Originally Posted By mhode:
I still send mine because I add my sole RP Amendment so I don’t have to fingerprint and photo my wife on the trust every time I purchase an NFA item, then rip it up after approval. Can’t do that if I don’t send it.
To me it’s useless to have the 24 mo exemption, it’s a couple extra pages you’re already mailing or one extra upload click on eForms.

If they made it a total bypass 24 mo exemption and instant approval I’d be all over that.

Originally Posted By BigWaylon:
I’ve seen a couple people ask about this, but can’t find any of the threads. I don’t recall anybody providing an example or saying they’d done it before. I submitted my last paper form using this method, but that was only a couple months ago. But I filed an EForm back on 6/24 that was approved yesterday, and figured I’d pass on my experience.

What I’m talking about is the exemption for not having to provide entity documentation if you’ve had an approved form within the last 24 months. A lot of people initially misinterpreted 41F to think you’d be able to avoid prints and photos as well. It’s actually worded to simply say the documentation required to prove the entity’s existence can be skipped if you verify no changes have been made since the last approval.

This isn’t a huge deal, as it’s often just as easy to provide a copy of the trust/corp, especially if you’re using EForms. One big advantage is you don’t have the risk of a different person at the ATF interpreting your documents differently in regards to who is/isn’t considered a Responsible Person.

What I did was type up a letter that quoted the instruction from the form and provided the information requested. Additionally, and not specifically required, I copied the first page of the approved form. With my paper F4, I printed the letter and the first page of the previous approval front/back on a single page. For my EForm 1, those same two pages were uploaded in the Electronic Documents section. There’s actually a 24-month option to choose in the dropdown for document type. Here’s what I typed up:
________________________________________________________________________

Entity Documentation Certification

Instruction 2(d)(4)(b): If the transferee entity has had an application approved as a maker or transferee within the preceding 24 months of the date of filing this application, and there has been no change to the documentation evidencing the existence and validity of the entity previously provided, the entity may provide a certification that the information has not been changed since the prior approval and shall identify the application for which the documentation had been submitted by form number, serial number, and date approved.

Per the Instruction above…

I, {insert full name}, as the sole responsible person for {insert entity name}, certify that the information included on my most recent approval has not been changed since it was approved on {insert date from previous approval}.

A copy of that approved Form 4 Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm for Serial Number {insert SN} is attached.

______________________________________

{insert full name}, Trustee

________________________________________________________________________

I can’t get the signature line and name below it to line up right, but you get the idea. And obviously change the Form 4 Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm to Form 1 Application to Make and Register a Firearm as necessary. Not that it matters, but I did print it just like above with the quoted instruction in italics and the rest in normal font.

...and if your entity has more than just you, replace “the sole” with “a” (or whatever you prefer)

Originally Posted By BigWaylon:

I’ve seen lawyers recommend that.

Can’t believe anybody is willing, or naive enough, to actually do it. It’s the single worst piece of NFA legal advice I’ve seen in regards to 41F.

Originally Posted By hoothrewpoo:

I do the same. It seems that a gun trust lawyer wouldn't make a recommendation for something that would create additional liability... why do you find it to be bad legal advice?

Originally Posted By NightOwl:

IANAL, but, it would seem better to add an amendment nullifying that amendment rather than just destroying the amendment. Otherwise any pages that someone didn't like ("he wrote on page 5 that Mabel gets the AR10, but I don't think so" ::shredding noise::) being destroyed would be a non-issue as there is no way to track when an amendment was re-amended.

Originally Posted By hoothrewpoo:

I do the same. It seems that a gun trust lawyer wouldn't make a recommendation for something that would create additional liability... why do you find it to be bad legal advice?

Originally Posted By scul:
Any idea if this would expedite the forms any, or does this only allow you not to submit the exact same trust again?

Originally Posted By D_Man:
I have no data one way or the other, but just going off how they do things they would still need to review your trust document on the new submission, so if you don't re-send your document with the new submission, it might actually delay you further if they have to then hunt down your old trust documents wherever they have those cataloged.

Originally Posted By BigWaylon:

I think the point of the 24-month exemption is to skip the trust review. You're certifying nothing changed, and they're saying if it was good enough then it's good enough now.

I don't think it's having any impact on the approval timeframe.

Originally Posted By D_Man: I wasn't sure how they approach say a situation where one of the Trust RPs is in California and the item is a suppressor, for example.  And thus having a policy to always review the trust for each item regardless.

Originally Posted By BigWaylon:So…they’re just making crap up, again, regardless of what the rules say. I’ll just upload the trust PDF going forward.