https://www.federalregister.gov/article ... le-persons
180 days from today, the rules of 41F will go into effect for all applications not already pending or approved.
July 13, 2016 is that day.
edit to fix link
41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
Moderators: mpallett, mr fixit, bakerjw, renegade
- Fulliautomatix
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 253
- Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 7:46 pm
41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
Last edited by Fulliautomatix on Fri Jan 15, 2016 3:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Speak softly, and carry a big stick.
- silencer_kid
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:58 pm
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
no deal
but try this one https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/downloa ... bU5Q9Tagow
yikes, a trust that has 100 names in it, could really be a burden. submitting a form-1 under a trust name, now means all listed on the trust (as defined in the doc) have to submit prints and pics !! what's killing me is, these jokers already have my prints and pics, and all the other info they let get hacked from my eQuip for SSBI-TS ! why would i need to submit prints and pics for every form-1? seems silly.
how does it work for companies? the board members who are responsible for the company have to submit prints and pics?
check out this summary from a trust attorney
https://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=508729
but try this one https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/downloa ... bU5Q9Tagow
yikes, a trust that has 100 names in it, could really be a burden. submitting a form-1 under a trust name, now means all listed on the trust (as defined in the doc) have to submit prints and pics !! what's killing me is, these jokers already have my prints and pics, and all the other info they let get hacked from my eQuip for SSBI-TS ! why would i need to submit prints and pics for every form-1? seems silly.
how does it work for companies? the board members who are responsible for the company have to submit prints and pics?
check out this summary from a trust attorney
https://forums.1911forum.com/showthread.php?t=508729
-
- Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:49 pm
- Location: North Central Missouri
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
Got an interesting e-mail from he ATF regarding eforms. The most interesting part was this.
Auto approval – Some forms, like the ATF Forms 2 and 3, if they meet certain pre-determined criteria will be automatically approved by the FEAM system upon submission.
That would be nice if form 3's were approved at the time of submission.
Auto approval – Some forms, like the ATF Forms 2 and 3, if they meet certain pre-determined criteria will be automatically approved by the FEAM system upon submission.
That would be nice if form 3's were approved at the time of submission.
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
That's the way it should have been for years.Mueller 877 wrote:Got an interesting e-mail from he ATF regarding eforms. The most interesting part was this.
Auto approval – Some forms, like the ATF Forms 2 and 3, if they meet certain pre-determined criteria will be automatically approved by the FEAM system upon submission.
That would be nice if form 3's were approved at the time of submission.
-
- Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: Mon Jan 27, 2014 12:49 pm
- Location: North Central Missouri
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
I totally agree.Kramer wrote:That's the way it should have been for years.Mueller 877 wrote:Got an interesting e-mail from he ATF regarding eforms. The most interesting part was this.
Auto approval – Some forms, like the ATF Forms 2 and 3, if they meet certain pre-determined criteria will be automatically approved by the FEAM system upon submission.
That would be nice if form 3's were approved at the time of submission.
- silencer_kid
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:58 pm
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
i didnt dig into any loopholes yet, but on some other sites ------------- if your trust is big you just remove everyone except yourself and bene, do your paperwork, it completes, then you put all the folks back onto the trust.
what stupidity they create. nothing but hassles.
what stupidity they create. nothing but hassles.
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
Forgive me if this is a stupid question but has anyone figured out exactly how this is going to effect purchasing silencers under an LLC?
In terms of what defines a "responsible person" I mean.
In terms of what defines a "responsible person" I mean.
- T-Rex
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 1865
- Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2014 3:38 pm
- Location: CT - The AntiConstitution State
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
"Responsible Person" has yet to be clearly defined.Mamooth wrote:Forgive me if this is a stupid question but has anyone figured out exactly how this is going to effect purchasing silencers under an LLC?
In terms of what defines a "responsible person" I mean.
Following Gov't practices, it may never be.
Follow SilencerShop's Blog. They're trying to keep everyone up to date and are coordinating our understanding of this directly with the ATF.
Completed Builds www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=79895
Burst Calculator www.engineersedge.com/calculators/pipe_bust_calc.htm
Silencer Porn www.instagram.com/explore/tags/silencerporn/
Burst Calculator www.engineersedge.com/calculators/pipe_bust_calc.htm
Silencer Porn www.instagram.com/explore/tags/silencerporn/
- silencer_kid
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:58 pm
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
those who have powers to direct the company. as example, when you register the LLC you list those who are responsible for that LLC (directors, board members, etc), the actual terms for those responsible vary from locale to locale but typically defined by the state.Mamooth wrote:Forgive me if this is a stupid question but has anyone figured out exactly how this is going to effect purchasing silencers under an LLC?
In terms of what defines a "responsible person" I mean.
so yeah, kinda a hassle for a LLC who has 5 or 6 directors. for the trust situation you can easily remove members, do the silly paperwork, then add people back onto the trust. not so easy for a LLC,Inc,Co,Org , etc
i think the stupid verbiage should have said "...at least one responsible person..."
and i would not rely on any other 3rd party to follow it and to inform you (certainly not from this site). get your Q's ready, call your local/favorite atf. if they cant define it in a letter to you then you yourself has no reference, thus you cant be breaking the law if you didnt do something they thought you should have, etc. "loophole".
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
Thanks guys. yeah the whole thing seems like a mess.
Ill follow SS blog as you suggest.
Ill follow SS blog as you suggest.
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
[quote="
so yeah, kinda a hassle for a LLC who has 5 or 6 directors. for the trust situation you can easily remove members, do the silly paperwork, then add people back onto the trust. not so easy for a LLC,Inc,Co,Org , etc"
I have seen mentioned in several forums from "NFA TRUST LAWYERS" which doesn't mean alot to me but they say if you change your trust in any way by ,adding any NFA items and including removing or adding members within the 2 year period you have to send pics and prints.So if true then how can removing then re-adding members avoid anything? Apparently it has to do with the Trust changing just like it does when you add a form1.So if you form 1 with everyone on you pic and print or remove everyone, pic and print remaining members then apply your form 1 no pics or prints,then add members back no pics no prints, then in 2 years repeat I am confused why go thru removing members in the first place.
so yeah, kinda a hassle for a LLC who has 5 or 6 directors. for the trust situation you can easily remove members, do the silly paperwork, then add people back onto the trust. not so easy for a LLC,Inc,Co,Org , etc"
I have seen mentioned in several forums from "NFA TRUST LAWYERS" which doesn't mean alot to me but they say if you change your trust in any way by ,adding any NFA items and including removing or adding members within the 2 year period you have to send pics and prints.So if true then how can removing then re-adding members avoid anything? Apparently it has to do with the Trust changing just like it does when you add a form1.So if you form 1 with everyone on you pic and print or remove everyone, pic and print remaining members then apply your form 1 no pics or prints,then add members back no pics no prints, then in 2 years repeat I am confused why go thru removing members in the first place.
Last edited by colimr on Mon Jan 18, 2016 1:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Silent Operator
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:55 pm
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
I thought their verbiage said any person with access to use the NFA item? On mobile right now so I can't see it.Mamooth wrote:Forgive me if this is a stupid question but has anyone figured out exactly how this is going to effect purchasing silencers under an LLC?
In terms of what defines a "responsible person" I mean.
- silencer_kid
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:58 pm
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
its right there in the doc, just as i had already posted.Loki_stormbringer wrote:I thought their verbiage said any person with access to use the NFA item? On mobile right now so I can't see it.Mamooth wrote:Forgive me if this is a stupid question but has anyone figured out exactly how this is going to effect purchasing silencers under an LLC?
In terms of what defines a "responsible person" I mean.
DOJ has also clarified that the term "responsible person"
for a trust or legal entity includes those persons who have the power and authority to direct the
management and policies of the trust or legal entity to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver,
transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the trust or entity.
T-Rex wrote:
"Responsible Person" has yet to be clearly defined.
Following Gov't practices, it may never be.
Follow SilencerShop's Blog. They're trying to keep everyone up to date and are coordinating our understanding of this directly with the ATF.
wild guess, you didnt read the doc. its pretty clear to me what the DOJ definition is.
-
- Silent Operator
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:55 pm
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
That is what I was referring to:
So how people say they have people in their trust that doesn't apply as a responsible person and are not the beneficiary. How so?DOJ has also clarified that the term "responsible person"
for a trust or legal entity includes those persons who have the power and authority to direct the
management and policies of the trust or legal entity to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver,
transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the trust or entity.
- silencer_kid
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:58 pm
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
ah, i see. you need to study up some on trusts.Loki_stormbringer wrote:That is what I was referring to:So how people say they have people in their trust that doesn't apply as a responsible person and are not the beneficiary. How so?DOJ has also clarified that the term "responsible person"
for a trust or legal entity includes those persons who have the power and authority to direct the
management and policies of the trust or legal entity to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver,
transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the trust or entity.
but for all intensive purposes if you have a "inter vivos" you name another (alternate trustee) in the event you can no longer manage the trust, thus it is possible to have multiple trustees but only you are in control until you can no longer do it (you and only you fit the DOJ definition, etc). trusts are not simple, set them up wisely. with this new rule i suspect some people will be changing their trust structure.
beneficiaries do not manage the trust, but they could get trustees kicked out if they feel the trustees are not managing the trust properly.
cheers.
-
- Silent Operator
- Posts: 99
- Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 11:55 pm
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
I understand that aspect completely. However as people were explaining things, I took it as John Doe creats a trust. Adds Jane doe in so they can also use the NFA items but it's worded as such they they don't meet the responsible person or require fingerprints / photo. I could of read it wrong but that was my take on how others explained it.silencer_kid wrote:ah, i see. you need to study up some on trusts.Loki_stormbringer wrote:That is what I was referring to:So how people say they have people in their trust that doesn't apply as a responsible person and are not the beneficiary. How so?DOJ has also clarified that the term "responsible person"
for a trust or legal entity includes those persons who have the power and authority to direct the
management and policies of the trust or legal entity to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver,
transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the trust or entity.
but for all intensive purposes if you have a "inter vivos" you name another (alternate trustee) in the event you can no longer manage the trust, thus it is possible to have multiple trustees but only you are in control until you can no longer do it (you and only you fit the DOJ definition, etc). trusts are not simple, set them up wisely. with this new rule i suspect some people will be changing their trust structure.
beneficiaries do not manage the trust, but they could get trustees kicked out if they feel the trustees are not managing the trust properly.
cheers.
- Bendersquint
- Industry Professional
- Posts: 11357
- Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:19 pm
- Location: North Carolina
- Contact:
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
If they aren't a responsible person then they don't have access. If that was the case EVERYONE associated with the trust would have to be printed/mugshot.
- silencer_kid
- Silent But Deadly
- Posts: 315
- Joined: Wed Jan 15, 2014 8:58 pm
Re: 41F published today; effective date: 13 July 2016
their verbiage is indeed wacky. trusts can be simple, can also be complicated. a trust that has more than one trustee is where the snafu is. in simple terms, a trust that has multiple trustees usually means each trustee is a responsible party in managing the trust, and its usually defines that actions on the trust by the trustees are defined by unanimous or majority vote. i guess a trust could have a list of alternates so that in essence there is only one responsible trustee with authority at any given time, yet at any time the trustor (who can be a trustee) could change the way it is structured.Bendersquint wrote:If they aren't a responsible person then they don't have access. If that was the case EVERYONE associated with the trust would have to be printed/mugshot.
that said, what about a LLC that has std structure of Pres, Secretary, and Treasurer where all three are responsible and have authority for the LLC, or a Inc where all of the board members are responsible and have authority?
what about a trust where a bank is the sole trustee, is atf expecting all the responsible parties having authority of the bank to be printed and pic'd? it doesnt make sense from that view.
so, the DOJ definition is clear, just not sure that the numbs who wrote the doc knew what they were writing.