"Happy" 13th everyone

[rimshaker]

Another infamous day in gun control history I suppose.

Sadly I couldn't manage to get/afford an m16 lower the past several months. Had to settle for a factory MPX SBR and a Mask 22. Not bad considering.

[ratas calientes]

Yep. Today is the day.

This deadline encouraged me to get three more suppressors into the queue.

Now . . . . dealing with the new requirements of 41F . . . . anyone know?

[5th_Amendment]

FNG here ... lots of talk about 41F rules, but I've seen nothing in writing. I have trustees 1,000 miles apart so not sure what to do. Someone here in another forum mentioned starting a 2nd trust with just himself on it. I'll probably do the same to keep it super simple until things settle down.

[ohnomrbillk]

Happy 13th

Except the ATF quietly changed the deadline to the 12th.

It cost me 2 Suppressors being on my trust in time. My siblings are the only people on my trust, but we live in 4 different states, so the logistics are a nightmare.

[AlabamaPaul]

Happy 13th

Except the ATF quietly changed the deadline to the 12th.

It cost me 2 Suppressors being on my trust in time. My siblings are the only people on my trust, but we live in 4 different states, so the logistics are a nightmare.

The effective date never changed once the rule was published.

[5th_Amendment]

I was trying to e-file a form 1 on the 11th (9pm) when the ATF site went down. On the 12th, I downloaded a hard copy form 1, filled it out by hand and ran to the post office. Just in time too ... ATF site posted an error message later that we could file hard copy, but only postmarks on the 12th would be accapted. Just made it! Now, did I screw up the form? Fingers crossed ...

[AlabamaPaul]

I was trying to e-file a form 1 on the 11th (9pm) when the ATF site went down. On the 12th, I downloaded a hard copy form 1, filled it out by hand and ran to the post office. Just in time too ... ATF site posted an error message later that we could file hard copy, but only postmarks on the 12th would be accapted. Just made it! Now, did I screw up the form? Fingers crossed ...

As long as it was postmarked on the 12th, you're good.

[smustian]

FNG here ... lots of talk about 41F rules, but I've seen nothing in writing. I have trustees 1,000 miles apart so not sure what to do. Someone here in another forum mentioned starting a 2nd trust with just himself on it. I'll probably do the same to keep it super simple until things settle down.

Drop all co-trustees off, file for all the items that you want then add the trustees back on at a later date. Simple.

[5th_Amendment]

I've actually considered that. However, I'm certain all the particulars of 41F aren't yet known. Seriously, If an Executive order can change the law, I'm sure 41F is just the start. Why not just make it up as you go along?

[AlabamaPaul]

I've actually considered that. However, I'm certain all the particulars of 41F aren't yet known. Seriously, If an Executive order can change the law, I'm sure 41F is just the start. Why not just make it up as you go along?

Make a new trust with only you on it, file, wait for approval, and then add your co-trustees. ATF has already indicated that is acceptable.

Rinse, repeat for more toys..

[tf2addict]

FNG here ... lots of talk about 41F rules, but I've seen nothing in writing. I have trustees 1,000 miles apart so not sure what to do. Someone here in another forum mentioned starting a 2nd trust with just himself on it. I'll probably do the same to keep it super simple until things settle down.

Drop all co-trustees off, file for all the items that you want then add the trustees back on at a later date. Simple.

That absolutely blows my mind. One of the main goals of 41F was to make sure trustees were background checked, printed, photographed, and CLEO notified. Now it turns add you can willy nilly add and remove trustees to get around this? Unbelievable.

[Elkins45]

FNG here ... lots of talk about 41F rules, but I've seen nothing in writing. I have trustees 1,000 miles apart so not sure what to do. Someone here in another forum mentioned starting a 2nd trust with just himself on it. I'll probably do the same to keep it super simple until things settle down.

Drop all co-trustees off, file for all the items that you want then add the trustees back on at a later date. Simple.

That absolutely blows my mind. One of the main goals of 41F was to make sure trustees were background checked, printed, photographed, and CLEO notified. Now it turns add you can willy nilly add and remove trustees to get around this? Unbelievable.

Well, this way they get prints and a photo from SOMEONE so maybe that makes Obama feel better. This way they can confidently state that at least one member of the trust isn't a felon.

[tf2addict]

FNG here ... lots of talk about 41F rules, but I've seen nothing in writing. I have trustees 1,000 miles apart so not sure what to do. Someone here in another forum mentioned starting a 2nd trust with just himself on it. I'll probably do the same to keep it super simple until things settle down.

Drop all co-trustees off, file for all the items that you want then add the trustees back on at a later date. Simple.

Can anyone cite the exact portion of the law that allows this? ATF's FAQ says this:

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.

Notice how they say "new" responsible person. I'm thinking if they see a trust dropping someone and re-adding them in an obvious attempt to avoid RP requirements they just might be able to go after them.

[whiterussian1974]

Drop all co-trustees off, file for all the items that you want then add the trustees back on at a later date. Simple.

Can anyone cite the exact portion of the law that allows this? ATF's FAQ says this:
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.

Notice how they say "new" responsible person. I'm thinking if they see a trust dropping someone and re-adding them in an obvious attempt to avoid RP requirements they just might be able to go after them.

Each State will have its own Trust Laws, so that's the Law one must follow for the State where the Trust "resides."

New, means after the Stamp is Approved. Trusts don't have the same filing reqs that other Businesses do, so ATF only knows the paperwork one submits. They see 1 name, they know 1 name.

The Trust could even add Beneficiaries who aren't Trustees. That's another option.

I use LLCs. I just hold Annual Meetings and retain the Unanimous Consent Minutes.

[Fulliautomatix]

Can anyone cite the exact portion of the law that allows this?

That's the wrong perspective.

Anything that is not expressly forbidden is legal. We don't live asking for permission to do things.