Armory Sponsor
Posted: 12/26/2010 10:00:46 PM EDT
| Why does a trust get you around the sheriff's signature? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it's an entity, not an individual. Same as a corporation. I understand this. The .gov requires EVERYTHING to be "owned" by someone or something. Why isn't the trust required to get the LEO's signature? Because it's an entity, not an individual (is there an echo in here?). The NFA item will be owned by the legal entity of the trust, NOT any person. Now, the people listed as trustees can use it as they are "managers" of the trust but it is not owned by any individual human being. Let's say a gun shop gets in a non-NFA item, like a Kimber 1911. A person, on behalf of the shop (since stores can't make phone calls), will order it, and when it's received it will be logged in. Until the shop transfers it over to a specific individual (with a 4473) and logs it out to that individual, the shop owns it––the business entity owns it. Now, the officers (Pres, VP, etc.) of the corporation can use the gun all they want. They can take it to the range, shoot it, put night sights on it, etc., but it is still owned by the gun shop, not by any individual person. So a business entity has no photograph, no fingerprints, and no background to run a check on. What could a CLEO attest to then? Hope that made sense...coffee hasn't kicked in yet. |
|
Remember, the law was written in 1934. At that time, there was no NICS ... heck, for that matter, most police agencies didn't even have radios, and telephone was iffy. Congress wanted the person in D.C. examining the application to have a way to know that the applicant wasn't a criminal, or the subject of a current LE investigation, etc. The CLEO signature was a character reference.
At the same time, many companies owned registered MGs –– GM, Ford, many steel plants, etc. –– to protect property during labor unrest. (Remember, this was a period in our history when strikes, demonstrations and outright riots were common, due to labor/union disputes.) In Congress' view, these companies did not need a character reference, so most "legal entities" (as opposed to "human entities", i.e., people) were exempted from the character reference requirement. In addition, most legal entities have dozens, hundreds, or thousands of employees and officers; which ones would need the CLEO signoff? One? Some? All? It was not practical. The word "trust" was buried in federal law along with corporations, LLCs, etc. It was in the original 1934 law but no one noticed until about 2000, when an attorney who also held an FFL/SOT was reading the law and spotted it. That attorney (Bob Howell of Davie, FL) researched it, approached NFA Branch, and succeeded in getting them to make a policy statement that trusts were acceptable NFA ownership vehicles. And like all the other legal entities, a CLEO signoff was not required. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because it's an entity, not an individual. Same as a corporation. I understand this. The .gov requires EVERYTHING to be "owned" by someone or something. Why isn't the trust required to get the LEO's signature? Because it's an entity, not an individual (is there an echo in here?). His question is obviously why are legal entitities not required to get CLEO signoff? The answer is, there is no good reason. A precedent was set a long time ago, and it is still being adhered to. So a business entity has no photograph, no fingerprints, and no background to run a check on. What could a CLEO attest to then? Whoever signs box 15 of F4. CLEO would also be attesting to the fact the item is not illegal to possess based on the address in box 2a of F4. I myself am surprised ATF has not addressed this, and changed the requirements to require CLEO signoff for ALL NFA items. |
|
Quoted:
Remember, the law was written in 1934. At that time, there was no NICS ... heck, for that matter, most police agencies didn't even have radios, and telephone was iffy. Congress wanted the person in D.C. examining the application to have a way to know that the applicant wasn't a criminal, or the subject of a current LE investigation, etc. The CLEO signature was a character reference. At the same time, many companies owned registered MGs –– GM, Ford, many steel plants, etc. –– to protect property during labor unrest. (Remember, this was a period in our history when strikes, demonstrations and outright riots were common, due to labor/union disputes.) In Congress' view, these companies did not need a character reference, so most "legal entities" (as opposed to "human entities", i.e., people) were exempted from the character reference requirement. In addition, most legal entities have dozens, hundreds, or thousands of employees and officers; which ones would need the CLEO signoff? One? Some? All? It was not practical. The word "trust" was buried in federal law along with corporations, LLCs, etc. It was in the original 1934 law but no one noticed until about 2000, when an attorney who also held an FFL/SOT was reading the law and spotted it. That attorney (Bob Howell of Davie, FL) researched it, approached NFA Branch, and succeeded in getting them to make a policy statement that trusts were acceptable NFA ownership vehicles. And like all the other legal entities, a CLEO signoff was not required.[/quote] The deal is that the National Firearms Act uses the INternal Revenue Code definition of a "person" which includes not only individuals (natural persons) but also artificial persons including corporations, business entities (ie LLCs), trusts, and estates (may transfer out NFA owned by the decedant individual owner). The Gun Control Act, on the other hand, uses a different definition of a person which includes individuals and also some artificial persons, but does not include trusts. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it's an entity, not an individual. Same as a corporation. I understand this. The .gov requires EVERYTHING to be "owned" by someone or something. Why isn't the trust required to get the LEO's signature? Because it's an entity, not an individual (is there an echo in here?). The NFA item will be owned by the legal entity of the trust, NOT any person. Now, the people listed as trustees can use it as they are "managers" of the trust but it is not owned by any individual human being. Let's say a gun shop gets in a non-NFA item, like a Kimber 1911. A person, on behalf of the shop (since stores can't make phone calls), will order it, and when it's received it will be logged in. Until the shop transfers it over to a specific individual (with a 4473) and logs it out to that individual, the shop owns it––the business entity owns it. Now, the officers (Pres, VP, etc.) of the corporation can use the gun all they want. They can take it to the range, shoot it, put night sights on it, etc., but it is still owned by the gun shop, not by any individual person. So a business entity has no photograph, no fingerprints, and no background to run a check on. What could a CLEO attest to then? Hope that made sense...coffee hasn't kicked in yet. To clarify, in addition ot an individual being able to purchase over the counter, a corporation or LLC could also purchase the pistol over the coujnter (as long as state law does not prohibit it). the NICS check would be run on the agent representing the purchasing entity, and that individual would fill he 4473 with their information. A letter, on letterhead, specifying the corporate purcahse would then be attached to th paperwork set, and the firearm would be property of the purchasing business, not the individual representing the corporation for the transaction. However, if an individual wanted a trust that they are authoized to put property into to have a title I firearm, they would need to purchase it themselves (as an individual) and then transfer ownership to theri trust according to their trust and state law (and list it on the property schedule as appropriate), since the gun control act doesn't have any provision that allows trusts to make title i purchases from licensees (given the different definition of a person that the GCA uses). |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it's an entity, not an individual. Same as a corporation. I understand this. The .gov requires EVERYTHING to be "owned" by someone or something. Why isn't the trust required to get the LEO's signature? Because it's an entity, not an individual (is there an echo in here?). His question is obviously why are legal entitities not required to get CLEO signoff? The answer is, there is no good reason. A precedent was set a long time ago, and it is still being adhered to. So a business entity has no photograph, no fingerprints, and no background to run a check on. What could a CLEO attest to then? Whoever signs box 15 of F4. CLEO would also be attesting to the fact the item is not illegal to possess based on the address in box 2a of F4. I myself am surprised ATF has not addressed this, and changed the requirements to require CLEO signoff for ALL NFA items. The reason why they can't require cleo signoff for all NFA items is they would have to have congress review and modify the NFA Act of 1934. They do not want to do that as doing so would open a huge can of worms that might not go how they would like it. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because it's an entity, not an individual. Same as a corporation. I understand this. The .gov requires EVERYTHING to be "owned" by someone or something. Why isn't the trust required to get the LEO's signature? Because it's an entity, not an individual (is there an echo in here?). His question is obviously why are legal entitities not required to get CLEO signoff? The answer is, there is no good reason. A precedent was set a long time ago, and it is still being adhered to. So a business entity has no photograph, no fingerprints, and no background to run a check on. What could a CLEO attest to then? Whoever signs box 15 of F4. CLEO would also be attesting to the fact the item is not illegal to possess based on the address in box 2a of F4. I myself am surprised ATF has not addressed this, and changed the requirements to require CLEO signoff for ALL NFA items. The reason why they can't require cleo signoff for all NFA items is they would have to have congress review and modify the GCA of 1934. They do not want to do that as doing so would open a huge can of worms that might not go how they would like it. GCA is 1968 - NFA is 1934. |
|
Quoted:
GCA is 1968 - NFA is 1934. Correct. But the post is still correct, in that it would take an act of Congress to add a legal requirement to NFA ownership. ATF can interpret current law, but it cannot add new law. And FYI, the Supreme Court voided the 1934 National Firearms Act when it ruled in Haynes v. U.S. 390 U.S. 85 (1968), which in large part led to the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 to quickly restore NFA law in a way allowable by SCOTUS. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
GCA is 1968 - NFA is 1934. Correct. But the post is still correct, in that it would take an act of Congress to add a legal requirement to NFA ownership. ATF can interpret current law, but it cannot add new law. And FYI, the Supreme Court voided the 1934 National Firearms Act when it ruled in Haynes v. U.S. 390 U.S. 85 (1968), which in large part led to the passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968 to quickly restore NFA law in a way allowable by SCOTUS. It would require an act of congress, unless ATF could derive somesort of administrative rulemaking authority from the existing law, for ATF to add a signature requirement. Nixing trusts (or other corporate entities altogether) would require an act of congress and would either require the NFA definition of a person to be redifined OR the internal revenue code definition of a person to be redifined....and I really can't fathom any congress ever removing corporations, business entities, etc... from the internal revenue code. |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Because it's an entity, not an individual. Same as a corporation. I understand this. The .gov requires EVERYTHING to be "owned" by someone or something. Why isn't the trust required to get the LEO's signature? Because it's an entity, not an individual (is there an echo in here?). His question is obviously why are legal entitities not required to get CLEO signoff? The answer is, there is no good reason. A precedent was set a long time ago, and it is still being adhered to. So a business entity has no photograph, no fingerprints, and no background to run a check on. What could a CLEO attest to then? Whoever signs box 15 of F4. CLEO would also be attesting to the fact the item is not illegal to possess based on the address in box 2a of F4. I myself am surprised ATF has not addressed this, and changed the requirements to require CLEO signoff for ALL NFA items. The reason why they can't require cleo signoff for all NFA items is they would have to have congress review and modify the GCA of 1934. They do not want to do that as doing so would open a huge can of worms that might not go how they would like it. No, the law already allows it (you realize CLEO signoff is not mentioned anywhere in the NFA law). All they have to do is publish the change of the CFR in the Federal Register and poof, done. Bureacracies do not like to mess with precedent though. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Because it's an entity, not an individual. Same as a corporation. I understand this. The .gov requires EVERYTHING to be "owned" by someone or something. Why isn't the trust required to get the LEO's signature? Because it's an entity, not an individual (is there an echo in here?). His question is obviously why are legal entitities not required to get CLEO signoff? The answer is, there is no good reason. A precedent was set a long time ago, and it is still being adhered to. So a business entity has no photograph, no fingerprints, and no background to run a check on. What could a CLEO attest to then? Whoever signs box 15 of F4. CLEO would also be attesting to the fact the item is not illegal to possess based on the address in box 2a of F4. I myself am surprised ATF has not addressed this, and changed the requirements to require CLEO signoff for ALL NFA items. The reason why they can't require cleo signoff for all NFA items is they would have to have congress review and modify the NFA Act of 1934. They do not want to do that as doing so would open a huge can of worms that might not go how they would like it. GCA is 1968 - NFA is 1934. Brain fart fixed |
Armory Sponsor