forget the "gunshow loophole", now we have the "machine gun loophole"

[Perro Del Diablo]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/05/25/exploring.gun.loophole/index.html?iref=allsearch

OH NOZE!!!! machine guns for everyone without ANY background checks!! :slap:

I have ALWAYS disliked the trust route for NFA ownership. It's only going to take 1 prohibited person getting an NFA item through a trust to cause the whole house of cards to come crumbling down on everyone else.

I guess if my Sherriff absolutely would not sign then i would have went the trust route, but man i think youre crazy to go trust if your sherriff will sign - Actually, maybe LAZY would be better than crazy.

great story CNN!!

[kagans]

I don't think officials should be able to arbitrarily say no to signing NFA paper work. There doesn't have to be a reason besides you wanting to own one that you should be able to do so. With that said, the trust thing is a little scary, no background checks what so ever. I have no problem with background checks and giving my fingerprints, because I don't plan on ever doing anything illegal with my guns. Anyone that plans on breaking the laws with their firearms will not take the time to go the legal route to get one. I would like to see a study that shows how many crimes are committed with NFA III registered firearms.

[jdowney]

I always suspected the corporate ownership route had more to do with allowing a path for private security companies to own NFA weapons (though that is not to say they actually need them). With the increased popularity of individual corporations and trusts in the last 20 years, it's little surprise that it's become a popular loophole. Of course I've done absolutely no research on it, so my view is little more than speculation.

As long as it's done legally, there's no use complaining about it until the loophole is tightened up. The article didn't really resonate well with me personally, not being in favor of NFA regulations of any kind. Surely there is some kind of regulation regarding prohibited persons possessing NFA items through a trust?

[I_Am_Oz]

I just had my lawyer complete my NFA trust. It's actually MORE work and costs a significant amount of money to get one set up the right way.

I like the trust route for several reasons.

1) Anyone who is part of the trust and can legally use NFA items can use the Trust's inventory. If my wife, kids or my father (everyone currently listed in my trust) want to use a suppressor or an SBR, the individual owner of the items would be required to go with them. In the trust, not a problem. My dad can take the SBR and my wife can take my suppressor --to different locations! *GASP*! My kids have to wait until they're a little older. They're currently just beneficiaries until they can legally own firearms.

Which leads to the next point...

2) Once I move to the great shooting range in the sky, my children or (eventually) my children's children would have to pay another *$&!! $200 fee (when will this cost go up?) to transfer my stuff to them. I don't know about you, but ANYTHING I can do to keep from paying the government any more tax money, I will do!

3) Now that a trust owns my stuff, the likelihood of the BATF knocking on my door at 3am to request to see my NFA items as an individual, has been mitigated. I honestly don't know if the BATF can still request to see items owned by a trust in the same manner. Since anyone in the trust could have possession of the items at any one time, the BATF won't know for sure where the items might be.

The real issue to this; how many crimes have been committed by NFA trust owned items? It just doesn't happen. Criminals aren't going to set up a trust or even do anything to legally own NFA items anyway. The background checks are a waste of time and your tax dollars. If I'm a criminal or can't legally own NFA items, why on EARTH would I set up a trust or try to do anything legally? The last estimate I heard was 500:1 illegal machine guns to NFA registered legal machine guns.

Oz

[Patria Povo]

Whoever tacticooled that Swedish K/ S&W M76 in the photo deserves to loose their NFA Trust!!

[Perro Del Diablo]

With that said, the trust thing is a little scary, no background checks what so ever.
Well, the trustees still need to send in there information with the trust which includes there name and addresses. I do not believe the ATF would approve a trust for someone with a felony, but im not certain just how far the process goes once the atf receives the paperwork. There are no fingerprints, or passport photos sent with a trust.


As long as it's done legally, there's no use complaining about it until the loophole is tightened up. The article didn't really resonate well with me personally, not being in favor of NFA regulations of any kind. Surely there is some kind of regulation regarding prohibited persons possessing NFA items through a trust?
i was kidding about the loophole thing and no background checks. i wanted to put a willy nilly emoticon running around scared after the OH NOZE sentence but couldnt find one, so i just put a slap in the head one instead.
I think CNN is making a BIG deal of this as usual.


I just had my lawyer complete my NFA trust. It's actually MORE work and costs a significant amount of money to get one set up the right way.
the only extra work by going trust route is you have to pay a lawyer to draft it up for you, and you have to set up a free checking account in your trusts name so you can pay for the NFA item with your trust.


I like the trust route for several reasons.

1) Anyone who is part of the trust and can legally use NFA items can use the Trust's inventory. If my wife, kids or my father (everyone currently listed in my trust) want to use a suppressor or an SBR, the individual owner of the items would be required to go with them. In the trust, not a problem. My dad can take the SBR and my wife can take my suppressor --to different locations! *GASP*! My kids have to wait until they're a little older. They're currently just beneficiaries until they can legally own firearms.
LOTS of liabilty there!!
I certainly hope you have it spelled out CLEAR in your trust that your kids cannot take posession of your NFA until they are of a legal age to own NFA and can only take posession of it if they are legally allowed to do so. if not, and you die, they automatically take posession of the items and you just subjected them to 10 years and $250k
i have seen SEVERAL trusts and i certainly hope you used guntrustlawyer or similar instead of filling out the cookie cutter trust, used quicken will maker, or a lawyer who didnt specialize in NFA!
TOO much liability allowing others access to my NFA items. Personally i dont want my wife, kids, brother, father in law to have posession of my stuff when im not around, sure would suck to have my wife decide she wants to stop at the store to grab milk with a machine gun in the back of the car and have it stolen while she was getting groceries, or to have her pulled over and then have the cops freak out when they found out she had a machine gun in the back of the car.
I dont like the liability - your mileage may vary.


Which leads to the next point...

2) Once I move to the great shooting range in the sky, my children or (eventually) my children's children would have to pay another *$&!! $200 fee (when will this cost go up?) to transfer my stuff to them. I don't know about you, but ANYTHING I can do to keep from paying the government any more tax money, I will do!

NFA transfers tax free on a form 5 to your heirs when you die - no extra taxes


3) Now that a trust owns my stuff, the likelihood of the BATF knocking on my door at 3am to request to see my NFA items as an individual, has been mitigated. I honestly don't know if the BATF can still request to see items owned by a trust in the same manner. Since anyone in the trust could have possession of the items at any one time, the BATF won't know for sure where the items might be.
they have the ability to request to see the stuff whether done on a trust or individually - nothing different there.


The real issue to this; how many crimes have been committed by NFA trust owned items? It just doesn't happen. Criminals aren't going to set up a trust or even do anything to legally own NFA items anyway. The background checks are a waste of time and your tax dollars. If I'm a criminal or can't legally own NFA items, why on EARTH would I set up a trust or try to do anything legally? The last estimate I heard was 500:1 illegal machine guns to NFA registered legal machine guns.

Oz
an NFA firearm transferred to an invalid trust is a violation of NFA and subject to some pretty stiff fines.
a prohibited person is MUCH more likely to go the trust route to gain access to NFA than they are by individual route because the individual route requires fingerprints, and passport photos, and they are not going to approve the transfer of an NFA item for a felon. The second the fingerprints pop up felonies, thats it, game over for that transfer.

A trust on the other hand may have a trustee by the name of james smith on it who may indeed be a felon, and how many different james smiths are there in the world?? no fingerprints to check on james smith with a trust transfer.


trusts were only approved a couple of years ago. It would take nothing to prove them invalid in court and then what?? awful hard to prove an individual is invalid unless you have done something to prevent you from owning NFA which is your own fault.

its only going to take 1 prohibited person on a trust to make the house of cards come crumbling down on top of everyone and i would get a pretty sick feeling in my stomach if i held NFA that was transferred by trust when that happened.
I owned NFA before trusts became popular, and i have seen ALOT of buddies go the trust route, i have seen the rules on trusts change 3 times since i have been involved with NFA. Now they are criticising trusts MUCH more so than before, and the old trust transfer that used to take 1 month is now taking 2-3 months.



way too much liability for me personally, your mileage may vary.

[Milsurp]

In both places where I have lived the CLEO will not sign for anybody period, so in my case my options are limited. I also believe that given the option anybody would choose to have the items registered to themselves and not a trust. I think the reason that there are so many trusts is because their are so many CLEO's that will not sign off on the application. It's great that some of you can get them to sign but it seems there are way more that won't. I am glad they came up with the NFA trust to let us law abiding citizens have the option of owning NFA items, otherwise we would have nothing just because of a CLEO's beliefs about who should or shouldn't own them. Personally if I was a CLEO I would sign them because that way I know where they all are in my county.

[Perro Del Diablo]

For those who have cleo who won't sign, its different, you have no other choice, but talk to any of the long time nfa people out there, and they all say to go individual if you can simply because it is safer.

Locally our cleo signs but 99% of everyone I talk to goes the trust route, and I'm 100% convinced it is because they are to lazy to get the forms signed by the sherrif, or its because there buddy talked them into doing it because it is the new cool thing to do. "everyone on arfcom is doing it"

when it comes to something so regulated that it can land you in prison if done incorrectly, I typically choose the safest way I can to do something, and the individual route is the safest way if you can get the forms signed, if not then you have no choice

the trust transfer will be attacked in the future, it has already started with this news story. I do not believe it will remain a valid way to transfer nfa as long as so many people use the trust. I suspect at the very least fingerprints and pp photos will be required for trustees lin the future.

If my cleo didnt sign I would have a nfa trust, but I wouldn't feel any better about having nfa tied to a trust

[bladeworks123]

I fully agree with Perro on this, there has been lip service by the anti gun legislators for awhile now about NFA Trusts. The bigger it gets, and the more attention that it gets, the more likely it will begin to be "regulated" out of media fear mongering. But then again, I remember the day that very few cleo's would step up and sign either. It has gotten a lot better in the past ten or twelve years. But, that too could take a hit with the right legislation slipped in on us. More and more cleo's are seeing the light from both ends of the tunnel. On one end they see the light from the constituency that elects them, and in many cases now, this issue has carried a lot of weight in elections. Secondly are the facts, like several posts here have eluded to, and that is the fact that very few approved NFA or Trust Weapons are ever actually used in a crime. Law enforcement have realized for years that registration, and permitting have had absolutely no effect on the decrease of violent weapons related offenses. Many are now starting to admit that, but some places like Milsurps turf are either slow to catch up or are just overwhelmed by liberal constituents.

[Perro Del Diablo]

There was a post a year or two ago on subguns from a guy who used quicken for his trust, and atf approved a transfer. On a second transfer they came back and said the guys trust was invalid and went to confiscate his nfa firearms. Since his wife was on the trust, the atf told her they were in illegal possession of a trust holding nfa firearms which freaked the wife out pretty bad.

It was deleted and there was speculation that it was a lawyer trying to shill for work, but it was never proven either way. It sure reinforced my position on trusts because at any moment they can claim a trust invalid and if you are lucky they only confiscate the items, and then you pay to get a lawyer to prove the trust is valid, and hopefully get your stuff back. If it goes bad for you, you lose the items, and worse case you have the whole violation of nfa to deal with

Do a search on google for invalid trust subguns and I'm certain you will find what I'm talking about. They deleted it, but I bet there is a cached copy somewhere

[rpmfly2]

I am with Perro and Kagan! They did away with background checks here for permit to carry and a proficiency shoot! It's like they want non or incompetent shooters to screw it up for the rest of us! It's like it's all planned and BO is working the other side to mash everyone in the middle! Nothing like going from common sense to who cares!



I don't think officials should be able to arbitrarily say no to signing NFA paper work. There doesn't have to be a reason besides you wanting to own one that you should be able to do so. With that said, the trust thing is a little scary, no background checks what so ever. I have no problem with background checks and giving my fingerprints, because I don't plan on ever doing anything illegal with my guns. Anyone that plans on breaking the laws with their firearms will not take the time to go the legal route to get one. I would like to see a study that shows how many crimes are committed with NFA III registered firearms.

[I_Am_Oz]

I enjoy the debate on this. It's an important topic for me.



the only extra work by going trust route is you have to pay a lawyer to draft it up for you, and you have to set up a free checking account in your trusts name so you can pay for the NFA item with your trust.


Sorry... by extra work I was talking about having to manage a trust inventory and get things notarized (just to be safe). Regarding the trusts monies, my lawyer said you only need to transfer money 'into' your trust and then you can purchase your NFA item with the trust monies. All you're doing is listing the money as inventory in your trust. It's my understanding that since it's not a corporation, there's no need for a DBA or corporate checking account. I'm assuming (need to clear this up) that money spent from the trust would need to have the trust trustee's name on the check.



LOTS of liabilty there!!
I certainly hope you have it spelled out CLEAR in your trust that your kids cannot take posession of your NFA until they are of a legal age to own NFA and can only take posession of it if they are legally allowed to do so.


This issue is addressed in my professionally written 13 page trust. It's comforting to know that my lawyer will stand behind it if changes or alterations are ever needed. But specifically to this, there's a whole paragraph about minors unable to manage NFA items. (Custodianships Under the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act) The way we set it up, if every adult in my trust dies leaving only minors, my lawyer (in my case) acts as a custodian until the minors are old enough to take ownership.



TOO much liability allowing others access to my NFA items. Personally i dont want my wife, kids, brother, father in law to have posession of my stuff when im not around, sure would suck to have my wife decide she wants to stop at the store to grab milk with a machine gun in the back of the car and have it stolen while she was getting groceries, or to have her pulled over and then have the cops freak out when they found out she had a machine gun in the back of the car.
I dont like the liability - your mileage may vary.


Well, the items are not "yours", they belong to a trust. So the scenario you spelled out can't happen ;-) Legal semantics's... but that's what lawyers are for. Regardless --if a machine gun or a .22 pistol is stolen out of your wife's car, the procedure is the same. That being said, I don't think I would let a machine gun in the trust for which I am acting as trustee, ever leave my sight for *many* reasons.

But... I am curious why would the "cops freak out when they found out she had a machine gun in the back of the car". Why would they act any differently to a machine gun in the back of her car if she legally owned the machine gun (as an individual) VS if she had the machine gun in her car along with the trust documents legally showing the trusts ownership of the machine gun and her as a member of the trust?

Now, more importantly, If I didn't have anyone in my circle of family and friends I felt comfortable with the trust's NFA items, I would have set up the trust me as the only member. As it stands, I have no concerns about the people I have listed in my trust using my trusts items (SBR's and Suppressors). But if I ever DO have concern about any members of the trust using the items, as Trustee I would remove them from the trust.



NFA transfers tax free on a form 5 to your heirs when you die - no extra taxes
I was unaware of the tax free transfer upon death. Isn't the government considerate... Your heirs can have your NFA stuff tax-free after you die. But... I really like the idea of managing the legacy of my NFA items while I'm alive. Maybe I DON'T want my heirs to get my NFA items for some reason when I die... you can stipulate exactly what will happen to those items under any circumstances -even with a bunch of if-then statements.



they have the ability to request to see the stuff whether done on a trust or individually - nothing different there.

If figured that might be the case. At least the goods can be spread out and make 'em do a whole lot more work in their harassment efforts.



A trust on the other hand may have a trustee by the name of james smith on it who may indeed be a felon, and how many different james smiths are there in the world?? no fingerprints to check on james smith with a trust transfer.

They do require the address of the trusts trustee. Who knows if they actually do anything with that. Probably not.



trusts were only approved a couple of years ago. It would take nothing to prove them invalid in court and then what?? awful hard to prove an individual is invalid unless you have done something to prevent you from owning NFA which is your own fault.

I talked to my lawyer about this. It would probably take a little more than "nothing to prove them invalid". A legal president was set by allowing trusts. Yet it's not impossible. However, once invalidated there would be grandfather clauses / methods to keep a once-legal situation, once again legal. Short of a full-on federal ban on SBR's or suppressors, there shouldn't be a legal situation that couldn't be managed any differently than an individual's ownership. But again, I would only do this with a lawyer in my corner.



its only going to take 1 prohibited person on a trust to make the house of cards come crumbling down on top of everyone and i would get a pretty sick feeling in my stomach if i held NFA that was transferred by trust when that happened.
I owned NFA before trusts became popular, and i have seen ALOT of buddies go the trust route, i have seen the rules on trusts change 3 times since i have been involved with NFA. Now they are criticising trusts MUCH more so than before, and the old trust transfer that used to take 1 month is now taking 2-3 months.


Word. If I didn't have the legal expertise in place to manage any changes, I wouldn't even consider the Trust route. If for some reason the legality of NFA trusts is changed, there will be methods and provisions to keep legally owned NFA items, legal. As an owner of "NFA items" before the National Firearms Act was put into place, you're a living example of that.

My real concerns are in regard to the future legality of owning NFA items in general. Another 4 years of a pro gun control president makes me shudder. If feel like we've 'dodged a bullet' to this point. Except for the exceptional escalation of ammo costs.

Oz

[Perro Del Diablo]

atf can rule a trust invalid upon a whim




Subguns.com NFA Firearms Discussion Board




Need help with the BATFE and NFA Trust problems...




Posted By: Anon because...
Date: 5/22/09 11:47



I will try to make this as short an concise as possible. About 2 years ago, I formed a trust using Quicken. Shortly thereafter, I purchased a Mac-11 and a suppressor for the trust and in the trust's name. I only submitted a certificate of trust, not the entire trust, and it was approved. I recently submitted a Form 1 to make an SBR in the trust's name. My Form was kicked back because I hadn't suppplied the entire trust document. I then sent in the entire trust.


Today, my wife called me distraught that the ATF called looking for me. From what she was able to understand from the conversation, the ATF was calling to ask the location of my Mac-11 and suppressor because "they are in the possession of an unlawful entity." She didn't understand what they were saying and has no idea about trusts, so she asked what they meant. The agent apparently informed her that the NFA items were registered to a trust, where I was the trustee, and that the trust was invalid. Moreover, they want me to call them to set up a time for me to turn over the items.


I have called a local attorney that my dealer told me is well versed in firearms law, the NFA, and NFA Trusts. However, his secretary told me that he is in court until later today. Anyway, I am obviously very concerned and have no experience in dealing with the ATF. Has anyone had similar experiences? Am I going to lose my firearms? I am going to a law library to see if I can get some help trying to search this issue until I hear from the attorney. Any advice would be greatly appreciated.



they cannot rule you as an individual invalid upon a whim unless you have specifically done something wrong (became a felon, domestic violence, etc).

maybe you feel comfortable with having a lawyer represent you and try to defend your trust in court, i would personally prefer it never get to the point where i need to defend it and that is covered by going the individual route as long as i dont do anything stupid.

With a trust, the ATF WILL approve a transfer even if its invalid, and then you are subject to an illegal transfer in the NFA which carries 10 years and 250k.
Awful hard to transfer an NFA item to an invalid individual, and awfully easy to do so on a trust - the rules have already changed 3 times since i have seen them become popular.
The above individual did a transfer at the very beginning when they only required you submit a copy of your schedule a, and then when he went to submit a second transfer they needed to see a copy of his entire trust because the rules had changed, and as soon as they got a copy of his trust, they went after his wife to forfeit his NFA items because his wife was on the trust.
what happens next year when they decide that the rules have changed again and your trust becomes invalid??
If i had a SBR and a suppressor on it i wouldnt care about losing that, but i definately would be concerned with the illegal NFA transfer that occurs and having the best lawyer in the world in my corner to defend my trust would not make me feel any better.

and why would the cops freak out with a machine gun in the back of the car?? I could tell you a great story about spending a bunch of hours on the side of the road with about 20 cops, the k9, and several supervisors but just trust me, most cops do not think you should be able to have SBRs, and suppresors, and machine guns! some are leary of anyone who holds greater firepower than them. and i use machine guns as an example because i own machine guns - you are trying to get an SBR, and a suppressor, but the cops feel just the same about those too.


if you feel comfy and cozy with your trust, then that is all that matters - i do NOT personally but to each his own

[Perro Del Diablo]

Regarding the trusts monies, my lawyer said you only need to transfer money 'into' your trust and then you can purchase your NFA item with the trust monies. All you're doing is listing the money as inventory in your trust. It's my understanding that since it's not a corporation, there's no need for a DBA or corporate checking account. I'm assuming (need to clear this up) that money spent from the trust would need to have the trust trustee's name on the check.
the guntrustlawyer trust 32 page package tells you to go to the bank and get a checking account in the name of your trust. you transfer individual funds into the trust and those funds become trust property, and then the trust pays for the items itself from its own account. better to seperate the trust money from your personal money, and the trusts own checking account accomplishes this.
not a lawyer, just explaining what it says in the guntrustlawyer package.




This issue is addressed in my professionally written 13 page trust. It's comforting to know that my lawyer will stand behind it if changes or alterations are ever needed. But specifically to this, there's a whole paragraph about minors unable to manage NFA items. (Custodianships Under the Uniform Transfers to Minors Act) The way we set it up, if every adult in my trust dies leaving only minors, my lawyer (in my case) acts as a custodian until the minors are old enough to take ownership.
sounds like you have it covered.


Well, the items are not "yours", they belong to a trust. So the scenario you spelled out can't happen ;-) Legal semantics's... but that's what lawyers are for. Regardless --if a machine gun or a .22 pistol is stolen out of your wife's car, the procedure is the same. That being said, I don't think I would let a machine gun in the trust for which I am acting as trustee, ever leave my sight for *many* reasons.
if you are a trustee on that trust, they are your responsibility - no different than you owning them as an individual
why would you not let a machine gun leave your sight, but allow a SBR, or suppressor to?? what is different to make you more reserved with the MG? same NFA and they carry the same penalties for illegal transfer.



I talked to my lawyer about this. It would probably take a little more than "nothing to prove them invalid". A legal president was set by allowing trusts. Yet it's not impossible. However, once invalidated there would be grandfather clauses / methods to keep a once-legal situation, once again legal. Short of a full-on federal ban on SBR's or suppressors, there shouldn't be a legal situation that couldn't be managed any differently than an individual's ownership. But again, I would only do this with a lawyer in my corner.
the thing that scares me is the whole NFA thing. illegal transfers of NFA carry 10 years and 250k - no reduced sentences and ingnorance not an excuse. invalid transfers are subject to the NFA. Lets hope that they were really swell guys and just allowed you to transfer things to an individual on a form 4, or just moved to forfeit your stuff if they found your trust invalid in the future.




Word. If I didn't have the legal expertise in place to manage any changes, I wouldn't even consider the Trust route. If for some reason the legality of NFA trusts is changed, there will be methods and provisions to keep legally owned NFA items, legal. As an owner of "NFA items" before the National Firearms Act was put into place, you're a living example of that.
what?? i was trying to say i owned NFA before trusts became popular. They only became popular just a few years ago. Before that EVERYONE went individual route, or corporation. I have researched trusts pretty thoroughly. I have seen the guntrustlawyer package, the bunker group trust, the cookie cutter trust passed around on Ar15.com, the 4 page trust created by quicken willmaker, and another trust from a different state that people were erasing the owners info and putting there info in its place.
Im definately not a lawyer, but i know that if i was to use a trust, i would much rather have the 32 page document from guntrustlawyer than the 4 page document from quicken.
when it comes to things that could affect my freedom in the future i tend to err on the side of caution. This caution has also led me to greatly appreciate the bullet proof individual transfer.



My real concerns are in regard to the future legality of owning NFA items in general. Another 4 years of a pro gun control president makes me shudder. If feel like we've 'dodged a bullet' to this point. Except for the exceptional escalation of ammo costs.

Oz
this does NOT concern me in the slightest. if anything they will raise the transfer tax to bring it closer inline to the times - the country needs money

[Patria Povo]

the only extra work by going trust route is you have to pay a lawyer to draft it up for you, and you have to set up a free checking account in your trusts name so you can pay for the NFA item with your trust.

I just sent a money order. Setting up the trust was quick & easy, though not cheap. 20 minutes on the phone to give my NFA lawyer my info and credit card, then a week later a 30 minute visit to his office to sign papers and copy documents and presto! NFA trust done. He also helped me fill-out my first Form 4 as part of the package. It really couldn't be any easier - no finger-printing or CLEO appointments required.

That said, I would still do a personal NFA application if I lived in a city/county that had more NFA-friendly CLEOs.

My NFA lawyer is obviously very pro- trusts (he is making a killing on them). Here is is spin: http://www.texasnfatrust.com/products.htm

[SteelCore]

Wow...crazy stuff. Makes me glad to not to get involved with FA stuff...don't want govt agents showing up at all hours to check on things...seems you have to give up 4th amendment rights to own...

[jdowney]

illegal transfers of NFA carry 10 years and 250k - no reduced sentences and ingnorance not an excuse. invalid transfers are subject to the NFA. Lets hope that they were really swell guys and just allowed you to transfer things to an individual on a form 4, or just moved to forfeit your stuff if they found your trust invalid in the future.

Wouldn't a trust give the trustee some measure of legal protection? If the ownership were corporate, the corporation would be responsible for its actions, and they would have to prove intent to open criminal proceedings against an officer of the corporation. In such a case ignorance would be a defense in a way. Might lose the weapons and pay a fine, but you can't jail a corporation.

[BattleBornArms]

trustee, or officer of the corporation must still answer the disqualifying questions on the form 4, plus sign that have a reasonable necessity to possess the machinegun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or destructive device described on the application for certain reasons, and that the trustee, or officer of corps. possession of the device or weapon would be consistent with public safety (18 U.S.C. 922(b) (4) and 27 CFR 478.98).
UNDER PENALTIES OF PERJURY, trustee, or officer of corporation declares that they have examined this application and the documents submitted in support thereof, and to the best of there knowledge and belief it is true, correct and complete.

most of that copied and pasted from the form 4, but certain words changed to try to make it more understandable.


being a trustee, or officer of the corporation is no different than being an individual when it comes to signing a form 4, the only difference is that an individual must provide fingerprints, passport photos, and does not have to complete the section for the CLEO. If something illegal was done on a firearm owned by a trust, or a corporation, they go after the trustee or officer of the corp. who signed the form 4 no different than they would an individual who signed the form 4

[jef1911a1]

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that as of a year ago, only ONE legal NFA weapon has been used in a crime. Guy in Florida killed his wife some years ago with one.

[Milsurp]

Anybody heard about this? seems that the whole trust debate would be a moot point if this happens. Found this last night.

This is another important topic we discussed at the recent NFATCA meeting last Thursday evening after Shot Show 2011. Seems we are making some head way!!


"I am pleased to report that all branches and offices within ATF have given the official okey dokey to eliminating the CLEO signature requirements for NFA Forms. This includes Counsel's office and the National Sheriffs' Association! The package has been sent on to the Department of Justice with recommendation for approval. The package will include:

1.Elimination of CLEO signature requirement.
2.Institution of CLEO "notification" similar to an FFL application. (A copy of the form will be sent to the CLEO as opposed to asking for permission.)
3.Trusts and LLC's and corps will still be available for use.
4.In the event of #3, a NICS check will be required when the weapon is physically transferred.
Unknown is whether the Citizenship Compliance form will be eliminated and merged into the various NFA forms instead of being a separate nuisance. ATF is leaning toward elimination."

The NFATCA has been working for several years to make this happen. I am proud to say that we have pushed this agenda item further with better results than we ever have before. ATF and its various branches have reviewed all of the potential issues and suggestions that we have presented. At this point, ATF has actually submitted the issue to the Department of Justice for final approval. We have never been able to get this issue out of ATF's "universe" before. At this point, it could be a matter of weeks or months before we receive final approval. I am hoping that the timing of the November release of several updated NFA forms is a good coincidence. That was the long answer. The short answer is yes, the process is in full swing.

Jeff Folloder
NFA Trade and Collectors Association
Website: http://www.nfatca.org (http://www.nfatca.org/)
Direct: 281.492.8288

[kagans]

Anybody heard about this? seems that the whole trust debate would be a moot point if this happens. Found this last night.

This is another important topic we discussed at the recent NFATCA meeting last Thursday evening after Shot Show 2011. Seems we are making some head way!!


"I am pleased to report that all branches and offices within ATF have given the official okey dokey to eliminating the CLEO signature requirements for NFA Forms. This includes Counsel's office and the National Sheriffs' Association! The package has been sent on to the Department of Justice with recommendation for approval. The package will include:

1.Elimination of CLEO signature requirement.
2.Institution of CLEO "notification" similar to an FFL application. (A copy of the form will be sent to the CLEO as opposed to asking for permission.)
3.Trusts and LLC's and corps will still be available for use.
4.In the event of #3, a NICS check will be required when the weapon is physically transferred.
Unknown is whether the Citizenship Compliance form will be eliminated and merged into the various NFA forms instead of being a separate nuisance. ATF is leaning toward elimination."

The NFATCA has been working for several years to make this happen. I am proud to say that we have pushed this agenda item further with better results than we ever have before. ATF and its various branches have reviewed all of the potential issues and suggestions that we have presented. At this point, ATF has actually submitted the issue to the Department of Justice for final approval. We have never been able to get this issue out of ATF's "universe" before. At this point, it could be a matter of weeks or months before we receive final approval. I am hoping that the timing of the November release of several updated NFA forms is a good coincidence. That was the long answer. The short answer is yes, the process is in full swing.

Jeff Folloder
NFA Trade and Collectors Association
Website: http://www.nfatca.org (http://www.nfatca.org/)
Direct: 281.492.8288
If that really happens then AWESOME! As far as cops feeling uneasy, that sucks but it still shouldn't dictate how the constitution is utilized.

[bladeworks123]

I know there has been discussion in the ranks of the Sheriff's associations across the country concerning the advantages of the Sheriff having the ability to object rather than approve. Many feel like the notification process relieves the pressure off of Sheriff's, keeping them from being neither the bad guy or the good guy, keeping them nuetral, but having the ability to review the application and come forth with any information they have that would disqualify the applicant. The opposite side of the discussion is that some feel that it would subject the Sheriff's to vicarious liability if they failed to act on an application forwarded to them and they "should have" intervened. Or if in the case the BATF should issue something in error and then try to pin part of the blame on the Sheriff because he failed to inform them of information that would have kept them from issuing a permit in the first place. The real truth is that the level of trust and communication between any federal agency and Sheriff's has not been historically real good. I personally would hope that the Sheriff's continue to be the granting authority. I realize in situations like you have down there that doesn't strike a very encouraging note, however, I think local control by the Sheriff's is much better for the whole picture. The Sheriff is still an elected position, and therefore they are usually bound a little closer to the interests of the people they serve. Bad thing about that is that if the constituency is highly liberal and anti-gun, the Sheriff blows that way also. No doubt the BATF would very much like to see any local decision making by the Sheriff's eliminated, and although I am glad to hear that this may be some rays of hope and encouragement for you guys down there, I guess I'm just a little leary of seeing local government loose control entirely to the feds. On the other hand, I wonder how your Sheriff's in liberal areas like yours will treat the notification process. I know of some who go out of their way to document their objection to FFL licensing now, in some places. I'm thinking out loud alot in this post and I appologize, but this is an interesting concept, I'm just not sure which way I would lean here if the choice were mine.

[BattleBornArms]

the CLEO only has to sign that he has no information that you are going to use the item illegally, and it is legal for you to have it where you live.

It is not his position to deny the constitutional right of someone simply because he doesnt think you should have it, but we all know that alot of them do it. It's really not needed anyway because a thorough background investigation is done off the fingerprints, and the FBI is going to know whether or not you should be able to have it or not.

I have spoke with several of the BCRs over at Subguns.com. In my humble opinion, if you really want to know what is going on in the NFA world, that is the place that has the most experts on the topic of NFA anywhere in the world. 9 out of 10 will tell you that if your CLEO will sign, then you need to go that direction because it is safer, and easier than any other method in the long run. Some will go as far as telling you that it is your duty to try to go that route first and to put pressure on your local representatives to sign it even if it is inconvenient for you.

[bladeworks123]

The only reason they do it here, is simply lip service to their supporters. You are right, they have no way to block nor any just cause, but they do it anyway just to throw narcissistic stumbling blocks and garner votes and contributions. The old "look what I do" thing. I know, I worked along side a few with that mind set. Fortunately, most have been voted out of office now. The Sheriff where I am, absolutely pro everything gun. And BBA, I agree fully, the pressure needs to be put on them if for no other reason than to have pro gun voices heard over the murmerings from the other side. It all boils down to the political climate in the region, That's why I truly hope the deal Milsurp is talking about comes to fruition for them, but I'm still not sure it would be a good overall policy. I'm just not sold that giving the authority to a federal agency with the ability to promulgate rules without legislation is a good deal. Maybe I'm just to cynical about Federal Agencies. I do have to say though that my recent personal dealings with BATF were all positive, so maybe the wind is shifting inside that organization, I don't know, it just seems like a shift too fast to me, and too recent for me to come to a buy in.

[kagans]

My biggest problem is what I have stated earlier, arbitrarily denying people their rights. I understand that local governments will know their people a lot better than federal, but I don't think that the sheriff signing it or not should keep you from getting it. Unless of course he has a valid concern that no one else saw before. Otherwise, he shouldn't be able to say no just because it gives him the ivie jivies. Just my opinion.

[Cavalryman]

Can a trust buy machine guns built after 1986, or are they held to the same restrictions as individuals? What about private security companies? How do they do it?

[BattleBornArms]

a trust does not allow you to buy post may 1986 dealer sample machine guns, only transferable machine guns. Post may dealer sample machine guns can only be sold to law enforcement and government agencies, or to other dealers with a law enforcement demonstration request letter.

corporations, trusts, or individuals can own transferable machine guns if they are legal in the state where they live/reside.

[Simon]

I am with Perro and Kagan! They did away with background checks here for permit to carry and a proficiency shoot! It's like they want non or incompetent shooters to screw it up for the rest of us! It's like it's all planned and BO is working the other side to mash everyone in the middle! Nothing like going from common sense to who cares!
I'm for background checks with permit to carry since it doesn't make sense to give a permit to someone who isn't legally ok to possess anyways, but I don't like the idea of "proficiency tests" or classes being a requirement. The simple reason being that it's too easy to make it into a new version of the poll tax / voter quizzes of the Jim Crow era -- a new way to prevent certain segments of the "unwashed masses" from using their rights. All you have to do is slowly increase the requirements and eventually no one will qualify.

I can't for the life of me remember which state it was, but one of them has a class requirement that costs about $300 on top of the usual permit costs. For way too many people who are at risk of gang violence or domestic violence that is a LOT of money. A person who is in a rough financial situation should not be prevented from protecting themselves.

Likewise I am against giving a single official the power to deny a permit or transfer for any random reason. Too easy for someone to abuse. The system should not be set up in a way that makes it possible for an individual, elected or not, to have the power to deny people based solely on their own prejudices.

The best way to make sure permit holders or NFA owners are responsible is to nail anyone who dicks around's ass to the wall if they hurt someone or put people at risk. Fortunately it seems the sorts of people who go through the legal routes are usually pretty damn responsible anyways.

[RandyCOG3]

I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that as of a year ago, only ONE legal NFA weapon has been used in a crime. Guy in Florida killed his wife some years ago with one.

I seem to recall the number "one", also, but I don't think it was in FL; I seem to vaguely recall that it was a cop... robbed a bank, maybe? I could be 100% wrong about the details, but I DO remember "one".

RandyCOG3

[RandyCOG3]

The only reason they do it here, is simply lip service to their supporters. You are right, they have no way to block nor any just cause, but they do it anyway just to throw narcissistic stumbling blocks and garner votes and contributions. The old "look what I do" thing. I know, I worked along side a few with that mind set. Fortunately, most have been voted out of office now. The Sheriff where I am, absolutely pro everything gun. And BBA, I agree fully, the pressure needs to be put on them if for no other reason than to have pro gun voices heard over the murmerings from the other side. It all boils down to the political climate in the region, That's why I truly hope the deal Milsurp is talking about comes to fruition for them, but I'm still not sure it would be a good overall policy. I'm just not sold that giving the authority to a federal agency with the ability to promulgate rules without legislation is a good deal. Maybe I'm just to cynical about Federal Agencies. I do have to say though that my recent personal dealings with BATF were all positive, so maybe the wind is shifting inside that organization, I don't know, it just seems like a shift too fast to me, and too recent for me to come to a buy in.

My "gut" tells me that it's not a matter of what the constituents think about transferring an NFA weapon, it's what they would think if somebody went nuts with one after the CLEO signed off on it. If somebody stole a Sheriff's brother's MG, he wouldn't want his name on the form, let alone a stranger/civilian like me.
So, at the moment, I'd either have to go the "trust" route, or form a corporation, neither of which is cheap, at least if you're going to have a lawyer knowledgeable about such things do it. Maybe not A LOT of money, but, I can "agree to" the $200 tax stamp, sorta. But to have to shovel out money just because the CLEO doesn't feel "right" about signing, for whatever reason, burns me up a bit, let alone the fact that I'm also having to do something to do with my life from a "legal" aspect, that I otherwise wouldn't have to do just isn't right.

RandyCOG3