Armory Sponsor
Posted: 1/29/2008 10:47:01 AM EDT
|
Hi guys. I know this has to have been asked before. Can anyone give me a link to a previous "How to" thread or tell me step by step how it is done? I have had people telling me you can do it with Quicken Will Maker and set up a revocable trust, but that sounds crazy. Thanks. |
| My advice... don't go the trust route. I know, I know, I spout the unpopular opinion which is contrary to conventional wisdom on this board and others, but IMHO, things will soon change with respect to trusts and other legal entities in regard to transfers of NFA items. |
All I can find is references to your opinions about the BATFE wanting to change things and thinking that it will occur soon. Can you elaborate as to what you think will happen and what the impetus for it occurring is? |
+ 1 I'd like to know. |
I feel this way too. I just think that somone using a trust is going to add a trustee who is a felon or who uses the item in a crime and they are going to slam dunk everyone using a trust. I agree that a trust is a legal entity and should be allowed, but I just think that someone is going to do something stupid and ruin it for everyone. They would probably still allow trusts to own the item, but might require CLEO/prints/photos for everyone in the trust which would negate their use. |
There is nothing in the law right now that requires CLEO/prints/photos for indivdual transfers. ATF added that on their own. What would prvent them from adding it for trusts or corporations? As far as screwing someone ex-post facto, just look at the Akins case. They ruled the stock as legal, Akins sold them and then ATF reversed themselves and owners had to surrender the part that made the stock work. I hope I am wrong about trusts because they are the only way some folks can get around a CLEO who refuses to signoff. I am not trying to start a flame war, just giving my humble opinion. YMMV |
Don't know about the CLEO signature, but prints and photos are required by law:
|
I stand corrected. I guess it was just the CLEO signoff that was added by ATF. It looks like the line "in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe" leaves ATF a lot of room to add what they want. |
|
A quick-and-dirty dissertation (lawyers, historians and Congressional staffers, feel free to nitpick): First point: There are two different ways that federal law is created and incorporated into the United States Code. First are the laws passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. But Congress and the President do not enforce that law -- instead, it goes to the appropriate agency in charge of administering the law. They, in turn, have the power and authority to write the detailed rules to implement the general laws passed by Congress. About 30 percent of the provisions in the United States Code are rules actually spelled out in Congressional law. The remaining 70% is called Administrative law, and was written by the agencies that must enforce the laws passed by Congress. Both types of law have equal weight, once they are incorporated into the United States Code. Both can be challenged in federal court, if you have a six-figure legal war chest. Second point: The CLEO signoff and fingerprint requirements were never mentioned in the National Firearms Act of 1934. They are administrative laws created by the U.S. Department of Revenue to implement NFA '34, whose specific stated goal was to keep NFA items out of the hands of criminals. Third point: Up until a few years ago, 99% of all NFA registrations were to either individuals or corporations/LLCs. Individuals could be checked out; so could corporations, which must be registered in their home state, and the names of officers are public record. It was also believed that few violent criminals will go to the expense of setting up and maintaining a viable corporation, just to get a firearm to commit a crime. And if/when they do, they can be prosecuted under the RICO Act. Trusts were a little-known, rarely used alternative. Fourth point: A trust, in most states, is not registered with anyone, and is difficult to verify (which is why NFA Branch has been told to require all the extra documentation that everyone is complaining about). They are a cheap - and presently legal -- way to acquire NFA while avoiding any of the safeguards intended by NFA '34 and the agencies which administer it. Fifth point: U.S. agencies also are empowered to at any time add additional laws to the USC, if it turns out that current federal law does not adequately implement a law in keeping wth Congress' intent. They must first publish the proposed additional rules in the Federal Register and allow a short period for comment, then the new regs take effect as federal law. A good example are the updated requirements for size and depth of maker engravings: It was never mentioned in Congress, yet today it is law. In the case at hand, BATFE could add CLEO signoffs and fingerprints for the principals of trusts. Final point: The internet is great for spreading knowledge. But it spreads that knowledge evenly, to proponents and opponents alike. Charlie may not surf, but BATFE does.  -------------------------------------------------------------------------- BTW, none of the above is new, or original to me: The facts have been discussed on many internet boards for the last few years, ever since trusts became known as a viable alternative route to NFA ownership. It is also what I've heard, from BATFE sources in D.C., is one of the agency's frequent topics of discussion. The policy-level decision to scrutinize trust applications is a preliminary result; I'm waiting to see if another shoe drops. And no, I have no idea how any decision might affect NFA already in the possession of a trust. My hope is that a pro-gun decision in Heller may be worded in a way that makes some of this moot, by mandating a relaxation of NFA law. But I ain't holding my breath. 
|
Armory Sponsor