User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:23:47 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted:
Hope this isn't a dup but I couldn't find anything on it yet. NFA Trusts "The Obama administration is working to close a loophole in the nation’s gun laws that allows for some machine guns and sawed-off shotguns to be sold without the buyer submitting fingerprints or photographs." fucking great. I JUST spent $400 on a trust. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:24:20 PM EDT
[#2]
FBHO
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:25:29 PM EDT
[#3]
FBHO |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:25:48 PM EDT
[#4]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:26:09 PM EDT
[#5]
Loophole = Freedom.
Everyone was completely aware of how the process would work when the rules were originally drafted. Oh well, at least all these gangbangers won't be able to go out and make a Quicken trust so they can pay $15000 for a machine gun legally anymore. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:26:21 PM EDT
[#6]
Sounds fine and dandy till the Chief of Police decides he doesn't want to sign of on it, then what ? Sounds like an excuse to prevent anymore forms submitted to be approved.
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:26:32 PM EDT
[#7]
NFATCA and Gemtech posted that on facebook earlier.
FUCK THAT SHIT 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:27:51 PM EDT
[#8]
FBHO sideways
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:28:53 PM EDT
[#9]
Honestly I'm surprised the trust "loophole" wasn't closed years ago. It's not like Uncle Sam to leave a barn door like that open for so long.
I don't have a dog in this race; state doesn't allow NFA. Nor does my checking account. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:28:56 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sounds fine and dandy till the Chief of Police decides he doesn't want to sign of on it, then what ? Sounds like an excuse to prevent anymore forms submitted to be approved. I haven't read anything on it recently, but part of the whole rule review thing was supposed to be the elimination of the CLEO signoff. Don't know if that's a part of what's being referenced in the article. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:29:40 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FBHO And Eric Holder..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:29:56 PM EDT
[#12]
FUCK my local sheriff is a dick
ETA:I have read it again thanks to SandWMandP15Tee I was retarded on not reading the whole thing |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:29:59 PM EDT
[#13]
However, an online notice said that it will require "responsible persons” designated by the legal trusts to submit forms, photographs and fingerprints to the ATF and forwarded to the local chief police officer. The rule will also define the term "responsible person.” The new rule will only apply to sale of machine guns, silencers and similar firearms for which the AFT has special restrictions. According to reports, the number of applications to transfer restricted guns to trusts has skyrocketed in the recent years, to more than 39,000 last year.  The REAL reason why they want to implement this new legislature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:32:03 PM EDT
[#14]
FBHO cunt dick brain asshole bastard fucking commie.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:32:10 PM EDT
[#15]
Time to go get another can.... BRB..... In a year.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:33:27 PM EDT
[#16]
Is there actual legislation on this horseshit? Or is he just going to will this "loophole" away? We need to contact lawmakers and tell them NO.
I know this is preaching to the choir, but what criminal is going to make a trust, pay 15000 for a MG, then wait 8 months for the stamp. Yeah, it's for the children, pick up that can.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:33:45 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted: FUCK my local sheriff is a dick
<form id="id_leaveregs_form" action="/public/reginfo/leaveReginfo.jsp" method="post"> </form>
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:33:46 PM EDT
[#18]
Sounds like they're bringing the rules for trusts in line with the rules for individual transfers. It would still make sense to buy thingson a trust, that way you don't need a Form 5 to pass it on to your heirs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:34:02 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is there actual legislation on this horseshit? Or is he just going to will this "loophole" away? We need to contact lawmakers and tell them NO. I know this is preaching to the choir, but what criminal is going to make a trust, pay 15000 for a MG, then wait 8 months for the stamp. Yeah, it's for the children, pick up that can.Basically the ATF gets to make up rules as they go. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:34:55 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FUCK my local sheriff is a dick This
Ours will not sign off on anything! |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:35:17 PM EDT
[#21]
Watch, people will line up to get them done now!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:35:56 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Basically the ATF gets to make up rules as they go. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is there actual legislation on this horseshit? Or is he just going to will this "loophole" away? We need to contact lawmakers and tell them NO. I know this is preaching to the choir, but what criminal is going to make a trust, pay 15000 for a MG, then wait 8 months for the stamp. Yeah, it's for the children, pick up that can.Basically the ATF gets to make up rules as they go. FBHO and FTATF. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:36:10 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FUCK my local sheriff is a dick |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:36:11 PM EDT
[#24]
Old news. This has been in the works for awhile. You will have to submit prints with the trust and the CLEO signoff will go away for the individual route.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:37:00 PM EDT
[#25]
So how are we to go about this new e-file setup? If trusts have to have fingerprints and CLEO they won't work right?
From what I understand, that's why individual Forms can't be e-filed at this time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:37:01 PM EDT
[#26]
It doesn't require you to obtain approval from the Chief of Police, just lets him know. So lets say he decides to drop by one day with the local SRT team to make sure everything is in order.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:37:05 PM EDT
[#27]
I wonder if such rule changes would stand a court challenge. SC gave 'personhood' to corporations in 1888 or so. The unintended consequence of changing such rules willy nilly may prove interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:37:45 PM EDT
[#28]
More hassles for the law abiding person.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:38:28 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Hope this isn't a dup but I couldn't find anything on it yet. NFA Trusts "The Obama administration is working to close a loophole in the nation’s gun laws that allows for some machine guns and sawed-off shotguns to be sold without the buyer submitting fingerprints or photographs." Just contacted my attorney about the matter last week, there is a pretty informative publication on the topic coming out of UF law this week or next week that should shed some light on what we have to do. I'm holding off doing anything for another week or so, then it will be a rush to try to get everything submitted before they start mucking with things |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:41:06 PM EDT
[#30]
meh seems like a zero sum gain
Most people just set up trusts because the CLEO in their area won't sign anyway |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:42:41 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Old news. This has been in the works for awhile. You will have to submit prints with the trust and the CLEO signoff will go away for the individual route. Yep, just hope it is not accomplished before I get my 2 pending Form 4's back from the GayTF |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:46:57 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wonder if such rule changes would stand a court challenge. SC gave 'personhood' to corporations in 1888 or so. The unintended consequence of changing such rules willy nilly may prove interesting. Ihope if this goes down, that it opens the whole NFA to a lawsuit. How do you make a person responsible for a corporation. The corporation exists beyond any individual. What happens when that person quits? I realize those trusts are different, but legally they are the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:47:11 PM EDT
[#33]
What will happen with existing trusts? If I had a trust setup this week and then submitted a form 1 right after would it still be ok?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:48:07 PM EDT
[#34]
Some of the best firearms advice I ever got was to purchase my NFA items as an individual, not through a trust.
I got lucky with a CLEO that signs off no questions asked, excepting a background check run by his office. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:48:13 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
meh seems like a zero sum gain Most people just set up trusts because the CLEO in their area won't sign anyway The reason I wanted a trust is because it was the easiest way for my wife and I to jointly own an NFA firearm. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:48:20 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Old news. This has been in the works for awhile. You will have to submit prints with the trust and the CLEO signoff will go away for the individual route. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Old news. This has been in the works for awhile. You will have to submit prints with the trust and the CLEO signoff will go away for the individual route. Are you sure about this? Does it still get sent to the police chief? Per the article: However, an online notice said that it will require “responsible persons” designated by the legal trusts to submit forms, photographs and fingerprints to the ATF and forwarded to the local chief police officer. The rule will also define the term “responsible person.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:52:29 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you sure about this? Does it still get sent to the police chief? Per the article: Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Old news. This has been in the works for awhile. You will have to submit prints with the trust and the CLEO signoff will go away for the individual route. Are you sure about this? Does it still get sent to the police chief? Per the article: However, an online notice said that it will require “responsible persons” designated by the legal trusts to submit forms, photographs and fingerprints to the ATF and forwarded to the local chief police officer. The rule will also define the term “responsible person.” My understanding is that you have to forward the info to your CLEO, but the CLEO sign off is not required. If they don't like it, tough shit. You informed them and that's all you'd be required to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:53:48 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My understanding is that you have to forward the info to your CLEO, but the CLEO sign off is not required. If they don't like it, tough shit. You informed them and that's all you'd be required to do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Old news. This has been in the works for awhile. You will have to submit prints with the trust and the CLEO signoff will go away for the individual route. Are you sure about this? Does it still get sent to the police chief? Per the article: However, an online notice said that it will require “responsible persons” designated by the legal trusts to submit forms, photographs and fingerprints to the ATF and forwarded to the local chief police officer. The rule will also define the term “responsible person.” My understanding is that you have to forward the info to your CLEO, but the CLEO sign off is not required. If they don't like it, tough shit. You informed them and that's all you'd be required to do. Much like you do when you apply for an 03C&R, I'm sure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:54:16 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you sure about this? Does it still get sent to the police chief? Per the article: Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Old news. This has been in the works for awhile. You will have to submit prints with the trust and the CLEO signoff will go away for the individual route. Are you sure about this? Does it still get sent to the police chief? Per the article: However, an online notice said that it will require “responsible persons” designated by the legal trusts to submit forms, photographs and fingerprints to the ATF and forwarded to the local chief police officer. The rule will also define the term “responsible person.” If I recall correctly from when I read the proposed rule change the CLEO will be notified, but they have no say in the matter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:54:34 PM EDT
[#40]
This can't be done without Congressional approval. So it could happen, but it's less likely.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:55:12 PM EDT
[#41]
So will this effect NFA items already procured via trust or all new NFA items procured after a certain date?
-Anyone care to speculate? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:55:34 PM EDT
[#42]
A Right does not require a signature.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:56:31 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This can't be done without Congressional approval. So it could happen, but it's less likely. The signoff requirement was instituted by the ATF. It exists nowhere in the NFA or GCA. They can do this via rulemaking. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:57:42 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
FUCK my local sheriff is a dick
Thanks,I guess I need to learn to read more 
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:57:55 PM EDT
[#45]
Not that it makes any difference, but what does the actual law have to say?
Is this even something which the President can change by EO? Or does Federal statute only specify prints, CLEO signoff, etc from individuals? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:58:23 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So will this effect NFA items already procured via trust or all new NFA items procured after a certain date? -Anyone care to speculate? An excellent question. Not to mention what will happen to all of the Forms currently pending using trusts... |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 1:59:00 PM EDT
[#47]
When does this go into effect?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 2:00:23 PM EDT
[#48]
Good luck with that. If they stop me using my corporation to buy NFA items, I guess I will just have to become a part of case law.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 2:00:27 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
An excellent question. Not to mention what will happen to all of the Forms currently pending using trusts... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So will this effect NFA items already procured via trust or all new NFA items procured after a certain date? -Anyone care to speculate? An excellent question. Not to mention what will happen to all of the Forms currently pending using trusts... My guess is that if the rule changed now, they'd kick your form back for not having all of the required papers when they finally got to it in 6 or 8 months. Forward, to Progress. Glorious 5 year plan forms for great gun-owning freedom. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 2:00:36 PM EDT
[#50]
FATP
Fuck All The Politicians |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
