User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 10:37:10 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Section 4A of the passed law states "It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a firearm except in pursuance of a written order from the person seeking to obtain such article, on an application form issued in blank in duplicate for that purpose by the commissioner. Such order shall identify the applicant by such means of identification as may be prescribed by regulations under this act: Provided, that, if the applicant is an individual, such identification shall include fingerprints and a photograph thereof." Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem is that the BATFE decided to unilaterally rewrite the law with 41F. The law is clear - individual applicants for tax stamps have to provide a picture and fingerprints, all other applicants do not. Sorry, but no law states that. Application requirements are CFR, not law. Section 4A of the passed law states "It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a firearm except in pursuance of a written order from the person seeking to obtain such article, on an application form issued in blank in duplicate for that purpose by the commissioner. Such order shall identify the applicant by such means of identification as may be prescribed by regulations under this act: Provided, that, if the applicant is an individual, such identification shall include fingerprints and a photograph thereof." That is not the law anymore. The NFA was re-enacted as Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Photos and fingerprints are now in the CFR, not the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 11:52:10 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That is not the law anymore. The NFA was re-enacted as Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Photos and fingerprints are now in the CFR, not the law. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The problem is that the BATFE decided to unilaterally rewrite the law with 41F. The law is clear - individual applicants for tax stamps have to provide a picture and fingerprints, all other applicants do not. Sorry, but no law states that. Application requirements are CFR, not law. Section 4A of the passed law states "It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a firearm except in pursuance of a written order from the person seeking to obtain such article, on an application form issued in blank in duplicate for that purpose by the commissioner. Such order shall identify the applicant by such means of identification as may be prescribed by regulations under this act: Provided, that, if the applicant is an individual, such identification shall include fingerprints and a photograph thereof." That is not the law anymore. The NFA was re-enacted as Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Photos and fingerprints are now in the CFR, not the law. Go read the GCA of '68 again, it repeated the same language from the NFA of '34 regarding individual applicants and fingerprints and photographs. Sections 5812 and 5821. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 12:24:34 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Go read the GCA of '68 again, it repeated the same language from the NFA of '34 regarding individual applicants and fingerprints and photographs. Sections 5812 and 5821. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The problem is that the BATFE decided to unilaterally rewrite the law with 41F. The law is clear - individual applicants for tax stamps have to provide a picture and fingerprints, all other applicants do not. Sorry, but no law states that. Application requirements are CFR, not law. Section 4A of the passed law states "It shall be unlawful for any person to transfer a firearm except in pursuance of a written order from the person seeking to obtain such article, on an application form issued in blank in duplicate for that purpose by the commissioner. Such order shall identify the applicant by such means of identification as may be prescribed by regulations under this act: Provided, that, if the applicant is an individual, such identification shall include fingerprints and a photograph thereof." That is not the law anymore. The NFA was re-enacted as Title II of the Gun Control Act of 1968. Photos and fingerprints are now in the CFR, not the law. Go read the GCA of '68 again, it repeated the same language from the NFA of '34 regarding individual applicants and fingerprints and photographs. Sections 5812 and 5821. Thanks. I stand corrected. For whatever reason, a search for "finger" was not returning any results. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 12:48:08 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Indeed they are coming. Any Rinos that stand in the way of the landslide mandate will be primaried. It amazes me how many people STILL continue to underestimate the resolve of Trump and what that means for the 2nd Amendment. You'll even see Dems like Joe Manchin happily support pro 2A legislation because he saw how his State voted. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Nothing will be repealed. All laws and EOs will stay the same. You're hopes of change were misplaced. You are in for a surprise. Pro-gun changes are coming legislative and with pen and phone. Indeed they are coming. Any Rinos that stand in the way of the landslide mandate will be primaried. It amazes me how many people STILL continue to underestimate the resolve of Trump and what that means for the 2nd Amendment. You'll even see Dems like Joe Manchin happily support pro 2A legislation because he saw how his State voted. We've been burned too many times for me to give hope to any politician |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 9:45:21 PM EDT
[#5]
As for politicians I agree, myself, I'm looking forward to have my three cans in jail released very soon, my $600 returned to me and my next can purchase cash and carry at the gun shop;).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/11/2016 10:03:31 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If you add new parties, they will be seen if you transfer new items to the trust. If you don't plan on adding new items, the ATF would never see new RPs added to it. <-- Loophole no fixed! Your "2 little kids" shouldn't be taking prints or photos because they wouldn't be old enough to be a RP. They can be a beneficiary, however. No way Trump would give 2 sh*ts about 41F and I don't blame him. I feel there's way to small of a population impact to interest him. Not only that, but if Trump is going to go forward with the HPA......41F would be meaningless for suppressors. If that is all you want, then 41F won't impact you. If you want SBRs, then yea, 41F is going to make you get new prints and photos. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2016 12:40:29 AM EDT
[#7]
Why on earth would you want to repeal it? While it added a small amount of hassle to those using trust, LLC or Corp, it did away with CLEO signature. That is a very very good thing. Having done both individual and LLC transfers over the years, the photo and fingerprint process just is not a significant hassle. 41F was a very big win for the title-2 firearm collecting community.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2016 12:45:00 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have many legal NFA firearms and I have not once gotten a CLEO sign off. And I am not a wizard. Please explain this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2016 2:24:30 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please explain this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I have many legal NFA firearms and I have not once gotten a CLEO sign off.
And I am not a wizard. Please explain this. He is not a wizard, and his trust has many legal NFA firearms. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2016 3:54:51 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Why on earth would you want to repeal it? While it added a small amount of hassle to those using trust, LLC or Corp, it did away with CLEO signature. That is a very very good thing. Having done both individual and LLC transfers over the years, the photo and fingerprint process just is not a significant hassle. 41F was a very big win for the title-2 firearm collecting community. One phone call to a member here got me a trust in the mail. A few clicks on Silencer Shop's website, got the ball rolling. I signed a packet of papers, stuck it in the mailbox. 9 months later the mailman was dropping off suppressors to my front door. With 41F, I have to drag my ass to the shop and do the fingerprints and photo. That is not any sort of improvement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2016 10:25:14 AM EDT
[#11]
I see the Hearing Protection Act being passed and it would be nice if SBR's get removed from the NFA as well, it would make 41F kind of a moot point for most NFA owners.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/13/2016 2:29:09 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
None. Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........ 
Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen. 
Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together? None. Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........
Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.
Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole. Really? What stops a prohibited person from using an nfa weapon anyways? You think a piece of paper is going to stop criminals from doing criminal things? I hope they amend 41f and take away the pictures, fingerprints for trusts and reporting to local authority away. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/14/2016 8:35:51 AM EDT
[#13]
I think in the long run 41F is a good thing. Made it easier for individuals. My first purchase was done as an individual. From the sheriff saying yes to me before purchasing then changing his mind to no when it came time to sign. He did sign eventually because I did not back down. After that is when I ended up with a trust. I prefer the individual route.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/25/2016 11:56:12 PM EDT
[#14]
I just read an article on Breightbart that the NRA and GOP are working together to put together a bill to address the NFA role in purchasing silencers. This sounds pretty promising, hopefully we'll see details soon. They are also trying to make a concealed carry permit you get in your state be valid in any state.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2016 1:53:11 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't forget, Trump was once for an assault weapon ban to This. I don't get why 2A folks view him as some sort of savior. Unless we demonstrate we are willing to walk on him, and hold his feet to the fire, we won't get a single thing from him. Thank the Lord we kept the Senate. Hopefully Ryan can keep him in line. Don't forget Trump was ready to sell us out after the Orlando shooting. The moment he sees the wind blowing the other way, he will follow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2016 8:41:47 AM EDT
[#16]
Ryan did such a good job keeping Obama inline so I don't think he'll have any trouble with Trump. Look, if the NRA and GOP are working together we will know soon enough. I don't see him vetoing this bill if it makes it to him. The most important thing is getting a solid justice to make sure our rights our protected long term.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/26/2016 4:06:33 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
None. Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........
Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.
Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together? None. Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........
Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.
Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole. I'm a little late on this one, but you are absolutely right. Unlike the 'gun show loophole' which is code for banning private sales and inheritance of firearms, the 'trust' loophole is just that. Prior to 41F, it was an exploitation and work-around to allow people to buy suppressors where individuals weren't allowed to due to CLEO objections. When I lived in Alaska, the Anchorage Borough CLEO would not sign, which was ridiculous. Anchorage?! What people should understand about 41F is that it doesn't change anything other than the type of paperwork to make things harder. It also removes the CLEO loophole where MANY MANY CLEO's refused to sign, in effect banning private ownership arbitrarily. 41F is a good thing in most respects, and only mildly annoying to others. What it does is close the loophole so that prohibited persons are no longer LEGALLY able to possess class III stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 12:35:42 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm a little late on this one, but you are absolutely right. Unlike the 'gun show loophole' which is code for banning private sales and inheritance of firearms, the 'trust' loophole is just that. Prior to 41F, it was an exploitation and work-around to allow people to buy suppressors where individuals weren't allowed to due to CLEO objections. When I lived in Alaska, the Anchorage Borough CLEO would not sign, which was ridiculous. Anchorage?! What people should understand about 41F is that it doesn't change anything other than the type of paperwork to make things harder. It also removes the CLEO loophole where MANY MANY CLEO's refused to sign, in effect banning private ownership arbitrarily. 41F is a good thing in most respects, and only mildly annoying to others. What it does is close the loophole so that prohibited persons are no longer LEGALLY able to possess class III stuff. Prohibited persons were never legally allowed to possess NFA items, even if their names were on the trusts. There are no loopholes in the law - if one calls something a loophole, one simply wishes that practice to be outlawed. That's what the legislature is for - no need to call something a loophole - speak plainly, so that we may know your intentions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 12:59:51 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Prohibited persons were never legally allowed to possess NFA items, even if their names were on the trusts. There are no loopholes in the law - if one calls something a loophole, one simply wishes that practice to be outlawed. That's what the legislature is for - no need to call something a loophole - speak plainly, so that we may know your intentions. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I'm a little late on this one, but you are absolutely right. Unlike the 'gun show loophole' which is code for banning private sales and inheritance of firearms, the 'trust' loophole is just that. Prior to 41F, it was an exploitation and work-around to allow people to buy suppressors where individuals weren't allowed to due to CLEO objections. When I lived in Alaska, the Anchorage Borough CLEO would not sign, which was ridiculous. Anchorage?! What people should understand about 41F is that it doesn't change anything other than the type of paperwork to make things harder. It also removes the CLEO loophole where MANY MANY CLEO's refused to sign, in effect banning private ownership arbitrarily. 41F is a good thing in most respects, and only mildly annoying to others. What it does is close the loophole so that prohibited persons are no longer LEGALLY able to possess class III stuff. Prohibited persons were never legally allowed to possess NFA items, even if their names were on the trusts. There are no loopholes in the law - if one calls something a loophole, one simply wishes that practice to be outlawed. That's what the legislature is for - no need to call something a loophole - speak plainly, so that we may know your intentions. This. Even if a prohibited person is on the trust they still can't legally posses a firearm. Also, there is nothing stopping you from amending a trust (post 41f) after the stamp clears and adding a prohibited person if that was your goal. Still not legal. Yes, your name can be on the trust but it doesn't mean anything as you are prohibited. Please do not repeat that prohibited people can "legally" posses firearms via a trust as it is not true. For me, 41f closed my old trust as I'm not asking my wife for prints. It's made me think a lot harder before I buy something as I have to do prints and photos now. No more efile form 1's or just tossing the form 4's and a trust copy in the mail. Any way you slice it 41f made things more restrictive. Yes, you don't have to get sign-off for individual, but that's all we got and it was dealt with via a trust before. If $100 once for a trust was a deal breaker then NFA was probably not your game. If Obamas plan was to slow down the NFA world, he got his wish. Only thing I've bought post 41f was a Colt 6945 SBR and I'm doing that individual. For the record I've got 40+ stamps on my trust. I'm sure I would have bought more cans this year if 41f wasn't in place so my wife is probably happy about that, but I bet Capitol Armory and Silencershop aren't......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 1:21:03 AM EDT
[#20]
Why not take your wife's prints in the privacy of your own home? It's not really that hard.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 1:55:32 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Even if a prohibited person is on the trust they still can't legally posses a firearm. Also, there is nothing stopping you from amending a trust (post 41f) after the stamp clears and adding a prohibited person if that was your goal. Still not legal. Yes, your name can be on the trust but it doesn't mean anything as you are prohibited. Please do not repeat that prohibited people can "legally" posses firearms via a trust as it is not true. For me, 41f closed my old trust as I'm not asking my wife for prints. It's made me think a lot harder before I buy something as I have to do prints and photos now. No more efile form 1's or just tossing the form 4's and a trust copy in the mail. Any way you slice it 41f made things more restrictive. Yes, you don't have to get sign-off for individual, but that's all we got and it was dealt with via a trust before. If $100 once for a trust was a deal breaker then NFA was probably not your game. If Obamas plan was to slow down the NFA world, he got his wish. Only thing I've bought post 41f was a Colt 6945 SBR and I'm doing that individual. For the record I've got 40+ stamps on my trust. I'm sure I would have bought more cans this year if 41f wasn't in place so my wife is probably happy about that, but I bet Capitol Armory and Silencershop aren't......... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I'm a little late on this one, but you are absolutely right. Unlike the 'gun show loophole' which is code for banning private sales and inheritance of firearms, the 'trust' loophole is just that. Prior to 41F, it was an exploitation and work-around to allow people to buy suppressors where individuals weren't allowed to due to CLEO objections. When I lived in Alaska, the Anchorage Borough CLEO would not sign, which was ridiculous. Anchorage?! What people should understand about 41F is that it doesn't change anything other than the type of paperwork to make things harder. It also removes the CLEO loophole where MANY MANY CLEO's refused to sign, in effect banning private ownership arbitrarily. 41F is a good thing in most respects, and only mildly annoying to others. What it does is close the loophole so that prohibited persons are no longer LEGALLY able to possess class III stuff. Prohibited persons were never legally allowed to possess NFA items, even if their names were on the trusts. There are no loopholes in the law - if one calls something a loophole, one simply wishes that practice to be outlawed. That's what the legislature is for - no need to call something a loophole - speak plainly, so that we may know your intentions. This. Even if a prohibited person is on the trust they still can't legally posses a firearm. Also, there is nothing stopping you from amending a trust (post 41f) after the stamp clears and adding a prohibited person if that was your goal. Still not legal. Yes, your name can be on the trust but it doesn't mean anything as you are prohibited. Please do not repeat that prohibited people can "legally" posses firearms via a trust as it is not true. For me, 41f closed my old trust as I'm not asking my wife for prints. It's made me think a lot harder before I buy something as I have to do prints and photos now. No more efile form 1's or just tossing the form 4's and a trust copy in the mail. Any way you slice it 41f made things more restrictive. Yes, you don't have to get sign-off for individual, but that's all we got and it was dealt with via a trust before. If $100 once for a trust was a deal breaker then NFA was probably not your game. If Obamas plan was to slow down the NFA world, he got his wish. Only thing I've bought post 41f was a Colt 6945 SBR and I'm doing that individual. For the record I've got 40+ stamps on my trust. I'm sure I would have bought more cans this year if 41f wasn't in place so my wife is probably happy about that, but I bet Capitol Armory and Silencershop aren't......... Exactly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 4:29:37 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This. Even if a prohibited person is on the trust they still can't legally posses a firearm. Also, there is nothing stopping you from amending a trust (post 41f) after the stamp clears and adding a prohibited person if that was your goal. Still not legal. Yes, your name can be on the trust but it doesn't mean anything as you are prohibited. Please do not repeat that prohibited people can "legally" posses firearms via a trust as it is not true. For me, 41f closed my old trust as I'm not asking my wife for prints. It's made me think a lot harder before I buy something as I have to do prints and photos now. No more efile form 1's or just tossing the form 4's and a trust copy in the mail. Any way you slice it 41f made things more restrictive. Yes, you don't have to get sign-off for individual, but that's all we got and it was dealt with via a trust before. If $100 once for a trust was a deal breaker then NFA was probably not your game. If Obamas plan was to slow down the NFA world, he got his wish. Only thing I've bought post 41f was a Colt 6945 SBR and I'm doing that individual. For the record I've got 40+ stamps on my trust. I'm sure I would have bought more cans this year if 41f wasn't in place so my wife is probably happy about that, but I bet Capitol Armory and Silencershop aren't......... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: I'm a little late on this one, but you are absolutely right. Unlike the 'gun show loophole' which is code for banning private sales and inheritance of firearms, the 'trust' loophole is just that. Prior to 41F, it was an exploitation and work-around to allow people to buy suppressors where individuals weren't allowed to due to CLEO objections. When I lived in Alaska, the Anchorage Borough CLEO would not sign, which was ridiculous. Anchorage?! What people should understand about 41F is that it doesn't change anything other than the type of paperwork to make things harder. It also removes the CLEO loophole where MANY MANY CLEO's refused to sign, in effect banning private ownership arbitrarily. 41F is a good thing in most respects, and only mildly annoying to others. What it does is close the loophole so that prohibited persons are no longer LEGALLY able to possess class III stuff. Prohibited persons were never legally allowed to possess NFA items, even if their names were on the trusts. There are no loopholes in the law - if one calls something a loophole, one simply wishes that practice to be outlawed. That's what the legislature is for - no need to call something a loophole - speak plainly, so that we may know your intentions. This. Even if a prohibited person is on the trust they still can't legally posses a firearm. Also, there is nothing stopping you from amending a trust (post 41f) after the stamp clears and adding a prohibited person if that was your goal. Still not legal. Yes, your name can be on the trust but it doesn't mean anything as you are prohibited. Please do not repeat that prohibited people can "legally" posses firearms via a trust as it is not true. For me, 41f closed my old trust as I'm not asking my wife for prints. It's made me think a lot harder before I buy something as I have to do prints and photos now. No more efile form 1's or just tossing the form 4's and a trust copy in the mail. Any way you slice it 41f made things more restrictive. Yes, you don't have to get sign-off for individual, but that's all we got and it was dealt with via a trust before. If $100 once for a trust was a deal breaker then NFA was probably not your game. If Obamas plan was to slow down the NFA world, he got his wish. Only thing I've bought post 41f was a Colt 6945 SBR and I'm doing that individual. For the record I've got 40+ stamps on my trust. I'm sure I would have bought more cans this year if 41f wasn't in place so my wife is probably happy about that, but I bet Capitol Armory and Silencershop aren't......... You don't need to get anyone on your trusts prints. You simply fill out an amendment stating you as the settlor are the sole trustee from this point forward and sign it. Upon approval shred the amendment and trustees are restored. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 5:25:13 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, your name can be on the trust but it doesn't mean anything as you are prohibited. Please do not repeat that prohibited people can "legally" posses firearms via a trust as it is not true. Then what is the issue with 41F? If the trust lists only willing possessors (your and my wives excluded), then nobody is being hurt by 41F and yet numerous people are being helped. Inconvenient? A tiny bit, but only insomuch as each person who co-owns the item must go through the paperwork. That just makes sense. We're all squabbling about legalese and loopholes, when the real fight and the real problems are that ANY regulation is unconstitutional. They just moved the pea under the cup to another location. We're all being jacked by the system. So, back to the point you didn't address. In an area where the CLEO would not sign, 41F allows individuals who previously had no recourse to purchase a can without a trust and without the CLEO's approval. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 8:20:29 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't need to get anyone on your trusts prints. You simply fill out an amendment stating you as the settlor are the sole trustee from this point forward and sign it. Upon approval shred the amendment and trustees are restored. That's horrible advice. The lack of a proper paper trail could cause major issues down the road if the issue was ever pushed in court, however highly unlikely that would be. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 1:59:59 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
When we start thinking in terms of us being sneaky, just by following the actual law, the anti's have won. No. We didn't exploit anything. We followed the law and they got pissed at us for it. Sad. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Now that Trump will be president what are the chances he will reverse 41F? With the appointment of Supreme Court justice and all branches of government red If he did would it revert back to level prior July 13 or dare I say amend NFA on suppressors all together? None. Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. The very real possibility of a prohibited person gaining "legal" access to an NFA item was real. There. I said it.I don't like 41F or it's implementation any more than anyone else but from any legislator's perspective it would be needed to prevent prohibited persons from "legally" gaining access to NFA items. FP's and background checks are the best solution they could come up with. If only there were a federal system to run background checks on potential buyers. Something the FBI administrated or something........
Imagine a scenario where you added a brother in law to your trust. You didn't know this cat his entire life and maybe he never told you he had a DV or felony 10 years before your sister ever met him. While this scenario is extremely rare, it could happen.
Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole. When we start thinking in terms of us being sneaky, just by following the actual law, the anti's have won. No. We didn't exploit anything. We followed the law and they got pissed at us for it. Sad. I hate the term 'loophole'. To me, the term 'loophole' tends to use by liberal and anti-gun groups to indicate that we illegally skirt the law to illegally obtain prohibited item, such as, firearm. They love to use this term when addressing to general public who doesn't know any better...Of course, it's further from the truth. Obviously, I'm not implying you guys, in this forum, who use 'loophole' are libtard. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 2:18:09 PM EDT
[#26]
It seems 41F has a very positive approval from you guys for an obvious reason--no CLEO signature. Therefore, a lot more people can get NFA items. I get that. BUT, since when BATF is suddenly too nice to us, especially under Obama Administration and his cohorts who have tried to figure out ways to remove all firearms away from gun owners???? Why???? Is there an ulterior motive???? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 2:39:37 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's horrible advice. The lack of a proper paper trail could cause major issues down the road if the issue was ever pushed in court, however highly unlikely that would be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You don't need to get anyone on your trusts prints. You simply fill out an amendment stating you as the settlor are the sole trustee from this point forward and sign it. Upon approval shred the amendment and trustees are restored. That's horrible advice. The lack of a proper paper trail could cause major issues down the road if the issue was ever pushed in court, however highly unlikely that would be. Not my advice, legal advice from the attorney's office that did mine and many others trust. They're the nfa attorneys not me, I still haven't passed the exams. 
Trust Amendment document |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 2:52:17 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not my advice, legal advice from the attorney's office that did mine and many others trust. They're the nfa attorneys not me, I still haven't passed the exams.
Trust Amendment document Can't believe they actually put that in writing.
I've seen the Amendment, but it was a stand-alone document and never saw those instructions. As I mentioned, it would take a combination of circumstances for it to ever be an issue. But, you file a form with a copy of the trust and that amendment. Somewhere down the road another RP gets in legal trouble with an NFA firearm. Records are pulled and the proof of entity documentation shows no RPs. You don't have a copy of the Amendment you provided the ATF, and even worse you don't have a copy an Amendment that adds the person back as an RP. Yes, you may have the original document showing all the RPs, but the paper trail has a major missing link. IANAL and all that... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 5:38:21 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's horrible advice. The lack of a proper paper trail could cause major issues down the road if the issue was ever pushed in court, however highly unlikely that would be. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: You don't need to get anyone on your trusts prints. You simply fill out an amendment stating you as the settlor are the sole trustee from this point forward and sign it. Upon approval shred the amendment and trustees are restored. That's horrible advice. The lack of a proper paper trail could cause major issues down the road if the issue was ever pushed in court, however highly unlikely that would be. There is a paper trail. BATFE would have a copy of the amendment. They approve the trust to own a new NFA item as the trust is @ the point in time of submission. He's just adding trustees back to the trust once the new stamp is approved. I suggest getting a new trust, w/ a digital copy in Word.doc format, and just forming a new trust for every new stamp. Once the stamp comes back in, add whomever you want to the trust. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 5:43:28 PM EDT
[#30]
Question - do trusts make selling NFA items tax free?
I have a suppressor in my trust. It is the only item in that trust. Let's say that just me & my SO are the members of that trust. I take the suppressor to the gun show. Someone likes my suppressor. He offers me $1K for the suppressor. I accept. I add him to the trust as a trustee w/ full powers, he hands me the money, I hand him a copy of the trust and the suppressor, and walk away. Presumably, when he gets home, he adds his SO to the trust, and removes my SO & me from the trust. Suppressor has never changed hands from the trust - only the trust's composition has changed. Might work for Title 1 firearms in states like Washington as well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 6:09:51 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There is a paper trail. BATFE would have a copy of the amendment. They approve the trust to own a new NFA item as the trust is @ the point in time of submission. He's just adding trustees back to the trust once the new stamp is approved. I suggest getting a new trust, w/ a digital copy in Word.doc format, and just forming a new trust for every new stamp. Once the stamp comes back in, add whomever you want to the trust. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: You don't need to get anyone on your trusts prints. You simply fill out an amendment stating you as the settlor are the sole trustee from this point forward and sign it. Upon approval shred the amendment and trustees are restored. That's horrible advice. The lack of a proper paper trail could cause major issues down the road if the issue was ever pushed in court, however highly unlikely that would be. There is a paper trail. BATFE would have a copy of the amendment. They approve the trust to own a new NFA item as the trust is @ the point in time of submission. He's just adding trustees back to the trust once the new stamp is approved. I suggest getting a new trust, w/ a digital copy in Word.doc format, and just forming a new trust for every new stamp. Once the stamp comes back in, add whomever you want to the trust. No, that's not how it was written. The "recommendation" was to file the trust, and the amendment which removed all trustees. Then, once approved, to tear up the amendment like it never existed...without amending the trust to add them back. I have no problem recommending the add & remove, as the ATF itself has said that's not an issue. It's the "removing trustees on paper and then acting like you never did that" process that I'm saying is horrible legal advice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 7:41:00 PM EDT
[#32]
Never mind. Wrong forum.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 8:28:25 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Question - do trusts make selling NFA items tax free? I have a suppressor in my trust. It is the only item in that trust. Let's say that just me & my SO are the members of that trust. I take the suppressor to the gun show. Someone likes my suppressor. He offers me $1K for the suppressor. I accept. I add him to the trust as a trustee w/ full powers, he hands me the money, I hand him a copy of the trust and the suppressor, and walk away. Presumably, when he gets home, he adds his SO to the trust, and removes my SO & me from the trust. Suppressor has never changed hands from the trust - only the trust's composition has changed. Might work for Title 1 firearms in states like Washington as well. See, this is the problem with trusts. There is clearly a transfer happening here. If the system did allow this, it would at best be gaming the system, which I am for, but at worst it is tax evasion. I would be more worried if it was interstate, but within the same state, I do not know why it could not work. The problem is, this is the reason why we got in to the 41P / 41F situation in the first place. It was people gaming the system. We spin our wheels trying to gain a technicality here when we lose a technicality there. The real focus and the real push should be on repealing or replacing the NFA or at least removing SBR's, SBS's, AOW's and Silencers. I'm okay with keeping DD's and Machineguns on there so long as we repeal the Hughes amendment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 9:55:02 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Then what is the issue with 41F? If the trust lists only willing possessors (your and my wives excluded), then nobody is being hurt by 41F and yet numerous people are being helped. Inconvenient? A tiny bit, but only insomuch as each person who co-owns the item must go through the paperwork. That just makes sense. We're all squabbling about legalese and loopholes, when the real fight and the real problems are that ANY regulation is unconstitutional. They just moved the pea under the cup to another location. We're all being jacked by the system. So, back to the point you didn't address. In an area where the CLEO would not sign, 41F allows individuals who previously had no recourse to purchase a can without a trust and without the CLEO's approval. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Yes, your name can be on the trust but it doesn't mean anything as you are prohibited. Please do not repeat that prohibited people can "legally" posses firearms via a trust as it is not true. Then what is the issue with 41F? If the trust lists only willing possessors (your and my wives excluded), then nobody is being hurt by 41F and yet numerous people are being helped. Inconvenient? A tiny bit, but only insomuch as each person who co-owns the item must go through the paperwork. That just makes sense. We're all squabbling about legalese and loopholes, when the real fight and the real problems are that ANY regulation is unconstitutional. They just moved the pea under the cup to another location. We're all being jacked by the system. So, back to the point you didn't address. In an area where the CLEO would not sign, 41F allows individuals who previously had no recourse to purchase a can without a trust and without the CLEO's approval. You are of course correct that individuals no longer are required to get CLEO sign-off. However, the argument that 41f is just an "inconvenience" for trust holders goes both ways. People that couldn't get CLEO sign-off could go through the "inconvenience" of getting a trust to solve that problem. 41f also killed efile. To me, we lost more than we gained. Restricted people being on trusts was just a red herring. Said person still cannot legally have control of a firearm. No different than a face-to-face sale. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 10:27:44 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Question - do trusts make selling NFA items tax free? I have a suppressor in my trust. It is the only item in that trust. Let's say that just me & my SO are the members of that trust. I take the suppressor to the gun show. Someone likes my suppressor. He offers me $1K for the suppressor. I accept. I add him to the trust as a trustee w/ full powers, he hands me the money, I hand him a copy of the trust and the suppressor, and walk away. Presumably, when he gets home, he adds his SO to the trust, and removes my SO & me from the trust. Suppressor has never changed hands from the trust - only the trust's composition has changed. Might work for Title 1 firearms in states like Washington as well. There's still a grantor and when he or she kicks the bucket, the items in the trust go to the beneficiary. If you walk away from the trust, the new trustees may not know when the grantor passes and the trust terminates. IANAL and all that - but that's one issue I see. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 10:49:56 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are of course correct that individuals no longer are required to get CLEO sign-off. However, the argument that 41f is just an "inconvenience" for trust holders goes both ways. People that couldn't get CLEO sign-off could go through the "inconvenience" of getting a trust to solve that problem. 41f also killed efile. To me, we lost more than we gained. Restricted people being on trusts was just a red herring. Said person still cannot legally have control of a firearm. No different than a face-to-face sale. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yes, your name can be on the trust but it doesn't mean anything as you are prohibited. Please do not repeat that prohibited people can "legally" posses firearms via a trust as it is not true. Then what is the issue with 41F? If the trust lists only willing possessors (your and my wives excluded), then nobody is being hurt by 41F and yet numerous people are being helped. Inconvenient? A tiny bit, but only insomuch as each person who co-owns the item must go through the paperwork. That just makes sense. We're all squabbling about legalese and loopholes, when the real fight and the real problems are that ANY regulation is unconstitutional. They just moved the pea under the cup to another location. We're all being jacked by the system. So, back to the point you didn't address. In an area where the CLEO would not sign, 41F allows individuals who previously had no recourse to purchase a can without a trust and without the CLEO's approval. You are of course correct that individuals no longer are required to get CLEO sign-off. However, the argument that 41f is just an "inconvenience" for trust holders goes both ways. People that couldn't get CLEO sign-off could go through the "inconvenience" of getting a trust to solve that problem. 41f also killed efile. To me, we lost more than we gained. Restricted people being on trusts was just a red herring. Said person still cannot legally have control of a firearm. No different than a face-to-face sale. This. 41F screwed us. There was not a loophole. A prohibited person is a prohibited person. Period. Placing them on a trust does not change that. In fact, my trust even states this. As far as individuals, they could have easily gotten trusts. That would have been far less of a hassle for the community as a whole. I don't know how some of you are trying to present it in a positive light. A gold plated turd is still a turd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 11:49:11 PM EDT
[#37]
Okay, what really changed with 41F then? To hear the trust/corporation folks talk about it, this was a ban. I look at it and see that it's a boon to individuals like myself and anybody who wants to buy as a person in an area that had an anti-gun CLEO. As for trusts, the only thing that changes is that everybody in the corporation must now be treated the same way as an individual... so they have to follow the same rules that everybody else follows. Why is that a bad thing? They take out the ARBITRARY CLEO crap and level the playing field the way it always should have. Loophole? Hell yes, it was a loophole. Were prohibited persons getting hold of Class III items because of the lax rules? You know damned well they were. Are they still going to be able to post 41F? Yes, but it will be harder. I don't think being anti-trust/corporation means that I am anti-Class III or anti-gun in the least. Far from it, I want the NFA and the Hughes Amendment to go away. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. Maybe even a net gain. Name a situation where a trust will no longer be able to get a Class III item post 41F? Other than prohibited persons, I can't think of one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 12:25:47 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And playing devil's advocate, it didn't close anything. The ATF has clearly stated that changes in RPs after approval require no notification, so the "loophole" hasn't really gone anywhere looking at the big picture. People will wait to add RPs to avoid prints and photos, whether they think the person is prohibited or not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Best case scenario NRA pushes to repeal NFA or at least remove cans from NFA. I don't think any resources will be wasted on a rule change that, while wildly unpopular, closed a legitimate loophole. And playing devil's advocate, it didn't close anything. The ATF has clearly stated that changes in RPs after approval require no notification, so the "loophole" hasn't really gone anywhere looking at the big picture. People will wait to add RPs to avoid prints and photos, whether they think the person is prohibited or not. Exactly....no loophole closed. IT NEEDS TO BE REVERSED. This was the Left's attempt to just further slow down the system and to deter a few people from getting in the NFA game. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 1:58:14 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Exactly....no loophole closed. IT NEEDS TO BE REVERSED. This was the Left's attempt to just further slow down the system and to deter a few people from getting in the NFA game. So, you would reinstate the arbitrary CLEO retirement? Please tell me who cannot get into the game now that could before? Deter people? How? Because they now must fill out a 4473? That doesn't deter people from buying guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 2:20:49 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay, what really changed with 41F then? To hear the trust/corporation folks talk about it, this was a ban. I look at it and see that it's a boon to individuals like myself and anybody who wants to buy as a person in an area that had an anti-gun CLEO. As for trusts, the only thing that changes is that everybody in the corporation must now be treated the same way as an individual... so they have to follow the same rules that everybody else follows. Why is that a bad thing? They take out the ARBITRARY CLEO crap and level the playing field the way it always should have. Loophole? Hell yes, it was a loophole. Were prohibited persons getting hold of Class III items because of the lax rules? You know damned well they were. Are they still going to be able to post 41F? Yes, but it will be harder. I don't think being anti-trust/corporation means that I am anti-Class III or anti-gun in the least. Far from it, I want the NFA and the Hughes Amendment to go away. I just don't think it's that big of a deal. Maybe even a net gain. Name a situation where a trust will no longer be able to get a Class III item post 41F? Other than prohibited persons, I can't think of one. You already had a means of purchasing NFA items without CLEO approval. It was called a trust. It's definitely a PITA for trust owners depending on the number of the people on your trust, their locations, and their time schedules. If this was a one and done kind of situation it wouldn't be so bad but having to submit everything, for everyone, and every time is clown shoes. And now you HAVE TO notify the CLEO of what you just got. It doesn't matter whether they are pro or anti NFA. It's none of their fucking business. There was no loophole. A prohibited person is a prohibited person. If you buy a can and then give access to it to your felon friend, that's illegal. That's no different then purchasing a firearm and giving it to your friend that you know is a convict. That's is also illegal. I'm not sure how you don't get this. A prohibited person is a prohibited person. Period. Anti-trust, anti-class III, whatever. Sounds anti-freedom to me. More infringements are more infringements. NFA owners are some of, if not the most vetted gun owners that there are. We already had to jump through hoops we shouldn't have to. They are attacking the wrong demographic without cause. "Name a situation where a trust will no longer be able to get a Class III item post 41F?" <<That is a weak argument. The same thing could be said if they did something extreme like made blood samples and retina scans a requirement and raised the tax higher. I mean it's still okay right? Because you could still eventually obtain the items.....Of course not. Just because you can still get the item after even more of a hassle doesn't make it okay. We also got screwed out of eforms for Form 1s. Stop trying to polish a turd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 2:50:25 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So, you would reinstate the arbitrary CLEO retirement? Please tell me who cannot get into the game now that could before? Deter people? How? Because they now must fill out a 4473? That doesn't deter people from buying guns. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Exactly....no loophole closed. IT NEEDS TO BE REVERSED. This was the Left's attempt to just further slow down the system and to deter a few people from getting in the NFA game. So, you would reinstate the arbitrary CLEO retirement? Please tell me who cannot get into the game now that could before? Deter people? How? Because they now must fill out a 4473? That doesn't deter people from buying guns. I haven't bought anything since 41F. There is no E-file and I can't order from Silencershop and have shipped straight to my house, without ever leaving. Given that is how I bought my stuff before I am not going to a B&M and getting printed and photographed like a common criminal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 4:38:20 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is a weak argument. The same thing could be said if they did something extreme like made blood samples and retina scans a requirement and raised the tax higher. I mean it's still okay right? Because you could still eventually obtain the items.....Of course not. Just because you can still get the item after even more of a hassle doesn't make it okay. We also got screwed out of eforms for Form 1s. Stop trying to polish a turd. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Name a situation where a trust will no longer be able to get a Class III item post 41F? That is a weak argument. The same thing could be said if they did something extreme like made blood samples and retina scans a requirement and raised the tax higher. I mean it's still okay right? Because you could still eventually obtain the items.....Of course not. Just because you can still get the item after even more of a hassle doesn't make it okay. We also got screwed out of eforms for Form 1s. Stop trying to polish a turd. That's not a weak argument. No rights have been removed, the playing field has just been leveled. That is the CRUX of the argument. Trust folks just want to keep their loopholes where those who file as individuals get to skip a few steps. Getting the can mailed to your door is bullshit. You can't do that with a gun, so why should you be able to do it with a can? E-file is not gone because of 41F. They are temporarily unavailable because it's the government. 41F does not say you can't do e-file, it just stirred the pot. Once it settles down, they can reinstate it. You're blaming 41F without any grounds. E-file should be for everybody: Form 1, Form 3, Form 4, etc. If you were being genuine about it, you should know this, but I'll link it in good faith for your research. Back to 41F, though, the party is over. I'm not polishing a turd, I'm giving you the facts: EVERYBODY who could get Class III prior can do it, but the hoops have changed. That is nothing more than a reshuffle. People who absolutely could NOT get Class III before as an individual can do so now due to the CLEO requirement being gone. Is that not a good thing? You're dancing around that and talking about retinal scans and blood samples. ATF was perfectly happy with the trust rules but too many people were jumping on the bandwagon, so they burned the wagon to the ground but you lose NOTHING other than the same inconvenience that individuals have had the whole time. We were all standing in line and jumping through the hoops and you just got in the HOV lane. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 5:21:30 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. It wasn't a 'loophole'. It was the law... for 70 years. We complied with it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 6:25:37 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That's not a weak argument. No rights have been removed, the playing field has just been leveled. That is the CRUX of the argument. Trust folks just want to keep their loopholes where those who file as individuals get to skip a few steps. Getting the can mailed to your door is bullshit. You can't do that with a gun, so why should you be able to do it with a can? E-file is not gone because of 41F. They are temporarily unavailable because it's the government. 41F does not say you can't do e-file, it just stirred the pot. Once it settles down, they can reinstate it. You're blaming 41F without any grounds. E-file should be for everybody: Form 1, Form 3, Form 4, etc. If you were being genuine about it, you should know this, but I'll link it in good faith for your research. Back to 41F, though, the party is over. I'm not polishing a turd, I'm giving you the facts: EVERYBODY who could get Class III prior can do it, but the hoops have changed. That is nothing more than a reshuffle. People who absolutely could NOT get Class III before as an individual can do so now due to the CLEO requirement being gone. Is that not a good thing? You're dancing around that and talking about retinal scans and blood samples. ATF was perfectly happy with the trust rules but too many people were jumping on the bandwagon, so they burned the wagon to the ground but you lose NOTHING other than the same inconvenience that individuals have had the whole time. We were all standing in line and jumping through the hoops and you just got in the HOV lane. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Name a situation where a trust will no longer be able to get a Class III item post 41F? That is a weak argument. The same thing could be said if they did something extreme like made blood samples and retina scans a requirement and raised the tax higher. I mean it's still okay right? Because you could still eventually obtain the items.....Of course not. Just because you can still get the item after even more of a hassle doesn't make it okay. We also got screwed out of eforms for Form 1s. Stop trying to polish a turd. That's not a weak argument. No rights have been removed, the playing field has just been leveled. That is the CRUX of the argument. Trust folks just want to keep their loopholes where those who file as individuals get to skip a few steps. Getting the can mailed to your door is bullshit. You can't do that with a gun, so why should you be able to do it with a can? E-file is not gone because of 41F. They are temporarily unavailable because it's the government. 41F does not say you can't do e-file, it just stirred the pot. Once it settles down, they can reinstate it. You're blaming 41F without any grounds. E-file should be for everybody: Form 1, Form 3, Form 4, etc. If you were being genuine about it, you should know this, but I'll link it in good faith for your research. Back to 41F, though, the party is over. I'm not polishing a turd, I'm giving you the facts: EVERYBODY who could get Class III prior can do it, but the hoops have changed. That is nothing more than a reshuffle. People who absolutely could NOT get Class III before as an individual can do so now due to the CLEO requirement being gone. Is that not a good thing? You're dancing around that and talking about retinal scans and blood samples. ATF was perfectly happy with the trust rules but too many people were jumping on the bandwagon, so they burned the wagon to the ground but you lose NOTHING other than the same inconvenience that individuals have had the whole time. We were all standing in line and jumping through the hoops and you just got in the HOV lane. There was no loophole. I don't know why that is hard to grasp. I'm done with you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 1:15:45 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There was no loophole. I don't know why that is hard to grasp. I'm done with you. The fact that ATF had to 'clarify' it means that it was, very much indeed, a loophole. It ran counter to the intent of the original law and was being interpreted differently by different people. Just because people were benefiting from the loophole including yourself, does not mean it was not still a loophole. Trusts and Corporations have evolved with case law and their definition as it related to firearms was ambiguous. While individuals were required to submit mug shots and fingerprints, members of a trust or corporation were not required to go through the same level of scrutiny despite their functionally identical place in the transfer. Loophole. I know, it's hard for you to grasp or you wouldn't be continuing to argue the point, but IT WAS A LOOPHOLE BY DEFINITION. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 1:30:59 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It wasn't a 'loophole'. It was the law... for 70 years. We complied with it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Legitimately 41F was to close a loophole that we all exploited for years. It wasn't a 'loophole'. It was the law... for 70 years. We complied with it. No Badger Arms, it was the law we complied with. 41FU only added burden. Adding burden and pita, hoops, taking someone's scarce time, adding costs, that is how the leftist put a choke on what they don't like when absolutely banning it can't immediately be accomplished. JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 2:11:44 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
[41FU only added burden. Adding burden and pita, hoops, taking someone's scarce time, adding costs, that is how the leftist put a choke on what they don't like when absolutely banning it can't immediately be accomplished. Saying it over and over again does not make it so. Hiding behind the skirt of a legal technicality (as a Trust is) does not make a trust or a corporation a "people" as defined by the 2nd amendment. If anything, individuals should be given the same rights that Trusts were given prior. Instead of complaining NOW that you have to do what individuals had to do PRIOR, why not join forces with us calling for all of it to go away! The trust bunch was perfectly happy letting the Individual filers (like me who Hate lawyers and don't have anybody that wanted to join in the trust) file by begging our CLEO for permission, fingerprints and mug shots. It was also very simple to do so and is now simpler. I take a picture, tape it to the form, and walk in to my Sheriff's office to get fingerprinted. Mail it on the way home and wait 9 months. You should be on my side arguing for the WHOLE PROCESS to be eliminated rather than complaining that now you have to do the SAME PROCESS that we had to do prior. In fact, it's easier now as before I had to be interrogated by my Sheriff per his arbitrary policy. Now, he only gets informed. None of his business? Who gives a f***? I'm a law abiding citizen. This is now about freedom, this is about convenience. I am fine showing my ID card to vote and I am fine proving I'm me for the ATF. The 9-month wait is criminal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 2:23:50 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The fact that ATF had to 'clarify' it means that it was, very much indeed, a loophole. It ran counter to the intent of the original law and was being interpreted differently by different people. Just because people were benefiting from the loophole including yourself, does not mean it was not still a loophole. Trusts and Corporations have evolved with case law and their definition as it related to firearms was ambiguous. While individuals were required to submit mug shots and fingerprints, members of a trust or corporation were not required to go through the same level of scrutiny despite their functionally identical place in the transfer. Loophole. I know, it's hard for you to grasp or you wouldn't be continuing to argue the point, but IT WAS A LOOPHOLE BY DEFINITION. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: There was no loophole. I don't know why that is hard to grasp. I'm done with you. The fact that ATF had to 'clarify' it means that it was, very much indeed, a loophole. It ran counter to the intent of the original law and was being interpreted differently by different people. Just because people were benefiting from the loophole including yourself, does not mean it was not still a loophole. Trusts and Corporations have evolved with case law and their definition as it related to firearms was ambiguous. While individuals were required to submit mug shots and fingerprints, members of a trust or corporation were not required to go through the same level of scrutiny despite their functionally identical place in the transfer. Loophole. I know, it's hard for you to grasp or you wouldn't be continuing to argue the point, but IT WAS A LOOPHOLE BY DEFINITION. No, it WASN'T A FUCKING LOOPHOLE... The law specifically stated that INDIVIDUAL applicants for a stamp had to provide fingerprints and photographs, but other applicants did not. Otherwise major corporations who armed their private security with machineguns might have objected to the law. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 2:45:36 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Saying it over and over again does not make it so. Hiding behind the skirt of a legal technicality (as a Trust is) does not make a trust or a corporation a "people" as defined by the 2nd amendment. If anything, individuals should be given the same rights that Trusts were given prior. Instead of complaining NOW that you have to do what individuals had to do PRIOR, why not join forces with us calling for all of it to go away! The trust bunch was perfectly happy letting the Individual filers (like me who Hate lawyers and don't have anybody that wanted to join in the trust) file by begging our CLEO for permission, fingerprints and mug shots. It was also very simple to do so and is now simpler. I take a picture, tape it to the form, and walk in to my Sheriff's office to get fingerprinted. Mail it on the way home and wait 9 months. You should be on my side arguing for the WHOLE PROCESS to be eliminated rather than complaining that now you have to do the SAME PROCESS that we had to do prior. In fact, it's easier now as before I had to be interrogated by my Sheriff per his arbitrary policy. Now, he only gets informed. None of his business? Who gives a f***? I'm a law abiding citizen. This is now about freedom, this is about convenience. I am fine showing my ID card to vote and I am fine proving I'm me for the ATF. The 9-month wait is criminal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[41FU only added burden. Adding burden and pita, hoops, taking someone's scarce time, adding costs, that is how the leftist put a choke on what they don't like when absolutely banning it can't immediately be accomplished. Saying it over and over again does not make it so. Hiding behind the skirt of a legal technicality (as a Trust is) does not make a trust or a corporation a "people" as defined by the 2nd amendment. If anything, individuals should be given the same rights that Trusts were given prior. Instead of complaining NOW that you have to do what individuals had to do PRIOR, why not join forces with us calling for all of it to go away! The trust bunch was perfectly happy letting the Individual filers (like me who Hate lawyers and don't have anybody that wanted to join in the trust) file by begging our CLEO for permission, fingerprints and mug shots. It was also very simple to do so and is now simpler. I take a picture, tape it to the form, and walk in to my Sheriff's office to get fingerprinted. Mail it on the way home and wait 9 months. You should be on my side arguing for the WHOLE PROCESS to be eliminated rather than complaining that now you have to do the SAME PROCESS that we had to do prior. In fact, it's easier now as before I had to be interrogated by my Sheriff per his arbitrary policy. Now, he only gets informed. None of his business? Who gives a f***? I'm a law abiding citizen. This is now about freedom, this is about convenience. I am fine showing my ID card to vote and I am fine proving I'm me for the ATF. The 9-month wait is criminal. You write, "this is about convenience," but it doesn't bother you that a whole s--t ton of inconvenience was added to what is probably the majority of NFA purchasers. Gee, how thoughtful. You write, "This is now about freedom," but a whole s--t ton, probably the majority of NFA purchasers, now have to provide fingerprints, a mug shot and LEO notification when the option to not do so was the ACTUAL LAW until the leftist decided to add even more restrictions. Gee, how thoughtful. Let me sum it up, your position is "I am too lazy to find within the whole list of CLEO options provided by ATF a qualifying CLEO who isn't a leftist ass and I am too lazy to go to the trouble of finding one of the adequate and FREE NFA trust forms or too cheap to pay for one of the several forms readily available or to have an attorney draft one, so I want everyone to suffer the trouble of the time and pita to have to go the photo and fingerprint route and I want everyone to have to file by snail mail. Thank you leftists for foisting 41FuckYou on all of us." Whether suppressors are removed from NFA purview via the HPA or not 41FuckYou applies to SBRs, SBSs and every other NFA item. Gee, f'n thanks. ETA: I feel compelled to repeat the truth about the stupidity of the though that any gun control law will hinder criminals: only the law abiding obey the law. JPK |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 5:14:39 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Saying it over and over again does not make it so. Hiding behind the skirt of a legal technicality (as a Trust is) does not make a trust or a corporation a "people" as defined by the 2nd amendment. If anything, individuals should be given the same rights that Trusts were given prior. Instead of complaining NOW that you have to do what individuals had to do PRIOR, why not join forces with us calling for all of it to go away! The trust bunch was perfectly happy letting the Individual filers (like me who Hate lawyers and don't have anybody that wanted to join in the trust) file by begging our CLEO for permission, fingerprints and mug shots. It was also very simple to do so and is now simpler. I take a picture, tape it to the form, and walk in to my Sheriff's office to get fingerprinted. Mail it on the way home and wait 9 months. You should be on my side arguing for the WHOLE PROCESS to be eliminated rather than complaining that now you have to do the SAME PROCESS that we had to do prior. In fact, it's easier now as before I had to be interrogated by my Sheriff per his arbitrary policy. Now, he only gets informed. None of his business? Who gives a f***? I'm a law abiding citizen. This is now about freedom, this is about convenience. I am fine showing my ID card to vote and I am fine proving I'm me for the ATF. The 9-month wait is criminal. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
[41FU only added burden. Adding burden and pita, hoops, taking someone's scarce time, adding costs, that is how the leftist put a choke on what they don't like when absolutely banning it can't immediately be accomplished. Saying it over and over again does not make it so. Hiding behind the skirt of a legal technicality (as a Trust is) does not make a trust or a corporation a "people" as defined by the 2nd amendment. If anything, individuals should be given the same rights that Trusts were given prior. Instead of complaining NOW that you have to do what individuals had to do PRIOR, why not join forces with us calling for all of it to go away! The trust bunch was perfectly happy letting the Individual filers (like me who Hate lawyers and don't have anybody that wanted to join in the trust) file by begging our CLEO for permission, fingerprints and mug shots. It was also very simple to do so and is now simpler. I take a picture, tape it to the form, and walk in to my Sheriff's office to get fingerprinted. Mail it on the way home and wait 9 months. You should be on my side arguing for the WHOLE PROCESS to be eliminated rather than complaining that now you have to do the SAME PROCESS that we had to do prior. In fact, it's easier now as before I had to be interrogated by my Sheriff per his arbitrary policy. Now, he only gets informed. None of his business? Who gives a f***? I'm a law abiding citizen. This is now about freedom, this is about convenience. I am fine showing my ID card to vote and I am fine proving I'm me for the ATF. The 9-month wait is criminal. I look at it like this, I bought a car to get to work faster with less hassle. You choose to ride a bike to work. We both get there the same, but either through ignorance or cheapness you choose to ride a bike causing more issue by choice. Now, you're telling me I have to drive my car at 5 mph and get there in the same inefficient manner as you so that it's fair. We are all on the end NFA wagon, but why do we need to make it harder on us in the meantime? You make no sense. You're ball about moving the opposite direction of the cause you're trying to get everyone to rally behind. |
|
|
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.
