Tag.

Can this trust be setup in New York State?  Im not talking NYC.  I have been told that an SBR signoff would never happen in my county....or is it the New York State ban that stops this?    Please inform me if im completely wrong.  Could I SBR a Pre-Ban??

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: The one exception is if you have a spouse or kids who are as into NFA as you are. With an individual registration, your wife or kids cannot legally have access to the safe where they are stored. If you want to store your NFA in a place where they have access, or if you wife/kids would like to take your NFA to the range, corporate ownership is the way to go: HTH! I just seriously phuqued up with sending in my CLEO signed individuhal Form 1's. I could have put my son  on the trust. He is living with me while going through college and I wouldn't have issues with him storing his weapons in my safe. In fact, he could have taken them to the range by himself. He cannot have access to the safe. Got to buy a new safe for NFA goodies. Which leads to interesting discussions with the wife on where to put yet another safe. He cannot take them to the range by himself. I don't know how many Form 1's you have had approved ... but compared to the cost of buying another safe, it might be cheaper to just form a corporation or trust, and transfer all your individual Form 1s to it.

Alternatively you could die and the transfer could be made tax free after your death.  I, however, wouldn't recommend that.  

Sweet .... My legal care benefit at work covers the full cost of a lawyer setting up a Trust ... gonna schedule an appointment next week ... I have two SBR's on the way ....  

.

Quoted: The one exception is if you have a spouse or kids who are as into NFA as you are. With an individual registration, your wife or kids cannot legally have access to the safe where they are stored. If you want to store your NFA in a place where they have access, or if you wife/kids would like to take your NFA to the range, corporate ownership is the way to go: HTH!

I just seriously phuqued up with sending in my CLEO signed individuhal Form 1's.

I could have put my son  on the trust. He is living with me while going through college and I wouldn't have issues with him storing his weapons in my safe. In fact, he could have taken them to the range by himself.

He cannot have access to the safe.
Got to buy a new safe for NFA goodies. Which leads to interesting discussions with the wife on where to put yet another safe.
He cannot take them to the range by himself.

Quoted: Couple of missing steps.  Your dealer needs to sign the forms.  He/she should also prepare them to make sure everything is correct. Form 4473 may, or may not, be necessary, but why chance it.  I signed it in my individual name and it went through fine.  Send it with the other papers -- if they don't want it they will know what to do with it. You do not need Form 5320.20 to travel interstate with a suppressor or AOW (assuming they're legal in the other state).  You only need permission to move a machine gun, SBR or destructive device.  Also, the Form 5320.20 should only be obtained when you are actually planning on going interstate.

Gopeterson - Thanks for your quick answer.  I'll let you all know how it turns out.  Right now the trust is looking at a SWR Warlock for a Walther P22.  Later the trust will work on a USPc 9mm (but that will require a new barrel.)  

.

I'd appreciate it if you all would double-check this (just to be sure I'm sending in everything and it's all correct):

Scenario: The "Possum-Sandwich Revocable Living Trust" is buying a suppressor from a dealer in the same state.  The trust is already created.

These are the steps I should take:
1.  Select the exact suppressor I want at the dealer.  Pay him the purchase price of the suppressor.  He keeps the suppressor reserved.

2.  Obtain the serial number, model, etc. from the dealer and enter them on a Form 4.  I will fill out the Form 4 with the Trust as the tranferee, but still check the "no" boxes in block 13 and 14.  I sign Block 15 as Trustee.  No fingerprint cards, photo, or CLEO signature.

3.  I will send the following items to the ATF at "National Firearms Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fireams, and Explosives, P.O. Box 73201, Chicago, IL, 60673-7201"
-----$200 money order made out to the BATFE
-----Two copies of Form 4
-----Notarized copy of the trust document
-----Two copies of 5330.20 Citizenship Certification, signed by myself as Trustee.

4.  Wait 30-60 days.

5.  Once the Form 4 is returned with the tax stamp, I return to the dealer, complete a 4473, and take possession of the suppressor.

Two questions:
Do I fill out the 4473 as an individual, or as Trustee?
Is there any need at this point to file a 5320.20 (Application to Transport Interstate), since the trust is buying from a dealer in the same state?

Thanks in advance for your help.

Quoted: I'd appreciate it if you all would double-check this (just to be sure I'm sending in everything and it's all correct): Scenario: The "Possum-Sandwich Revocable Living Trust" is buying a suppressor from a dealer in the same state.  The trust is already created. These are the steps I should take: 1.  Select the exact suppressor I want at the dealer.  Pay him the purchase price of the suppressor.  He keeps the suppressor reserved. 2.  Obtain the serial number, model, etc. from the dealer and enter them on a Form 4.  I will fill out the Form 4 with the Trust as the tranferee, but still check the "no" boxes in block 13 and 14.  I sign Block 15 as Trustee.  No fingerprint cards, photo, or CLEO signature. 3.  I will send the following items to the ATF at "National Firearms Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Fireams, and Explosives, P.O. Box 73201, Chicago, IL, 60673-7201" -----$200 money order made out to the BATFE -----Two copies of Form 4 -----Notarized copy of the trust document -----Two copies of 5330.20 Citizenship Certification, signed by myself as Trustee. 4.  Wait 30-60 days. 5.  Once the Form 4 is returned with the tax stamp, I return to the dealer, complete a 4473, and take possession of the suppressor. Two questions: Do I fill out the 4473 as an individual, or as Trustee? Is there any need at this point to file a 5320.20 (Application to Transport Interstate), since the trust is buying from a dealer in the same state? Thanks in advance for your help.

Couple of missing steps.  Your dealer needs to sign the forms.  He/she should also prepare them to make sure everything is correct.

Form 4473 may, or may not, be necessary, but why chance it.  I signed it in my individual name and it went through fine.  Send it with the other papers -- if they don't want it they will know what to do with it.

You do not need Form 5320.20 to travel interstate with a suppressor or AOW (assuming they're legal in the other state).  You only need permission to move a machine gun, SBR or destructive device.  Also, the Form 5320.20 should only be obtained when you are actually planning on going interstate.

Quoted: Quoted: I don't mean to be smug, it's been a damn-long day, so I'm sorry if I was rude to anyone. I, for one, would like a formal apology. Kidding..... not nearly enough to sandy up my mangina. hr

Same here.

If we never discussed these things, I think that would be far worse.

.

Quoted: I don't mean to be smug, it's been a damn-long day, so I'm sorry if I was rude to anyone.

I, for one, would like a formal apology.


Kidding..... not nearly enough to sandy up my mangina.

Quoted: Quoted: Nice try, but there is a major hole in you theory.  Any person actually in physical possesion of the machine gun is still a "person" within the meaning of the prohibition.  What do you think will happen when the Trustee of the Trust possesses the post 86 machine gun?  Will he be able to say "I'm not a person in possession of this post 86 machine gun, I'm a Trustee of a Trust in possession of this post 86 machine gun?"  Not bloody likely.   That’s exactly right. On your logic, even if a short barreled rifle were registered to a trust, your possession as trustee would be in violation of the law, because it wouldn’t be registered to you as an individual. As any of the trust boys here can tell you, when they handle their NFA weapons, they are doing it as a trustee, and not as an individual. If your position had merit, then every trustee holding a SBR would be in violation of the following provision of the NFA: § 5861 Prohibited acts. It shall be unlawful for any person— . . . (d) to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. Prohibiting a trustee to hold one type of firearm, while allowing a trustee to hold another type would be inconsistent. And within the legal fiction of the trust, it really is being possessed as a trustee, and not an individual. However, I had a lawyer bud bring up your argument, and you know it will be raised.

Apples and oranges.  It is not illegal to possess a SBR (pre or post 86) if it is registered.  It is not illegal to posess a pre-1986 machine gun if it is registered.   You cannot register a post-86 machine gun in the first place and mere physical possession of it, whether as a person or as a trustee, is a crime.

I'm glad your lawyer friend gave you the correct advice.  What I don't understand is why you didn't take it.

DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID.

How are post-86 MGs sold to the .mil and to police forces?

They don't roll their own.

Do human hands ever touch them in the mfg process?

Quoted: How are post-86 MGs sold to the .mil and to police forces? They don't roll their own. Do human hands ever touch them in the mfg process?

Are you serious?  

A Class II manufacturer can manufacture post-86 MGs and and Class III dealers have the ability to possess them for the purpose of selling them to the military or LEO.  There is a specific exemption in the statute which permits military or LEO to possess post-86 MGs.  What is so difficult to understand about the fact that no individuals can possess a post-86 MG unless they are a Class II, Class III, military or LEO.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Nice try, but there is a major hole in you theory.  Any person actually in physical possesion of the machine gun is still a "person" within the meaning of the prohibition.  What do you think will happen when the Trustee of the Trust possesses the post 86 machine gun?  Will he be able to say "I'm not a person in possession of this post 86 machine gun, I'm a Trustee of a Trust in possession of this post 86 machine gun?"  Not bloody likely.   That’s exactly right. On your logic, even if a short barreled rifle were registered to a trust, your possession as trustee would be in violation of the law, because it wouldn’t be registered to you as an individual. As any of the trust boys here can tell you, when they handle their NFA weapons, they are doing it as a trustee, and not as an individual. If your position had merit, then every trustee holding a SBR would be in violation of the following provision of the NFA: § 5861 Prohibited acts. It shall be unlawful for any person— . . . (d) to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record. Prohibiting a trustee to hold one type of firearm, while allowing a trustee to hold another type would be inconsistent. And within the legal fiction of the trust, it really is being possessed as a trustee, and not an individual. However, I had a lawyer bud bring up your argument, and you know it will be raised. Apples and oranges.  It is not illegal to possess a SBR (pre or post 86) if it is registered.  It is not illegal to posess a pre-1986 machine gun if it is registered.   You cannot register a post-86 machine gun in the first place and mere physical possession of it, whether as a person or as a trustee, is a crime. I'm glad your lawyer friend gave you the correct advice.  What I don't understand is why you didn't take it. DON'T DRINK THE KOOL-AID.

Actually, as set forth above in Section 5861, it is illegal for a "person" to possess a SBR (pre or post 86) or a machinegun (pre or post 86) which is not registered to that "person." The person just happens to be a trust, and the trustee has the authority to control the contents of the trust. Taking our example further, the same would hold true for corporations holding NFA items. The officers of the corporation would be possessing those items (as opposed to the person to whom they were registered), and on your logic, would be in violation of the law.

Your buddy Joe is not allowed to handle your NFA weapon without you being present, is he?

Please note that illegal possession of machineguns prior to 1986 were prosecuted pursuant to Section 5861, and not 922(o).

Furthermore, cite me a single case where a trustee (or corporate officer) in possession of an NFA firearm held by a trust (or a corporation) and registered in the trust's (or corporation's) name was prosecuted for illegal possesion. You won't and you can't. Because its not prosecuted because it is legal - it is not "mere" possession, it is legal possession. It just happens that the prosecutions in reported case are for "illegal" possession, which in most times is "mere" as you have asserted, because the criminal elements do not hold the weapons being prosecuted as registered whether to them, or to a trust or corporation.

In this test case, I'm sure the court will rule on whether possession by the trustee is in violation of 922(o), but nothing ventured, nothing gained. The issue will be decided before anybody is placed in jeopardy of violating the law.

Quoted: Quoted: How are post-86 MGs sold to the .mil and to police forces? They don't roll their own. Do human hands ever touch them in the mfg process? Are you serious?   A Class II manufacturer can manufacture post-86 MGs and and Class III dealers have the ability to possess them for the purpose of selling them to the military or LEO.  There is a specific exemption in the statute which permits military or LEO to possess post-86 MGs.  What is so difficult to understand about the fact that no individuals can possess a post-86 MG unless they are a Class II, Class III, military or LEO.

So, show me in the Statute where it says that employees (individuals) can possess machineguns while in the employment of a corporate manufacturer (the "person" pursuant to statute that makes the machineguns) without violating the law.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How are post-86 MGs sold to the .mil and to police forces? They don't roll their own. Do human hands ever touch them in the mfg process? Are you serious?   A Class II manufacturer can manufacture post-86 MGs and and Class III dealers have the ability to possess them for the purpose of selling them to the military or LEO.  There is a specific exemption in the statute which permits military or LEO to possess post-86 MGs.  What is so difficult to understand about the fact that no individuals can possess a post-86 MG unless they are a Class II, Class III, military or LEO. So, show me in the Statute where it says that employees (individuals) can possess machineguns while in the employment of a corporate manufacturer (the "person" pursuant to statute that makes the machineguns) without violating the law.

Their authority to do so is derived from their employer's Class II SOT, which gives them authority to make and possess post-86 MGs (for sale to the military and LEO).   It is a commons sense interpretation of the statute, but I'm sure if someone had the time and energy the could dig up a regulation or two stating precisely that.  

I don't mean to be smug, it's been a damn-long day, so I'm sorry if I was rude to anyone.

tagged

just in case my lawyer f's it up.

taggarino

Quoted: One benefit of Trust ownership may be the ability to possess post-86 machineguns. As all of you know, the Gun Control Act, as amended in 1986, and found at 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922(o)(1) states that: (o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun. (2) This subsection does not apply with respect to— (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or (B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect. 18 U.S.C. 922(o)(1). I have highlighted person because that is a defined term in the Act. The GCA defines “Person” as “any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.” See 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(1). Please note that the definition of person does not include a trust, an estate, or language along the line of “any other legal entity.” Further, the regulations promulgated pursuant to the above sections of the GCA, as found at 27 CFR Part 478, reflect as well the above definitions and sections, word for word. See 27 CFR Part 478.11. Now here’s the kicker. The Internal Revenue Code, of which the National Firearms Act is part, as found at 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, defines the term “person.”as “a partnership, company, association, trust, estate, or corporation, as well as a natural person.” The NFA regulations, as found at 27 CFR Part 479, also reflect this definition word for word. Please note that there is no express prohibition against the ownership of a machinegun pursuant to the GCA by a trust or estate, and an allowance, pursuant to the NFA, of a trust or estate to own one. So what does this all mean? It means, based upon a plain reading of the law, that there may be no ban on post 1986 manufacture machinegun ownership by a trust or estate. And to put it in practical terms, here is what you need to do to comply with the law: (1) Establish an inter-vivos revocable trust. A lawyer can do this (which I would recommend, because I am one), or you can find forms on the net as well. An inter-vivos revocable trust is a document that vests ownership of specified items (e.g. your lower, or a parts kit, or anything else you want) into the trust (a legal entity), but which will allow you, as its named trustee, to exercise control over the content of the trust, in this case a machinegun. (2) Fill out your Form 1 and submit it to the ATF with your $200.00. Include with your Form 1 a letter along the following lines: Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed please find an ATF Form 1 Application to Make and Register a Firearm on behalf of the __________ Trust. Please note that the application is to make a “machinegun” as that term is defined pursuant to the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). Further, please let this letter serve, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 5822 and 27 C.F.R. § 479.62 of the showing of “required information evidencing that making or possession of the firearm would not be in violation of law.” A plain reading of the prohibition on the making of machineguns as contained in the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq., shows that it does not apply to trusts. Specifically, the Act provides that it is unlawful for any “person” to transfer or possess a machinegun. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Pursuant to the Act, “person” is defined as “any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.” See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(1). Pursuant to the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq., it is permissible for a “person” as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code to make a firearm so long as the making of that firearm would not place the person in violation of the law. See 26 U.S.C. § 5822. The definition of “person” pursuant to the Code is “an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.” See 26 U.S.C. § 7701. A priori, because a trust is not prohibited from transferring and possessing a machinegun pursuant to the Gun Control Act, and is permitted to manufacture a machinegun pursuant to the National Firearms Act, the manufacture and possession of this firearm would not place the __________ Trust in violation of the law. If you have any questions, or need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at (___) ___-____ during the day, and (___) ___-____ in the evening. Very truly yours, __________________________ Enclosures Now, what may happen may likely be one of two things: (1) the ATF will approve your application; or (2) the ATF will deny it. If they approve it, then you know they are acknowledging the loophole; if they don’t, it means that someone will have to litigate the denial. I am sure that one of you brave souls has the time and money to do this. I don’t, but I’ll ride on your coattails. From a legal standpoint, you can’t get much stronger than the plain reading of a statute. This as a general rule precludes a court from even getting into the legislative history (debate) in coming to its ruling. What may also happen is that either: (1) Congress may seek to amend the language of the GCA; or (2) Congress may seek to amend the language of the Internal Revenue Code. Both are likely to stir debate, but I would guess that this is one of the few times that there would be a realistic chance of repealing the ban, as the political make-up of the Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court are as strong as can be wished for, and that strength is likely to diminish, not grow, with the next election cycle. However, if you are the brave soul that seeks to appeal a denial, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do this in a Federal Circuit where it makes sense.

Nice try, but there is a major hole in you theory.  Any person actually in physical possesion of the machine gun is still a "person" within the meaning of the prohibition.  What do you think will happen when the Trustee of the Trust possesses the post 86 machine gun?  Will he be able to say "I'm not a person in possession of this post 86 machine gun, I'm a Trustee of a Trust in possession of this post 86 machine gun?"  Not bloody likely.  

They are not saying "possess" as in "the physical act of holding in your hands".

What they are saying is more akin to "have legal possession of".

The "person" who just so happens to hold the post-86 MG in his her hands won't have legal possession of it, the trust (in this example) will.

They would not be acting in their capacity as a "person" (common dictionary definition, or according to statute), they would be acting in their capacity as an agent/officer/etc of the trust.

Quoted: They are not saying "possess" as in "the physical act of holding in your hands". What they are saying is more akin to "have legal possession of". The "person" who just so happens to hold the post-86 MG in his her hands won't have legal possession of it, the trust (in this example) will. They would not be acting in their capacity as a "person" (common dictionary definition, or according to statute), they would be acting in their capacity as an agent/officer/etc of the trust.

Are you kidding?   Have you read the caselaw interpreting "possession" under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 922?  It is physical possession plain and simple.  

Quoted: Nice try, but there is a major hole in you theory.  Any person actually in physical possesion of the machine gun is still a "person" within the meaning of the prohibition.  What do you think will happen when the Trustee of the Trust possesses the post 86 machine gun?  Will he be able to say "I'm not a person in possession of this post 86 machine gun, I'm a Trustee of a Trust in possession of this post 86 machine gun?"  Not bloody likely.

That’s exactly right. On your logic, even if a short barreled rifle were registered to a trust, your possession as trustee would be in violation of the law, because it wouldn’t be registered to you as an individual. As any of the trust boys here can tell you, when they handle their NFA weapons, they are doing it as a trustee, and not as an individual. If your position had merit, then every trustee holding a SBR would be in violation of the following provision of the NFA:

§ 5861 Prohibited acts.
It shall be unlawful for any person—
. . .
(d) to receive or possess a firearm which is not registered to him in the National Firearms Registration and Transfer Record.

Prohibiting a trustee to hold one type of firearm, while allowing a trustee to hold another type would be inconsistent. And within the legal fiction of the trust, it really is being possessed as a trustee, and not an individual.

However, I had a lawyer bud bring up your argument, and you know it will be raised.

One benefit of Trust ownership may be the ability to possess post-86 machineguns.

As all of you know, the Gun Control Act, as amended in 1986, and found at 18 U.S.C., Chapter 44, Section 922(o)(1) states that:

(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun.

(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to—

(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or

(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date this subsection takes effect.

18 U.S.C. 922(o)(1).

I have highlighted person because that is a defined term in the Act.

The GCA defines “Person” as “any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.” See 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(1).

Please note that the definition of person does not include a trust, an estate, or language along the line of “any other legal entity.”

Further, the regulations promulgated pursuant to the above sections of the GCA, as found at 27 CFR Part 478, reflect as well the above definitions and sections, word for word. See 27 CFR Part 478.11.

Now here’s the kicker.

The Internal Revenue Code, of which the National Firearms Act is part, as found at 26 U.S.C. Chapter 53, defines the term “person.”as “a partnership, company, association, trust, estate, or corporation, as well as a natural person.”

The NFA regulations, as found at 27 CFR Part 479, also reflect this definition word for word.

Please note that there is no express prohibition against the ownership of a machinegun pursuant to the GCA by a trust or estate, and an allowance, pursuant to the NFA, of a trust or estate to own one.

So what does this all mean? It means, based upon a plain reading of the law, that there may be no ban on post 1986 manufacture machinegun ownership by a trust or estate.

And to put it in practical terms, here is what you need to do to comply with the law:

(1) Establish an inter-vivos revocable trust. A lawyer can do this (which I would recommend, because I am one), or you can find forms on the net as well. An inter-vivos revocable trust is a document that vests ownership of specified items (e.g. your lower, or a parts kit, or anything else you want) into the trust (a legal entity), but which will allow you, as its named trustee, to exercise control over the content of the trust, in this case a machinegun.

(2) Fill out your Form 1 and submit it to the ATF with your $200.00. Include with your Form 1 a letter along the following lines:

Dear Sir or Madam:

Enclosed please find an ATF Form 1 Application to Make and Register a Firearm on behalf of the __________ Trust.

Please note that the application is to make a “machinegun” as that term is defined pursuant to the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5845(b). Further, please let this letter serve, pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 5822 and 27 C.F.R. § 479.62 of the showing of “required information evidencing that making or possession of the firearm would not be in violation of law.”

A plain reading of the prohibition on the making of machineguns as contained in the Gun Control Act, 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq., shows that it does not apply to trusts. Specifically, the Act provides that it is unlawful for any “person” to transfer or possess a machinegun. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(o). Pursuant to the Act, “person” is defined as “any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.” See 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(1).

Pursuant to the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq., it is permissible for a “person” as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code to make a firearm so long as the making of that firearm would not place the person in violation of the law. See 26 U.S.C. § 5822. The definition of “person” pursuant to the Code is “an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.” See 26 U.S.C. § 7701.

A priori, because a trust is not prohibited from transferring and possessing a machinegun pursuant to the Gun Control Act, and is permitted to manufacture a machinegun pursuant to the National Firearms Act, the manufacture and possession of this firearm would not place the __________ Trust in violation of the law.

If you have any questions, or need any further information, please do not hesitate to contact me. I can be reached at (___) ___-____ during the day, and (___) ___-____ in the evening.

Very truly yours,


__________________________

Enclosures

Now, what may happen may likely be one of two things: (1) the ATF will approve your application; or (2) the ATF will deny it. If they approve it, then you know they are acknowledging the loophole; if they don’t, it means that someone will have to litigate the denial. I am sure that one of you brave souls has the time and money to do this. I don’t, but I’ll ride on your coattails. From a legal standpoint, you can’t get much stronger than the plain reading of a statute. This as a general rule precludes a court from even getting into the legislative history (debate) in coming to its ruling.

What may also happen is that either: (1) Congress may seek to amend the language of the GCA; or (2) Congress may seek to amend the language of the Internal Revenue Code. Both are likely to stir debate, but I would guess that this is one of the few times that there would be a realistic chance of repealing the ban, as the political make-up of the Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court are as strong as can be wished for, and that strength is likely to diminish, not grow, with the next election cycle.

However, if you are the brave soul that seeks to appeal a denial, PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE do this in a Federal Circuit where it makes sense.

So who wants to be the guinea pig? I'll donate $20 to the legal fund

Quoted: Quoted: How or where do I get the Form 1 mentioned above?  Does it come from the Class III dealer? BATFE website? Thanks for the information.  This is a great thread. Your dealer will take care of it since he/she needs to sign it.  If you are curious, here is a link to the forms.   Link to ATF forms If you are new to NFA you may want to read James Bardwell's treatise on it.  Here The link is on subguns.com, which is a great resource on NFA ownership.

Thanks GP,
I will take a look at it.  I responded to your input in the other thread.  Can you take a look and let me know your thoughts on the trust?

Thanks,
bdogsixty

How or where do I get the Form 1 mentioned above?  Does it come from the Class III dealer? BATFE website?

Thanks for the information.  This is a great thread.

Quoted: How or where do I get the Form 1 mentioned above?  Does it come from the Class III dealer? BATFE website? Thanks for the information.  This is a great thread.

Your dealer will take care of it since he/she needs to sign it.  If you are curious, here is a link to the forms.  

Link to ATF forms

If you are new to NFA you may want to read James Bardwell's treatise on it.  Here

The link is on subguns.com, which is a great resource on NFA ownership.

So how are you guys going about this? Should I prepare the Trust, purchase the lower and have it registered to the trust? Or can I just put an existing lower into the trust and transfer it from me to my trust?

I just installed Quicken's Willmaker.  I'm thinking I select "Living Trust - Basic Trust" which is revocable.  This is the correct form, right?

What is a good name for your trust?  Would your initials followed by the word "Trust" be adequate?

Could I call it the "JosephR Trust" or "JosephR Revocable Living Trust" ??

One more thing that I didn't get a chance to specifically look for while reading-

When showing your NFA paperwork or tax stamp or whatever it is you carry with you to the authorities, is it simply necessary to have the card with the stamp or a copy thereof, and NOT all of the trust letters and documents?  that would be silly, right?

I would just hate to have to say "well officer, no, I didn't see the chief.  You see, there's an easier way to do this.  All you have to do is download a program, fill in some names and voila!  It cuts the time in half!"

"yeah right" says the officer...

here is a clip from the ASSIGNMENT OF PROPERTY portion of the final document, something after the first 6 page document:

I, JosephR, as grantor of the JosephR Revocable Living Trust dated ____________________, __________, hereby assign and transfer all of my rights, title and interest in the following property: 1. Firearms 2. NFA Items to Joseph Xxxxx  Rxxxx, as trustee of the JosephR Revocable Living Trust dated ____________________, __________.

This seems funny.  Is this the page that I will take with to pick up my NFA items from the class III dealer?  

I substituted JosephR for my real full name as grantor and changed the name of the trust from my full name to JosephR.  

Is this right?

I keep a copy of my Form 4...that's all.

FWIW, I've been asked about three times in the past few months.

probably followed by a "I am just doing my job.  So, can I give her a whirl?"

So as long as you have a copy of that Form 4- it's just the same then.  The only difference is how you go about getting the form 4.

This still makes me feel like I'm cheating the government out of something though...

Maybe that's a sign this is a no-no?

Talk to your ATF Examiner...He'll confirm that it's a legit process.

Quoted: This still makes me feel like I'm cheating the government out of something though... Maybe that's a sign this is a no-no?

How sadly ironic.  

Oh, I believe you guys...

It's just such a revelation like the U-drive screws for the AK builds.   Too good to be true but true indeed!

Quoted: probably followed by a "I am just doing my job.  So, can I give her a whirl?" So as long as you have a copy of that Form 4- it's just the same then.  The only difference is how you go about getting the form 4. This still makes me feel like I'm cheating the government out of something though... Maybe that's a sign this is a no-no?

Au contraire.  It's just that we've all been conditioned to give the gov't too much.

Quoted: This still makes me feel like I'm cheating the government out of something though... Maybe that's a sign this is a no-no?

[sarcasm mode on]  That's how I feel every year when I take the listed deductions on my tax returns.  Sure the government says I can take the deductions, but somehow I feel like I'm cheating on my taxes when I take those deductions.  [sarcasm mode off]

If you don't want to go that route then don't do it.  If you want to save yourself the hassle of going through the CLEO process, or your CLEO won't sign off, or you want your Form 4s processed faster, then it is a perfectly legitimate method of acquiring NFA items which is written into the statute.  

Ok, I have a question.

Say I am a resident of Texas but I am in the Army and stationed in Kansas. Do I make my trust in Kansas or Texas? I plan on moving back to Texas some day. If I do make it in Texas can I fill my forms out for an SBR here in Kansas since I am stationed here and just do the form moving them to Texas when I get out or do I have to do it through Texas and fill out a form moving them to Kansas? And would I have to move my trust to Kansas if I do so or not? I am confused..........

Quoted: Quoted: This still makes me feel like I'm cheating the government out of something though... Maybe that's a sign this is a no-no? [sarcasm mode on]  That's how I feel every year when I take the listed deductions on my tax returns.  Sure the government says I can take the deductions, but somehow I feel like I'm cheating on my taxes when I take those deductions.  [sarcasm mode off] If you don't want to go that route then don't do it.  If you want to save yourself the hassle of going through the CLEO process, or your CLEO won't sign off, or you want your Form 4s processed faster, then it is a perfectly legitimate method of acquiring NFA items which is written into the statute.

Agreed.  Don't think of it as a "loophole," as the lege could have "fixed the glitch," so to speak, if they really wanted this avenue gone.  Rather, think of it like this: If it's codified by statute, and is still in there years later, it's for a reason.

no no no, i'm not trying to play the sarcastic devil's advocate.  I know that they've limited my God given rights and this just helps me enjoy them or make use of them easier.

If I am getting married in November and can't wait to buy until after then, how should I set up my Trust?  Should I leave my fiance out of it until after she is my wife and then add her at my level?  This as opposed to trying to remove a name later and replacing it with a similar one...

Is there an abreviation that you can use for SBR engraving of the name of the trust?

Seems    "Tvone's NFA Revocable Living Trust
                 XXXXXXXXXXX, XX"

is a lot to but on one line.  Could you just use "Tvone Trust"?
with city and state?

Using Willmaker, there is one line on the Assignment of Property I'm uncertain what is supposed to be there.  Of course, the help sectin doesn't address it.  The line is as follows:

"Executed at _____________, ______, on _____________, ______"

Seemingly, the second set of lines is for the date.  Does anyone have an idea of what the first set of lines would be for?

Quoted: There are non, just like the corp, because a legal entity isn't a person.  Does Exxon have fingerprints?  Enron?  You can't take fingerprints of a legal entity.

Actually, by now, just about everyone with Enron has been fingerprinted...

jk.
joe

Quoted: Quoted: CS223 I see your point, however we are both Trustees as described in the Declaration, not applying for co-ownership as a married couple.  I hope the policy stated in the 1999 letter you quoted has been clarified or defined since then. It matters not. A Trust, LLC, Corp. etc. as far as the law goes is a single legal entity that stands alone, apart from it's members. That raises some questions in my mind about how much responsibility you are allowed to assume by BATFE if only one natural person is named and required to sign.  It would seem to me there is a leap of faith otherwise. Not so, but an explanation would be best addressed by a laywer. How would or could BATFE approve a transfer to a Trust, Corp. or LLC if they could not verify the citizenship of those parties entitled to possession via the documents submitted?  Are the creators of an LLC, for instance, supposed to run a background check to verify that a named party does not have a felony conviction?  There is no LEO signoff or prints to run in this case.  Could the one named signator be responsible for providing a Class II weapon to a felon?   If that felon were named in the original paperwork on the LLC, as it was submitted to BATFE on the form 4, wouldn't that be a defense? When you submit your 5330.20 Form, with your Form 4's, you are Certifying your citizenship. First line on the 5330.20 has your LLC,Trust, Corp listed, second line is for your name or the name & title of the person attesting to the citizenship and then the persons signature. On the back of the F4 where you signed, you are attesting that you are qualified to act on on behalf of the entity, not a felon, etc. A CLEO signature is for it to confirm that there are no local laws or convictions that prohibit NFA ownership. In the case of a personal transfer, BATF will run a 50 state background check via the FBI on you to be certain that you qualify.  Once approved you'll fill out a 4473 to take possession of your NFA items without a NICS check. A corp, LLC, Trust, is an entity like a person subjected to taxes etc. But since it isn't a real person, you can't photgraph it, print it, etc. Some person must act on behalf of that entity, give it arms & legs so to speak. That Responsible Person must meet all the legal qualifications required by BATF. When a transfer is approved to a Corp, Trust, LLC. the Responsible Person will take possession. They must fill out a 4473 form at the time of transfer AND have a NICS check called in to confirm that they are legally qualified to take possession. In addition, they are required to sign a statement of ownership that simply says the person is taking possession of the NFA items and understands that they are the property of the Trust or other legal entity and become contraband if that legal entity ceases to exist. (I don't want to get into an argument over this, it's been thrashed to death on the NFA boards). Keep that in mind, if your Corp., LLC, Turst lapses. You are in possession of an unregistered NFA item. You must surrender it or otherwise transfer it out of the Corp, LLC, Trust prior to disolving the entity. If you were transfer or allow possession by a Felon who was a member of the Corp. you could be held liable. Certainly if you knew, possibly if you didn't take reasonable care to accertain. BATF doesn't check the background of the Responsible Person. If you lied regarding your eligability filling out that Form 4 or the 4473, you are going to Federal prison. Period, end of story, even if it was an accidential oversight. The Corp, LLC, Trust is the registered entity, members can change  over the years. it is the responsibility of a Corp. to accertain that any shareholders that have access to NFA items in that corp meet the legal qualifications. Likewise it should be noted in the minutes that it was discussed and agreed upon. Trusts are a more limited as to their members Just playing Devil's Advocate.  I'll call tomorrow for further information on this issue. Don't get too argumentative with BATF, you start pushing them and you could change things for everyone. I'd sit back and wait it out. As a side note, I had a F4 come back because I listed the Responsible party below the name of the Corp in the Transferee box on a F4. That's the way it was done at one time. XYZ Corp. John Doe 123 Anywhere St USA, FL 12345 BATF kicked it back and said in a Corp transfer, they did not want any individuals name associated with the transferee, to strike it out & resubmit. I suspect that you'll get a similar response. FWIW, I understand your reasoning behind what you did but it wasn't neccessary. All controlling parties of a legal entity, if otherwise qualified, have a right to access the NFA item without being part of the F4 paperwork. This is all my personal experience, I am not a lawyer. Confirm everything here before taking my word for it. I make mistakes, correct me if I'm wrong.

I just called on one of the serial numbers in this transfer and it went pending 4/19/06 and was approved 4/25/06.  I think the check was sent on the 29th of March and cashed on 4/5/06.

I'll see what the forms say when I have them in hand, but it looks like it either slipped through the cracks, or the letter of the law as referenced by CS223 is not the SOP for current transfers.

Edited to add:

This was posted for info only, not to be construed as an attack or criticism of CS223.  Looks like he was working off some pretty good info on his previous posts.