Did BamBam just BAN trusts by executive order yesterday??!!

[L1A1Rocker]

I'm reading all kinds of crazy right now and cannot get a handle on this. Does anyone know exactly WHAT bam bam did yesterday by E.O?

[RJT]

It still has a 90 day comment period before ATF review, and finalization. Hopefully the 3 form 4s I submitted at the beginning of the month under trust, will be "grandfathered".

[L1A1Rocker]

It still has a 90 day comment period before ATF review, and finalization. Hopefully the 3 form 4s I submitted at the beginning of the month under trust, will be "grandfathered".

I think I'll send out some Form 1s next week and cross my fingers.

[RJT]

I'm sure with my luck, I'll go into error status, and have to get all the individual route bullshit done.

[Libertarian_Geek]

What's the EO number?

This is what I found:
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgend ... =1140-AA43
http://www.thebangswitch.com/obama-admi ... fa-trusts/

[RJT]

No #, but this is the article I read.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/08 ... z2dNdUVkb2

[Libertarian_Geek]

Remember that the actual law states that Trusts are acceptable. That doesn't mean that they can't specify additional hoops through which we'll be required to jump.

[L1A1Rocker]

What's the EO number?

This is what I found:
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgend ... =1140-AA43
http://www.thebangswitch.com/obama-admi ... fa-trusts/

Thank you. Sooo, the question is, who all will have to submit photo's and fingerprints. Of course the grantor and trustee will, but will ATF require this info on all successor trustee's also? I don't see why because upon the death of the grantor the receiving trustee has to submite a Form 5. I just don't know. I CAN tell you this, the provision requiring you to notify the local sheriff of your NFA submission is total BULLSH&&!

[renegade]

I'm reading all kinds of crazy right now and cannot get a handle on this. Does anyone know exactly WHAT bam bam did yesterday by E.O?

He did nothing but grandstand. The proposed rule changes have been in the works for sometime now and were proposed to BATFE by NFATCA.

[toos]

Wow, I work 12 hour days, where more than 25% of my time goes to working as a slave to provide income for his Majesty Obama, then, when I have a few seconds to look at the news I read the latest of his Obamanations. A trust loophole? You have to be kidding. I submitted a form under Trust for a .22 suppressor back in May. Still waiting for my papers while my can sits at the dealer. The $200 extortion tax check was cashed, with my money disappearing into the Federal money pit faster than a pea disappears in a con man's shell game and I have yet to see my paperwork back. Hope this gets approved before the latest Libtard regulations go into effect or is it like the IRS and the American Legion; where we get "special treatment" that slow rolls the paperwork until his newest form of fascist BS is unleashed upon us?

Yes, I suppose I'm a bit perturbed. Frankly, this guy could say "Good morning" with a smile and it would sound like Marx whispering from the grave to me. And no, I don't have local law enforcement signature issues and I am not a felon. The trust route saved me having to go down and take the time to do the fingerprint idiocy once again while losing work hours and it made it easier to pass my collection to my kids (who are not felons either).

Anyway, if anyone who is calmer than I am right now knows the answer to this, I'd welcome hearing what, if any guidance there is from ATF on applications in process.

[paper9]

I plan to call my congress-person and complain. Also, I might try the NRA...

[Eldos1]

A few months ago, My dealer started to always do a regular background check when he handed over the NFA item at pick up time for who ever was picking up for the trust and listing in his bound book. I wonder if this will become the responsible person listed?
His logic is that you still must "do a Transfer" after BATF stamp gives you the permission, and that still requires a regular firearms background check. That already shuts down the "Felon form a Trust Loop hole". Then there is still the ban on felons and position. Why the change????

It makes me wonder if our local LEOs are going to request the government to tell them when ever THEY transfer NFA items in there county. Local DEA office gets new toys etc.

Now for the things to come: In Colorado (The new gun laws testing ground), the new laws here on transfers for any firearm are based more on position not ownership. All member of a trust/corporation must do a background check whenever anything that they will have access to gets added to the trust/corporation. You must do background checks at time of dealer transfer in person, so that would could be taken as all parties must be present at that time and be run at same time.

[Libertarian_Geek]

A few months ago, My dealer started to always do a regular background check when he handed over the NFA item at pick up time for who ever was picking up for the trust and listing in his bound book. I wonder if this will become the responsible person listed?
His logic is that you still must "do a Transfer" after BATF stamp gives you the permission, and that still requires a regular firearms background check. That already shuts down the "Felon form a Trust Loop hole". Then there is still the ban on felons and position. Why the change????

It makes me wonder if our local LEOs are going to request the government to tell them when ever THEY transfer NFA items in there county. Local DEA office gets new toys etc.

Now for the things to come: In Colorado (The new gun laws testing ground), the new laws here on transfers for any firearm are based more on position not ownership. All member of a trust/corporation must do a background check whenever anything that they will have access to gets added to the trust/corporation. You must do background checks at time of dealer transfer in person, so that would could be taken as all parties must be present at that time and be run at same time.

I'm sure that big security companies like Xe will get exemptions. Maybe even training companies like Troy Asymmetric.

[John K]

https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files ... rearms.pdf

It looks like they're aiming for Trusts AND Corporations......

I'm sorry guys, its all my fault. I sent in a Form 7 (07/02SOT) last Friday. :bangsheadagainstwall:

[Bendersquint]

I'm sure that big security companies like Xe will get exemptions. Maybe even training companies like Troy Asymmetric.

Why would they get exemptions?

[Libertarian_Geek]

I'm sure that big security companies like Xe will get exemptions. Maybe even training companies like Troy Asymmetric.

Why would they get exemptions?

Rhetorical: Why would companies get exemptions from Obamacare?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2900475/posts

Besides, large corporations with large numbers of employees X large numbers of NFA items = a real large number of finger print cards etc.

[Bendersquint]

I'm sure that big security companies like Xe will get exemptions. Maybe even training companies like Troy Asymmetric.

Why would they get exemptions?

Rhetorical: Why would companies get exemptions from Obamacare?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/chat/2900475/posts

Besides, large corporations with large numbers of employees X large numbers of NFA items = a real large number of finger print cards etc.

Most of the larger contracting firms all require security clearances, those require fingerprints so they are already on file.

As mentioned before contracting companies like Xe and TC will not be affected by this.

[Libertarian_Geek]

....

I have a security clearance that's already on file with my fingerprints for my (geek)job. Somehow, that doesn't help process my NFA items.

[GHEN]

I'm sure that big security companies like Xe will get exemptions. Maybe even training companies like Troy Asymmetric.

I doubt that Xe owns or is in the process of acquiring any NFA weapons/devices.

GHEN

[GHEN]

As mentioned before contracting companies like Xe and TC will not be affected by this.

They won't be affected by it because they don't buy NFA weapons.

GHEN

[Bendersquint]

As mentioned before contracting companies like Xe and TC will not be affected by this.

They won't be affected by it because they don't buy NFA weapons.

GHEN

They most certainly do buy NFA weapons, they have an alternate means of acquiring them thats all.

[GHEN]

As mentioned before contracting companies like Xe and TC will not be affected by this.

They won't be affected by it because they don't buy NFA weapons.

GHEN

They most certainly do buy NFA weapons, they have an alternate means of acquiring them thats all.

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. When you train at Moyock, even when you are being vetted for government work, you use semi-auto AR-15s for quaification. Even when you land in country and are escorted from the airport to your 1st destination you are given a weapon for the ride...a XE (Blackwater...whatever) weapon which is also a semi automatic AR-15.

Only when you are actually on mission are you then using government owned weapons and then get an M4. In Afghanistan where Xe used to have the Afghan Border Police program instructors are (were) issued rifles...DPMS AR-15s. just like you can buy at the local gun store.

For a while in Afghanistan we were issued no s--t AMD-65s...Afghan owned and loaned to us.

The only FA weapons that were ever @ Moyock were owned by:

• US Goverment (M240s, M203s & M249s for qualification purposes)
  Local Law Enforcement (BW got in trouble for that one because they funded the purchase)
  HK (Strategic partnership that ended after Nisoor square)

Triple Canopy and DynCorp are the same way...don't believe everything you hear on CNN or from Jeremy Scahill

GHEN

[Bendersquint]

Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about. When you train at Moyock, even when you are being vetted for government work, you use semi-auto AR-15s for quaification. Even when you land in country and are escorted from the airport to your 1st destination you are given a weapon for the ride...a XE (Blackwater...whatever) weapon which is also a semi automatic AR-15.

Only when you are actually on mission are you then using government owned weapons and then get an M4. In Afghanistan where Xe used to have the Afghan Border Police program instructors are (were) issued rifles...DPMS AR-15s. just like you can buy at the local gun store.

For a while in Afghanistan we were issued no s--t AMD-65s...Afghan owned and loaned to us.

The only FA weapons that were ever @ Moyock were owned by:

• US Goverment (M240s, M203s & M249s for qualification purposes)
  Local Law Enforcement (BW got in trouble for that one because they funded the purchase)
  HK (Strategic partnership that ended after Nisoor square)

[/b]

Triple Canopy and DynCorp are the same way...don't believe everything you hear on CNN or from Jeremy Scahill

GHEN

Hmmph, the guys that I worked with from Triple Canopy all had F/A weapons when they landed in country, they had a seperate armory as well and never saw them in ours.

May have been a very different situation though. This was a few years ago as well.

[GHEN]

guys that I worked with from Triple Canopy all had F/A weapons when they landed in country, they had a separate armory as well and never saw them in ours.

May have been a very different situation though. This was a few years ago as well.

The rules in country varied widely from early on until they solidified after 2007. Before then there was"The Armory" in the basement from which you could get whatever you wanted, but those were different days. Very few FA weapons in country were actually/legally owned by any of the companies. In the States (which is after all the context of this conversation) it just doesn't happen as a normal business practice; any exceptions are anomalies.

GHEN

[mp5]

After I settled down I managed to read the proposed rule changes, and I believe ATF thinks they are indeed relaxing the CLEO sign off, as stated in page 19 of the .pdf document.
It seems ATF believes that most CLEOs would sign what is basically an identity check and a statement certifying state and local laws don't prohibit possession of the NFA item. But what is to compel them? After all most of these denials are political, using the perceived liability of the present CLEO statement as an excuse.
If ATF's interest was assuring that all individuals acquiring these items went thru a thorough FBI check, they would drop the CLEO sign off, turn it into a notification at the state or local level, and most of these trusts would go the individual route. Even a trust could be handled the same way. Then everybody goes thru the FBI wringer.
They may have been going this route when the initial summary of the rule change was posted, but I guess Eric "Steadman" Holder second guessed them. I could live with CLEO notification, but I would rather not.
Can we pressure them to just notify the CLEO? Wishful thinking on my part I guess.