Is there short summation of the new laws?

[slackercruster]

I've been away from class 3 for a while. I checked back into the forum and started to read about major changes in the laws. Is there short summation of the new laws?

I have a few items out going on 9 months now (4 cans, 1 MG) Will there be any new laws that will affect my approvals?

Thanks

[danb35]

There is no change in the law. ATF has proposed a change to the regulations that govern NFA purchases by legal entities (corporations, LLCs, and trusts). If adopted, this regulatory change would require CLEO signature/fingerprint/photo for each "responsible person" of a legal entity. For a trust, "responsible person" includes all trustees, alternate trustees, and beneficiaries.

[Bendersquint]

It is not known at this point if there will be a grandfathering or not, or even when these changes will go into affect.

It is assumed that they will grandfather everything submitted before that date but it has not been declared.

[danb35]

It is not known at this point if there will be a grandfathering or not, or even when these changes will go into affect.

...or, for that matter, if these changes will go into effect. Yes, it seems likely given the current political climate that something similar to this proposal will happen, but it's far from certain.

[Bendersquint]

It is not known at this point if there will be a grandfathering or not, or even when these changes will go into affect.

...or, for that matter, if these changes will go into effect. Yes, it seems likely given the current political climate that something similar to this proposal will happen, but it's far from certain.

Exactly, while I don't think it WON'T go into affect, there is a possibility that it won't as just because it is proposed or a passed rule it has to be put into effect before they can enforce it.

There are things on the books that never went into affect. Sadly I don't believe this will be one of them, though they may keep it in holster and whip it out when the timing is right for them. Instant enactment would screw alot more people that this form since this gives people time to prepare.

[slackercruster]

Thanks for the rundown.

[JimB]

It is not known at this point if there will be a grandfathering or not, or even when these changes will go into affect.

It is assumed that they will grandfather everything submitted before that date but it has not been declared.

At the risk of irritating long-term members let me assure you that there is no intent to grandfather either pending applications or even existing entities that are not individuals. They know that NFA items have made it to prohibited persons through these types of entities, and they intend to find them. It is also clear from the NPRM that they don't seem to know how they will accomplish this and are asking for input. My guess is that they do know what they intend to do, but that they wanted to avoid publishing it to keep responses from the firearm supporters to a minimum. This will be addressed in the final rule which may look little like the draft published for comment.

It seems obvious to me from reading the draft and the comments of the drafter that all pending trusts will be summarily rejected because they may enable more NFA items to be transferred to prohibited persons, and they can't tolerate that. The idea that applications will be grandfathered is a self-serving fabrication of the dealers whose businesses depend on you believing this because if you do not, and if you can't get CLEO signatures, then you will not buy today because you may never be able to take delivery.

If you have items on a trust today you should be prepared for a letter asking you to comply with the new rules. No idea how they will enforce that, or what they'll do about the CLEO signature, but they'll at least send the letter.

Best solution I can think of is to suggest moving the CLEO signature to the end of the process and give the CLEO a fixed period to review the application, after which the stamp is issued. This takes away the problem of CLEOs simply not signing while giving ATF the CLEO review, which they want to maintain, and it creates data so that in the future we can see if the CLEO review really accomplishes anything. I'm working on comments to file in the docket and will copy my elected representatives pointing out that the rule as drafted will create significant new costs that can be readily avoided without compromising effectiveness and asking that they consider other alternatives. I strongly suggest that you each do the same.

Jim

[slackercruster]

Jim, when I bought my CL 3 I had to go through the same process of buying any other gun filling out the forms and showing ID. So the trust did not allow me to skip the standard gun buying paperwork laws that are in force. So why would the ATF think the current checks in force are not enough and the CL 3 are in the hands of persons that should not have them? OK, a portion of all guns end up like that. But the CL 3 material has shown itself to be the least problematic area of law enforcement concerns from what I can tell.

[66427vette]

You bought a Tax Code?

[Bendersquint]

It is not known at this point if there will be a grandfathering or not, or even when these changes will go into affect.

It is assumed that they will grandfather everything submitted before that date but it has not been declared.

At the risk of irritating long-term members let me assure you that there is no intent to grandfather either pending applications or even existing entities that are not individuals. They know that NFA items have made it to prohibited persons through these types of entities, and they intend to find them. It is also clear from the NPRM that they don't seem to know how they will accomplish this and are asking for input. My guess is that they do know what they intend to do, but that they wanted to avoid publishing it to keep responses from the firearm supporters to a minimum. This will be addressed in the final rule which may look little like the draft published for comment.

It seems obvious to me from reading the draft and the comments of the drafter that all pending trusts will be summarily rejected because they may enable more NFA items to be transferred to prohibited persons, and they can't tolerate that. The idea that applications will be grandfathered is a self-serving fabrication of the dealers whose businesses depend on you believing this because if you do not, and if you can't get CLEO signatures, then you will not buy today because you may never be able to take delivery.

If you have items on a trust today you should be prepared for a letter asking you to comply with the new rules. No idea how they will enforce that, or what they'll do about the CLEO signature, but they'll at least send the letter.

Best solution I can think of is to suggest moving the CLEO signature to the end of the process and give the CLEO a fixed period to review the application, after which the stamp is issued. This takes away the problem of CLEOs simply not signing while giving ATF the CLEO review, which they want to maintain, and it creates data so that in the future we can see if the CLEO review really accomplishes anything. I'm working on comments to file in the docket and will copy my elected representatives pointing out that the rule as drafted will create significant new costs that can be readily avoided without compromising effectiveness and asking that they consider other alternatives. I strongly suggest that you each do the same.

Jim

Do you have anything to back up saying that there is no intent to grandfather?

Please copy/paste the comments by the drafter that imply that all pending trust transfers will be summarily rejected.

Actually the idea of the grandfathering isn't from self serving dealers but the NFA Branch themselves.

[Bendersquint]

Jim, when I bought my CL 3 I had to go through the same process of buying any other gun filling out the forms and showing ID. So the trust did not allow me to skip the standard gun buying paperwork laws that are in force. So why would the ATF think the current checks in force are not enough and the CL 3 are in the hands of persons that should not have them? OK, a portion of all guns end up like that. But the CL 3 material has shown itself to be the least problematic area of law enforcement concerns from what I can tell.

An entity transfer is not required to do a NICS check just fill out the 4473 to log it out of your bound book.

What you did was based on your dealers individual requirements not federal requirements.

You also(even with said dealer requirements) didn't do the checks for ALL parties in the trust. The way the ATF sees it you could have a member thats a serial axe murder fresh from SuperMax.

[slackercruster]

Jim, when I bought my CL 3 I had to go through the same process of buying any other gun filling out the forms and showing ID. So the trust did not allow me to skip the standard gun buying paperwork laws that are in force. So why would the ATF think the current checks in force are not enough and the CL 3 are in the hands of persons that should not have them? OK, a portion of all guns end up like that. But the CL 3 material has shown itself to be the least problematic area of law enforcement concerns from what I can tell.

An entity transfer is not required to do a NICS check just fill out the 4473 to log it out of your bound book.

What you did was based on your dealers individual requirements not federal requirements.

You also(even with said dealer requirements) didn't do the checks for ALL parties in the trust. The way the ATF sees it you could have a member thats a serial axe murder fresh from SuperMax.

OK, thanks.

[L1A1Rocker]

It is not known at this point if there will be a grandfathering or not, or even when these changes will go into affect.

It is assumed that they will grandfather everything submitted before that date but it has not been declared.

At the risk of irritating long-term members let me assure you that there is no intent to grandfather either pending applications or even existing entities that are not individuals. They know that NFA items have made it to prohibited persons through these types of entities, and they intend to find them. It is also clear from the NPRM that they don't seem to know how they will accomplish this and are asking for input. My guess is that they do know what they intend to do, but that they wanted to avoid publishing it to keep responses from the firearm supporters to a minimum. This will be addressed in the final rule which may look little like the draft published for comment.

It seems obvious to me from reading the draft and the comments of the drafter that all pending trusts will be summarily rejected because they may enable more NFA items to be transferred to prohibited persons, and they can't tolerate that. The idea that applications will be grandfathered is a self-serving fabrication of the dealers whose businesses depend on you believing this because if you do not, and if you can't get CLEO signatures, then you will not buy today because you may never be able to take delivery.

If you have items on a trust today you should be prepared for a letter asking you to comply with the new rules. No idea how they will enforce that, or what they'll do about the CLEO signature, but they'll at least send the letter.

Best solution I can think of is to suggest moving the CLEO signature to the end of the process and give the CLEO a fixed period to review the application, after which the stamp is issued. This takes away the problem of CLEOs simply not signing while giving ATF the CLEO review, which they want to maintain, and it creates data so that in the future we can see if the CLEO review really accomplishes anything. I'm working on comments to file in the docket and will copy my elected representatives pointing out that the rule as drafted will create significant new costs that can be readily avoided without compromising effectiveness and asking that they consider other alternatives. I strongly suggest that you each do the same.

Jim

You may be correct and all pending trust apps are sent back for CLEO sign off even though the ATF has mentioned grandfathering those in process. However, regarding making people comply with new laws post approval is going to run into a legal problem.

Article 1, Section 9, clause 3 of the US Constitution states: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

[Bendersquint]

You may be correct and all pending trust apps are sent back for CLEO sign off even though the ATF has mentioned grandfathering those in process. However, regarding making people comply with new laws post approval is going to run into a legal problem.

Article 1, Section 9, clause 3 of the US Constitution states: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

There are plenty of legal ways to get it so that current trusts will have to become in compiance without violation of the Constitution.

The easiest way is to notify the trusts that they have 1 year to be in compliance or the owned NFA will be construed as illegal possessed.....now they can't require a CLEO after the fact since that would give the possibility of denial, THAT is the catch. But they can require that all Trusts submit prints and mugshot and notify the CLEO's of compliance measures taken.

[66427vette]

^ Nailed it.

[slackercruster]

You may be correct and all pending trust apps are sent back for CLEO sign off even though the ATF has mentioned grandfathering those in process. However, regarding making people comply with new laws post approval is going to run into a legal problem.

Article 1, Section 9, clause 3 of the US Constitution states: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

There are plenty of legal ways to get it so that current trusts will have to become in compiance without violation of the Constitution.

The easiest way is to notify the trusts that they have 1 year to be in compliance or the owned NFA will be construed as illegal possessed.....now they can't require a CLEO after the fact since that would give the possibility of denial, THAT is the catch. But they can require that all Trusts submit prints and mugshot and notify the CLEO's of compliance measures taken.

That would be OK. But if CLEO is a must and they wont sign...

[Bendersquint]

You may be correct and all pending trust apps are sent back for CLEO sign off even though the ATF has mentioned grandfathering those in process. However, regarding making people comply with new laws post approval is going to run into a legal problem.

Article 1, Section 9, clause 3 of the US Constitution states: "No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed."

There are plenty of legal ways to get it so that current trusts will have to become in compiance without violation of the Constitution.

The easiest way is to notify the trusts that they have 1 year to be in compliance or the owned NFA will be construed as illegal possessed.....now they can't require a CLEO after the fact since that would give the possibility of denial, THAT is the catch. But they can require that all Trusts submit prints and mugshot and notify the CLEO's of compliance measures taken.

That would be OK. But if CLEO is a must and they wont sign...

Did you read the second paragraph?

[JimB]

Do you have anything to back up saying that there is no intent to grandfather?

Please copy/paste the comments by the drafter that imply that all pending trust transfers will be summarily rejected.

Actually the idea of the grandfathering isn't from self serving dealers but the NFA Branch themselves.

I have no explicit information about their intent. I have not spoken with anyone senior enough at ATF to really know, but have been involved with the development of federal regulations for more than 20 years and all I can say is that the signs are there.

To your second question, I knew it was there before reading the NPRM, found it in the rather bland language under miscellaneous "ATF recognizes that the composition of the responsible persons associated with a trust, partnership, association, company, or corporation may change, and is considering a requirement that new responsible persons submit Form 5320.23 within 30 days of the change. ATF seeks comments on this option and solicits recommendations for other approaches." This combined with the comments in the discussion of the original petition stating that ATF has clear evidence that corporate entities have been used to get NFA items to prohibited persons makes it pretty clear to me. They know that these applications are insufficient, but they don't have clear guidance to stop processing them today. As soon as the rule becomes effective they will have no excuse or reason to use the old, proven to be ineffective, process and will reject all such applications that do not comply with the new rule. It's just one man's opinion, but even if I'm wrong, acting as if I'm right will generate the highest volume of productive comments to the NPRM.

I sincerely apologize if I wrongly blamed this on dealers. Can you point out who at ATF has made a public statement about the idea of processing existing applications using the old guidelines?

It is also worth pointing out that the NPRM doesn't suggest that filed applications will be grandfathered. If anyone wants that in the rule, and it won't happen if it isn't in the rule, then they'd better file comments and include a damn good reason for doing it. I suggest that they will disagree with any reason, but again that's just one man's opinion and you've gotta try if that's what you think best.

[Pman5KMO]

It is not known at this point if there will be a grandfathering or not, or even when these changes will go into affect.

...or, for that matter, if these changes will go into effect. Yes, it seems likely given the current political climate that something similar to this proposal will happen, but it's far from certain.

According to the actual text of the law (28 USC 5812) it only requires individual apicants to submit that information. I can see this rule change getting challenged in court as exceeding authority as defined by USC very quickly... And possibly an injunction issued to halt implementing such changes if they do get approved.... It could also trickle up to Obama's executive order if the semantic game players (lawyers) play a great game of semantics.

Those trying to push the new regs will argue its allowed under other laws, but it is clearly defined that only individuals should submit fingerprint and photo by fed law.

[danb35]

... but it is clearly defined that only individuals should submit fingerprint and photo by fed law.

No, it isn't. Is there an argument to be made? Yes. Is it a slam dunk? No, it isn't.

The law says that individuals (note, not "only individuals", just "individuals") have to provide photos and fingerprints. It does not say that other entities have to provide them, nor does it say that they don't. Yes, there's a legal principle that listing some things excludes all others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius, since lawyers (and judges) like to write in Latin). There are, however, very few hard and fast, unbreakable principles in the law, and this isn't one of them.

[Bendersquint]

... but it is clearly defined that only individuals should submit fingerprint and photo by fed law.

No, it isn't. Is there an argument to be made? Yes. Is it a slam dunk? No, it isn't.

The law says that individuals (note, not "only individuals", just "individuals") have to provide photos and fingerprints. It does not say that other entities have to provide them, nor does it say that they don't. Yes, there's a legal principle that listing some things excludes all others (expressio unius est exclusio alterius, since lawyers (and judges) like to write in Latin). There are, however, very few hard and fast, unbreakable principles in the law, and this isn't one of them.

Where the .gov will come back in the argument is that an entity is made up of a group of INDIVIDUALS, and at that the fight will end.