41p rule announced

[LawBob]

180 days...I don't know if that means the transfers must be completed before then. Or that if started prior to implementation of the rule they will be grandfathered. I believe the latter.

""ATF has gone away from its "CLEO certification" requirement and implemented a CLEO "notification" requirement.

However, it will now require any person involved in the fictitious entity that “has the power and authority to direct the management and policies of the entity insofar as they pertain to firearms” to submit photographs, fingerprints and submit to a NICS check.""

http://blog.princelaw.com

Here is the rule: https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

[Fulliautomatix]

p.198 of the ruling states that the rules will not effect transfers that are pending or have been approved by the expiration of the 180 day window. ie: If it is pending or approved by then, it does not impact you.

[Loki_stormbringer]

From: https://nlolegal.wordpress.com/2016/01/ ... -rule-41p/



This means you still have the chance to form a trust (you can do so now by clicking here) and get your application into the ATF. So long as it is postmarked prior to the effective date of the rule, that NFA item will be forever exempt from the rule. In a way, this is like buying a fully automatic rifle before the 1986 ban. With one of our trusts you will have the chance to own (and devise) your NFA weapon to your heirs without it ever being subject to the new rules. The next 180 days are likely the best time in your lifetime to set up a trust and purchase an NFA weapon.

[Bendersquint]

From: https://nlolegal.wordpress.com/2016/01/ ... -rule-41p/



This means you still have the chance to form a trust (you can do so now by clicking here) and get your application into the ATF. So long as it is postmarked prior to the effective date of the rule, that NFA item will be forever exempt from the rule. In a way, this is like buying a fully automatic rifle before the 1986 ban. With one of our trusts you will have the chance to own (and devise) your NFA weapon to your heirs without it ever being subject to the new rules. The next 180 days are likely the best time in your lifetime to set up a trust and purchase an NFA weapon.

Not quite, when it changes hands via Form5 to the heir it will be subject to all the rules.....this does NOT make everything out there immune, you just don't have to bring everything out there into compliance.

[Elkins45]

Just as an FYI, the eForms system still works. I just submitted another form 1 for an SBR when I came home from work today. I have my fingers crossed it will make it through before the 180 days elapse.

I suspect the system will be busy over the next few weeks.

[Bendersquint]

Just as an FYI, the eForms system still works. I just submitted another form 1 for an SBR when I came home from work today. I have my fingers crossed it will make it through before the 180 days elapse.

I suspect the system will be busy over the next few weeks.

As far as we know it will be grandfathered so if its in the system before the 41P/F goes into affect its kosher.

[Michael Black 47]

So in following all of these and my dead line of a 180 days. I can purchase a lower then file it as a sbr form 1 and buy the upper later on if funds and time does not permit.

I already have a trust and 3 items on it. Just wanted to make sure that I'm interpreting this right.

looking for that stag arms sbr and maybe a CZ scorpion.

[RFccw]

Other than the little bit of legwork to get fingerprints and photos for the trustees, I see this as a good thing that the CLEO sign off was removed. There were many CLEO's refusing to sign even though state law allows citizens to own NFA items. I live in Idaho and the CLEO has to sign it unless there is a specific reason not to but I know not everyone is in that position.

[LawBob]

Other than the little bit of legwork to get fingerprints and photos for the trustees, I see this as a good thing that the CLEO sign off was removed. There were many CLEO's refusing to sign even though state law allows citizens to own NFA items. I live in Idaho and the CLEO has to sign it unless there is a specific reason not to but I know not everyone is in that position.

Easier for individuals (in non Cleo counties). Made it Harder for trusts.

Trust offer the multi-person option still.

[PBinWA]

I wonder how electronic forms will work now with the fingerprint cards, etc. Maybe they will open up the e-forms to individuals?

[L1A1Rocker]

Other than the little bit of legwork to get fingerprints and photos for the trustees, I see this as a good thing that the CLEO sign off was removed. There were many CLEO's refusing to sign even though state law allows citizens to own NFA items. I live in Idaho and the CLEO has to sign it unless there is a specific reason not to but I know not everyone is in that position.

I'm in that boat that is kinda likeing the CLEO removal portion. The only reason I ever did a trust was because the Sheriff in Kerr county flat refuses (in fact he is very proud to say it) to sign. This looks like a win to me. Now about that mental notification portion. . . .

[YugoRPK]

Same here. I only went trust years ago because I lived in a Democratic paradise where the sheriff refused to sign. Ive since moved on but just kept using the trust rote because it was more convenient. Now that individual has become somewhat simpler with no CLEO signoff I'll probably start doing that instead. Never did like the trust thing anyway. Ive never been asked for my papers when out shooting but I always imagine the confusion when the trust thing pops up on the paperwork. That and the fact that Ive never actually read my trust. Just a bunch of words on paper to get me stuff.

[mr fixit]

A serious question here;

As I understand the rule, trust has to submit fingerprints for everyone who is a trustee when the trust acquires or transfers a NFA Weapon. So what is to stop someone from forming a trust with them self as the only trustee, acquiring NFA toys, and then restating the trust adding trustees to it? As I read it just adding a trustee wouldn't require fingerprints.

Is that right? Did I misread?

[Bendersquint]

A serious question here;

As I understand the rule, trust has to submit fingerprints for everyone who is a trustee when the trust acquires or transfers a NFA Weapon. So what is to stop someone from forming a trust with them self as the only trustee, acquiring NFA toys, and then restating the trust adding trustees to it? As I read it just adding a trustee wouldn't require fingerprints.

Is that right? Did I misread?

There is a phrase in there that says any changes to the document requires an update. So in the end they have to get their prints and mugshots anyway.

[L1A1Rocker]

A serious question here;

As I understand the rule, trust has to submit fingerprints for everyone who is a trustee when the trust acquires or transfers a NFA Weapon. So what is to stop someone from forming a trust with them self as the only trustee, acquiring NFA toys, and then restating the trust adding trustees to it? As I read it just adding a trustee wouldn't require fingerprints.

Is that right? Did I misread?

There is a phrase in there that says any changes to the document requires an update. So in the end they have to get their prints and mugshots anyway.

I know this question was asked during the comment phase but have not read the response. Do you know where, or how the ATF has any authority to demand an update to an item that is within the sole purview of State Powers?

[Bendersquint]

A serious question here;

As I understand the rule, trust has to submit fingerprints for everyone who is a trustee when the trust acquires or transfers a NFA Weapon. So what is to stop someone from forming a trust with them self as the only trustee, acquiring NFA toys, and then restating the trust adding trustees to it? As I read it just adding a trustee wouldn't require fingerprints.

Is that right? Did I misread?

There is a phrase in there that says any changes to the document requires an update. So in the end they have to get their prints and mugshots anyway.

I know this question was asked during the comment phase but have not read the response. Do you know where, or how the ATF has any authority to demand an update to an item that is within the sole purview of State Powers?

I already have that question out to be answered.

My understanding is that it is allowable because it is a federally registered item and that is a condition of ownership of the NFA weapon.

[RFccw]

I am already talking to my attorney on Friday about something else and will ask her about the Trustee piece and adding and removing them. My trust is myself as the grantor and then I can add/delete trustees whenever. I am sure she will at least have an early opinion as she is one of the top firearms attorneys around.

[L1A1Rocker]

I am already talking to my attorney on Friday about something else and will ask her about the Trustee piece and adding and removing them. My trust is myself as the grantor and then I can add/delete trustees whenever. I am sure she will at least have an early opinion as she is one of the top firearms attorneys around.

It'd be interesting to here her take on it.

[Bendersquint]

2 separate issues here......Trust and how it is setup.....and the NFA blessing on ownership through said trust.

I have seen perfectly legal trusts that were not approved for NFA ownership.

Thing to remember is that even if it is legal for a trust to add remove or do whatever DOES NOT MEAN IT IS LEGAL FOR NFA OWNERSHIP.

[L1A1Rocker]

2 separate issues here......Trust and how it is setup.....and the NFA blessing on ownership through said trust.

I have seen perfectly legal trusts that were not approved for NFA ownership.

Thing to remember is that even if it is legal for a trust to add remove or do whatever DOES NOT MEAN IT IS LEGAL FOR NFA OWNERSHIP.

There is no such legal definition of "NFA Trust" in the state of Texas. It is simply a Revocable Living Trust. If it meets legal scrutiny in the state of Texas, then it may hold NFA items. Under Texas law the trust may be amended.

Should I need to add a person to my trust so that they may have needed access to one of my investment accounts, that's my business. Should that trust also hold NFA items, I don't see the legal basis or authority the Federal Government has to demand that said person submit fingerprints and photos along with an NFA application.

There is no quid-pro-quot here. The law defines a "person" as a trust. There is no agreement, implied or expressed, in using a trust that gives the ATF any authority to set Federal conditions on a State defined trust. I understand that the ATF is attempting to assume such authority, but I see no statutory authority in the Constitution, nor do I know of any case law that establishes such authority.

I'm sure it's going to take lawsuits, and court rulings to sort this out.

[RJT]

A serious question here;

As I understand the rule, trust has to submit fingerprints for everyone who is a trustee when the trust acquires or transfers a NFA Weapon. So what is to stop someone from forming a trust with them self as the only trustee, acquiring NFA toys, and then restating the trust adding trustees to it? As I read it just adding a trustee wouldn't require fingerprints.

Is that right? Did I misread?

There is a phrase in there that says any changes to the document requires an update. So in the end they have to get their prints and mugshots anyway.

After it goes into effect, and only if a new acquisition is going to be made? Or...I need to send all that crap in for any and everyone I've added before it goes into effect, even if I plan to never use my trust again?


This is going to be an enormous flustercuck.

[cyclone72]

I just sent 3 sbr form 1's on my trust. Hopefully they will go pending before the ruling. After that, Ill just do individual. I just hope the others get approved.

[Bendersquint]

2 separate issues here......Trust and how it is setup.....and the NFA blessing on ownership through said trust.

I have seen perfectly legal trusts that were not approved for NFA ownership.

Thing to remember is that even if it is legal for a trust to add remove or do whatever DOES NOT MEAN IT IS LEGAL FOR NFA OWNERSHIP.

There is no such legal definition of "NFA Trust" in the state of Texas. It is simply a Revocable Living Trust. If it meets legal scrutiny in the state of Texas, then it may hold NFA items. Under Texas law the trust may be amended.

Should I need to add a person to my trust so that they may have needed access to one of my investment accounts, that's my business. Should that trust also hold NFA items, I don't see the legal basis or authority the Federal Government has to demand that said person submit fingerprints and photos along with an NFA application.

There is no quid-pro-quot here. The law defines a "person" as a trust. There is no agreement, implied or expressed, in using a trust that gives the ATF any authority to set Federal conditions on a State defined trust. I understand that the ATF is attempting to assume such authority, but I see no statutory authority in the Constitution, nor do I know of any case law that establishes such authority.

I'm sure it's going to take lawsuits, and court rulings to sort this out.

Correct there is no legal definition of a NFA Trust in most locales.

It may be legal according to Texas to hold NFA items...doesn't mean it will be approved to hold NFA at the Federal level.

If it were that simple then you wouldn't need to submit a copy of your trust since noone was getting checked out prior to 41P/Q/R/S etc...you would simply check a box stating you had a trust and its name was "XYZ".

Remember Fed trumps State trumps County trumps City.

Just because locally you are allowed to amend the trust doesn't mean doing so wouldn't violate an NFA requirement and as yo know.....they make their own rules.

I already see a few things that will end up in court, will see how it pans out.

[ranb]

I've been reading 41P here; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... eVN0bwer-A

It seems the meat of the entire document is in the last ten pages. Here is the part I have I have a question on.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph ( c) of this section, attach to the application-

(i) Documentation evidencing the existence and validity of the entity, which includes
complete and unredacted copies of partnership agreements, articles of incorporation, corporate
registration, and declarations of trust, with any trust schedules, attachments, exhibits, and
enclosures;
(ii) A completed ATF Form 5320.23 for each responsible person.....
(iii) In the space provided on Form 5320.23, a 2 x 2-inch photograph of each responsible
person,....
(iv) Two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card) for each responsible
person....

So far so good. Yeah it chaps my ass to cough up prints and photos, but for the time being I have to do so, Giving the CLEO a copy of my application sucks more.

So Section (c) says;

( c) If the applicant entity has had an application approved as a maker or transferee within
the preceding 24 months, and there has been no change to the documentation previously
provided, the entity may provide a certification that the information has not been changed since
the prior approval and shall identify the application for which the documentation had been
submitted by form number, serial number, and date approved.

So does this mean if I submit an ATF form 1 180 days from now with the required form 5320.23, as long as I submit another form 1 or form 4 every 24 months I don't have to cough up the 5320.23/photos/fingerprints? I assume that certification is as simple as me typing a little note with the previous ATF form stamp and firearm serial number? If this isn't incentive to make a new can or two every two years, I don't know what is. Please tell me I'm correct.

The 5320.23 is only in draft form so far.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... l49NiYeLIA

It has the same "Mother may I" signature requirement from the CLEO as the ATF forms 1 and 4. Hopefully they come out with a better form soon .

Randy

[LawBob]

I've been reading 41P here; https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... eVN0bwer-A

It seems the meat of the entire document is in the last ten pages. Here is the part I have I have a question on.

(2) Except as provided in paragraph ( c) of this section, attach to the application-

(i) Documentation evidencing the existence and validity of the entity, which includes
complete and unredacted copies of partnership agreements, articles of incorporation, corporate
registration, and declarations of trust, with any trust schedules, attachments, exhibits, and
enclosures;
(ii) A completed ATF Form 5320.23 for each responsible person.....
(iii) In the space provided on Form 5320.23, a 2 x 2-inch photograph of each responsible
person,....
(iv) Two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card) for each responsible
person....

So far so good. Yeah it chaps my ass to cough up prints and photos, but for the time being I have to do so, Giving the CLEO a copy of my application sucks more.

So Section (c) says;

( c) If the applicant entity has had an application approved as a maker or transferee within
the preceding 24 months, and there has been no change to the documentation previously
provided, the entity may provide a certification that the information has not been changed since
the prior approval and shall identify the application for which the documentation had been
submitted by form number, serial number, and date approved.

So does this mean if I submit an ATF form 1 180 days from now with the required form 5320.23, as long as I submit another form 1 or form 4 every 24 months I don't have to cough up the 5320.23/photos/fingerprints? I assume that certification is as simple as me typing a little note with the previous ATF form stamp and firearm serial number? If this isn't incentive to make a new can or two every two years, I don't know what is. Please tell me I'm correct.

The 5320.23 is only in draft form so far.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... l49NiYeLIA

It has the same "Mother may I" signature requirement from the CLEO as the ATF forms 1 and 4. Hopefully they come out with a better form soon .

Randy

I think that's what it says. But not what they meant. I think they will likely determine it means if you've submitted all the fingerprints prior and then a transfer has occurred within the passed 24 months and no change of structure then no need for new fingerprints. They will still run the check on the existing responsible people on file.

But if your presumption is correct, I will be purchasing a new suppressor every 22 months.