LLC) has one or more "responsible persons" who have to submit photos/fingerprints, but other employees can still, for example, handle 4473 transfers on behalf of the FFL.
Yes they can act on behalf of the responsible persons BUT they can not possess the items as act AS that person off site, or for other purposes.

My source in legal is saying they are intending to print/mug shot everyone that is a part of the entity that may be in possession of the NFA items.

Everyone that is associated with the entity that can have access to the weapons IS responsible and accountable.

Would you go and give someone your trusts silencer and YOU would be held responsible for that individuals actions? Absolutely not, each person is held responsible for their actions.

Anyone that has served in the military or .gov and had to sign for things and be held responsible/accountable for what they sign for understands this point.....I know I would NEVER allow someone to take something they didn't sign for and take responsibility/accountability for said item.

We aren't talking pinata makers here.

ncorry
Silent But Deadly
Posts: 182
Joined: Fri Jan 02, 2009 1:17 pm

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by ncorry » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:37 pm

Bendersquint wrote:What you are missing is that scenarios like that are handled differently than Joe Citizen buying a cool toy for the range.
For the big corp with in-house security force, I can see their paperwork moving a bit , no I mean WAY faster. But what about for an existing trust wanting to expand its responsible person to responsible people, under the proposed changes? Similar processing time as current transfers?[/quote]

The ATF does NOT care if you are an individual or a Fortune 500 company, they all have the same hoops to jump through. [/quote]

Bender, I thought I was following your first response of scenarios like that are handled differently than Joe buying range toys, but then I got the "they all have the same hoops to jump through" reply. Now, I am thoroughly confused.

I realize there aren't going to be any hard and fast answers on this until after the administrative rule making is completed. I'm just trying to figure out if the time for adding a co-trustee (aka "responsible person) is likely to take 1 month or 10. If that turns out to be 10 months, like it is now for an individual Form 4, AND it applies to trusts AND corps, I can see how it could really gum up an in-house security detail.

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by Bendersquint » Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:57 pm

ncorry wrote:Bender, I thought I was following your first response of scenarios like that are handled differently than Joe buying range toys, but then I got the "they all have the same hoops to jump through" reply. Now, I am thoroughly confused.

I realize there aren't going to be any hard and fast answers on this until after the administrative rule making is completed. I'm just trying to figure out if the time for adding a co-trustee (aka "responsible person) is likely to take 1 month or 10. If that turns out to be 10 months, like it is now for an individual Form 4, AND it applies to trusts AND corps, I can see how it could really gum up an in-house security detail.
Scenarios like security; companies generally use hired guns(contractors) not in house details. Smarter on many levels to hire out.

Noone needing protection will be paying $15-25K for a gun for protection either, thats crazy to think they would.

Not going to get into the ins and outs of how contracting works just know that the process is not like acquiring a toy for range plinking and giggle factor.

As far as the wait times NOONE knows what it will be or how it will be implemented just what we can guess but a few of us have some insight into the way they are leaning but nothing more than that. It will not impact "security details" in the slightest.

Chris88
Member
Posts: 40
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:00 pm
Location: Louisiana

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by Chris88 » Sat Aug 24, 2013 6:43 am

And I was thinking it was getting better for me. I live in Louisiana and don't need state approval any more. Now this, I don't like have the other person on my trust to have to get a photo and finger printed every time I want to buy some thing.

User avatar
Bendersquint
Industry Professional
Posts: 11359
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 9:19 pm
Location: North Carolina
Contact:

Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review

Post by Bendersquint » Sat Aug 24, 2013 8:13 am

Chris88 wrote:And I was thinking it was getting better for me. I live in Louisiana and don't need state approval any more. Now this, I don't like have the other person on my trust to have to get a photo and finger printed every time I want to buy some thing.
Then sounds like you will be going the individual route in the future!

At least you don't have the LA state approval anymore!

Post Reply