FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
Moderators: mpallett, mr fixit, bakerjw, renegade
FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
Just in case no one heard about this. Link courtesy of the NFATCA
http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pendi ... ntrol-rule
http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pendi ... ntrol-rule
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
This disgusts me.
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
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.
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.
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
Everything in their world is a loophole
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
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.
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)
Brett Maverick, gambler on TV (also used by Progressive leaders everywhere)
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
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.
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.
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
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.
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
Maintaining the current system is better than what they propose.
- Bendersquint
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 11357
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
It wasn't to streamline the process it was a trade off, no CLEO signoff in trade for notification for ALL transfers.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.
-
- Member
- Posts: 18
- Joined: Sat Jun 05, 2010 6:08 pm
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
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.
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
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.
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.
- eastern_hunter
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 966
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2009 8:34 pm
- Location: Charleston, WV
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
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 ...
Wish they'd take cans of the list of NFA items! Oh well ...
- Bendersquint
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 11357
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
The part you are missing is that it requires NO signoff, just Sheriff NOTIFICATION.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.
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
Anyone have any insight (or just a flat out guess) when the proposed changes pertaining to trusts will take effect?
- Armorer-at-Law
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:39 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Contact:
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
^^^^ This.The part you are missing is that it requires NO signoff, just Sheriff NOTIFICATION.
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
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
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.Armorer-at-Law wrote:^^^^ This.The part you are missing is that it requires NO signoff, just Sheriff NOTIFICATION.
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).
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?
- Bendersquint
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 11357
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
What you are missing is that scenarios like that are handled differently than Joe Citizen buying a cool toy for the range.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?
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
What you are missing is that scenarios like that are handled differently than Joe Citizen buying a cool toy for the range.[/quote]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?
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?
- Bendersquint
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 11357
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
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.ncorry wrote:What you are missing is that scenarios like that are handled differently than Joe Citizen buying a cool toy for the range.[/quote]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?
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?
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.
- Armorer-at-Law
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 338
- Joined: Wed Dec 31, 2008 12:39 pm
- Location: Cincinnati, OH
- Contact:
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
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.
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
Armorer-at-Law.com
07FFL/02SOT
- Bendersquint
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 11357
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
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.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.
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.
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
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]Bendersquint wrote:What you are missing is that scenarios like that are handled differently than Joe Citizen buying a cool toy for the range.
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.
- Bendersquint
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 11357
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
Scenarios like security; companies generally use hired guns(contractors) not in house details. Smarter on many levels to hire out.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.
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.
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
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.
- Bendersquint
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 11357
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: FYI: NFA Trust Changes - Draft in review
Then sounds like you will be going the individual route in the future!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.
At least you don't have the LA state approval anymore!