(NOTE: i re-read what i just wrote, and it's clearly off-topic in many areas; however, some of it is applicable to the topic at hand. mostly i just want to rant right now.)
i'm a practicing attorney in Utah who has recently done a trust for a
couple eForms i submitted a couple months back. none of this is legal
advice, but i just have a couple thoughts:
i've done a cursory
review of the actual language of the NFA, the GCA, and the regulations
in the CFR implementing both sets of laws. there are minimal references
to trusts; really it just says that a "person" is also a trust (or
corporation, etc). this is the part of the law that is beneficial to so
many people, in that a trust can own the otherwise-prohibited item, and
one can skip all the CLEO/fingerprints/etc mumbo jumbo.
trusts
are creatures of state law, so as long as a trust is valid in Utah, it
would be valid for the purposes of obtaining an SBR, suppressor, and the
like. the requirements in Utah for a trust are VERY VERY VERY VERY VERY
minimal. in fact, you can see that by looking at the controlling
statute:
http://www.le.utah.gov/code/TITLE75/htm/75_07_040200.htm.
there
is nothing required to be in an "NFA" trust outside of the basic
requirements of trust creation pursuant to the cited statute. as far as i
can tell, all the NFA language i've seen in "NFA" trusts is just for
the warm fuzzy feeling people want when going to an attorney and
shelling out hundreds and hundreds of dollars for a trust. many "NFA"
trusts have language like "No trustee shall accomplish any transfer of
the NFA items, if such transfer is not in compliance with all NFA laws."
that is true, but so is this sentence: "No trustee shall kill a
beneficiary, because it's against the law."
the only language i
can really see necessary in an "NFA" trust is something indicating that a
trustee should take care in ensuring that all federal laws are followed
when disbursing the items to the beneficiaries upon the death of the
trustor(s)/grantor(s). that's it. but even that is not
necessary for a valid trust; that's simply helping out the trustee who is gonna
hand over the items to the beneficiaries when you're dead.
i've
read a lot of rumors about the ATF "invalidating" a trust, but have
never seen a case, newspaper article, or anything else reliable
indicating that such an occurrence has ever happened (my suspicion is
that it has never happened...). further, the ATF couldn't "invalidate" a
trust, as only a court of proper jurisdiction can - that would be a
Utah District Court. finally, the ATF has neither the manpower nor the
resources to screen every single trust submitted with a Form 1 or Form 4
(or any other form) to determine if it was properly created according
to the laws of the state under which it is governed. every single
examiner would have to know and properly apply the (sometimes complex,
sometimes simple) rules of trust creation from FIFTY STATES. there is
simply no logic in the idea that he ATF is scouring through my trust to
determine if it's valid. and again, even if they WERE doing that, they'd
have to institute litigation in a Utah District Court in order to
obtain some type of declaratory judgment invalidating my trust, before
they could take action to show that i'm in violation of some federal
law.
i've only ever heard one argument - from a fellow lawyer
here on arfcom - that makes sense as to when a trust might be
challenged, and that's if you shoot someone with your
SBR/suppressor/SBS/etc and during the investigation it's determined that
your trust isn't up to par. however, once you get your tax stamp, there
is no requirement (as far as i've read) to provide to the ATF a copy of
your trust; you're only required to provide, upon request, a copy of
your
tax stamp to show you're in valid possession of the SBR/suppressor/SBS/etc.
sorry
if this is heated; it's certainly not meant to step on anyone's toes or
make anyone feel stupid. there is simply a lot of stuff thrown around
on arfcom (especially in the SBR/Class 3 forum) that is misleading
and/or patently incorrect (despite the good intentions of those who are
sharing it).
i'm currently working on an in-depth review/analysis
of the NFA/GCA and supporting regulations, which i plan on posting in
the SBR sub-forum. wife and i have a baby due any minute, so that
project has taken the back seat for now.
ETA: hit me up if you're interested in a trust. in real life i'm not nearly as big of a dick as i might appear online