User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 10:40:15 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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........  Believing the NFA or 41F prevents anyone, prohibited person or not, from having items delivered to their door and assembling NFA items in their garage is a lapse in logic. The NFA doesn't prevent anything, all it does is create barriers to ownership for law abiding people, like all forms of gun control do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 11:42:14 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Believing the NFA or 41F prevents anyone, prohibited person or not, from having items delivered to their door and assembling NFA items in their garage is a lapse in logic. The NFA doesn't prevent anything, all it does is create barriers to ownership for law abiding people, like all forms of gun control do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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........ Believing the NFA or 41F prevents anyone, prohibited person or not, from having items delivered to their door and assembling NFA items in their garage is a lapse in logic. The NFA doesn't prevent anything, all it does is create barriers to ownership for law abiding people, like all forms of gun control do. This is truth right here. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2016 1:42:52 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Believing the NFA or 41F prevents anyone, prohibited person or not, from having items delivered to their door and assembling NFA items in their garage is a lapse in logic. The NFA doesn't prevent anything, all it does is create barriers to ownership for law abiding people, like all forms of gun control do. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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........ Believing the NFA or 41F prevents anyone, prohibited person or not, from having items delivered to their door and assembling NFA items in their garage is a lapse in logic. The NFA doesn't prevent anything, all it does is create barriers to ownership for law abiding people, like all forms of gun control do. Yep. Or, it makes felons of people who buy parts not realizing they can't combine them... Encountered a guy a while back with an illegal SBR, he freaked out when I explained the laws and possible penalties, he'd bought the upper at a gun show. I could have an illegal suppressor in a very short time, if I was inclined to do so without waiting for a stamp. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 9:59:12 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. If you read the amendment, it states it is only a temporary amendment and ceases to make changes to the trustees once the atf approves the stamp at which point the amendment itself becomes null and void. So shredding it is like throwing away a burger wrapper when the burger is eaten. As far as the paper trail is concerned, the ATF isn't shredding it as it was a part of the trust filed for the stamp. So it will always be filed as a part of their documentation from the approval. At any point they were checking up on you, that amendment would be a part of what they are reading, at which point whatever trustees you currently have listed when checking will all be responsible persons. That's how I'm reading it anyway. And I for one know that none of the trustees had issues 20 years ago, so I'm not concerned with that aspect of a check in either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 2:58:34 AM EDT
[#5]
I intend to deal with 41F by creating a new trust with only one responsible party (me) for each new NFA item. Since the ATF has no authority over state controlled documents like trusts, they can't require me to notify them if I change the trust AFTER the form is approved. I can add or remove anyone that is not prohibited by law or by the wording of the trust at any time for any reason. ATF will have no information beyond the initial trust doc as I won't be adding any additional NFA items to the trust.
There WAS no "loophole" just like there is no "gun show loophole". Pure fiction. ATF created a loophole now since they can't control changes to the trust after approval. At a minimum we need: HPA passed, Hughes Amendment repealed, Federal prosecution of state officials that violate FOPA (NY, NJ, DC, etc.) WITH jail time. Ideally, NFA and all flavors of GCA are ruled a violation of the 2nd and removed from the code. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 4:24:46 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I intend to deal with 41F by creating a new trust with only one responsible party (me) I'm curious if any of the online/ARFCOM favorite lawyers are offering this? I see NFALawyers still asks for a co-trustee and says it cannot be yourself. I have to agree with BigWaylon here: it seems much "cleaner" to have a trust with one RP on it from day 1, then if the RP happens to choose to add some new people to that, s/he has amendment(s) showing same. The whole "amend then unamend" seems half-fast at best and arguably demonstrates intent to circumvent the requirements.... IANAL and I don't play one on TV either! |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/5/2016 12:03:57 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm curious if any of the online/ARFCOM favorite lawyers are offering this? I see NFALawyers still asks for a co-trustee and says it cannot be yourself. I have to agree with BigWaylon here: it seems much "cleaner" to have a trust with one RP on it from day 1, then if the RP happens to choose to add some new people to that, s/he has amendment(s) showing same. The whole "amend then unamend" seems half-fast at best and arguably demonstrates intent to circumvent the requirements.... IANAL and I don't play one on TV either! Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: I intend to deal with 41F by creating a new trust with only one responsible party (me) I'm curious if any of the online/ARFCOM favorite lawyers are offering this? I see NFALawyers still asks for a co-trustee and says it cannot be yourself. I have to agree with BigWaylon here: it seems much "cleaner" to have a trust with one RP on it from day 1, then if the RP happens to choose to add some new people to that, s/he has amendment(s) showing same. The whole "amend then unamend" seems half-fast at best and arguably demonstrates intent to circumvent the requirements.... IANAL and I don't play one on TV either! I'm not a lawyer either, but I think the minimum number of trustees varies by state. I have the same intentions as srsimmons, in having future NFA items each in a separate trust; however, I believe in Texas I will have to have at least two trustees in each trust. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2016 9:45:49 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah really. I am for liberty, the 2A and all the rest. There should not be any such thing as a prohibited person or the NFA. So yeah, I mock all who fear such a scenario as ikickhippies described. Agreed I think it's ridiculous to say 41f is OK because it closes a loophole that "could" allow a felon to obtain and NFA item Yeah that'll stop 're And if the person is buying a legitimate item and paying the tax they must not be too bad of a hardened criminal |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2016 8:54:32 PM EDT
[#9]
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. No. Absolutely not. While felons CAN own firearms, they are not to possess them, without regard to any "Trust". The situation is no different than being at your cabin during deer season and loaning a 44 mag revolver to a relative or offering it asa gift. The burden is on the felon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2016 8:58:18 PM EDT
[#10]
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. Well said. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/18/2016 9:06:30 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So a trust can be amended to remove all trustees before buying more NFA items get added after approval with only prints and photo of just the trust administrator. Then amend again to re-add trustees back so no loophole was actually closed? I only have my immediate law abiding family on mine but getting, wife, dad and brother as well my 2 little kids to take photos and fingerprints has effectively kept me out of adding anything else I have had my eye on. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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 changed 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. So a trust can be amended to remove all trustees before buying more NFA items get added after approval with only prints and photo of just the trust administrator. Then amend again to re-add trustees back so no loophole was actually closed? I only have my immediate law abiding family on mine but getting, wife, dad and brother as well my 2 little kids to take photos and fingerprints has effectively kept me out of adding anything else I have had my eye on. Exactly. THAT was the real point to all of that garbage. There was never an issue for an individual. As an individual, it is has always been easy to do things, as one need not consider coordinating things for a half dozen people. The CLEO sign off was not an issue as trust can be created and include any person(s) though states had been increasingly forcing CLEOs to do their jobs. This also artificially increased wait times through an unprecedented surge which the .gov has not responded with appropriate increases in staffing. |
|
|
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.
