Proposed Rule Change

[minuteman32]

This was posted by Gemtech on Facebook.
Regarding trusts, corporations,etc.

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43

 

[j706]

I could not access the link for some reason.

 

[hondatech2k2]

I could not access the link for some reason.

Same problem

Here is the text:

"
DOJ/ATF RIN: 1140-AA43 Publication ID: 2012

Title: Background Checks for Principal Officers of Corporations, Trusts, and Other Legal Entities With Respect to the Making or Transferring of a National Firearms Act Firearm

Abstract: The Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. The proposed regulations would (1) add a definition for the term "responsible person"; (2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints; (3) require that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the locality in which the maker or transferee is located; and (4) eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by the CLEO.
Agency: Department of Justice(DOJ)
View Rule"

 

[hondatech2k2]

A comment from Gemtech:
"This means that: those that use Trusts to purchase Form 4 items or manufacture Form 1 items would need to submit fingerprints along with their Trust's paperwork for each person that would have access to the registered item (closing a "loophole"), need for local CLEO signoffs for any Form 1 or 4 would be removed (this is an unfunded Federal mandate, and a huge problem on many levels), and the Federal government would then share the previously-private NFA registry with local officials (which at this time have no recordkeeping requirements for, and assumedly have various state-by-state privacy laws or lack thereof in place. Reference current FOIA dilemnas in some states releasing CCW info to newspapers, etc.)."

 

[rvb]

Isn't this GREAT news!?

yes, it you use a trust, it sucks because you have to go through the process for each person on the trust, but you would no longer need LEO sign-off, which was the primary reason for doing a trust in the first place!

" (3) require that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the locality in which the maker or transferee is located; and (4) eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by the CLEO. "

The part about sharing the database sucks. That is not captured in the abstract.

-rvb

 

[combat45acp]

Man that could mean a ton of print cards and photos for some guys trust. Wonder how that would effect adding a person to a said trust after item the nfa item/items are approved.

 

[Double T]

Man that could mean a ton of print cards and photos for some guys trust. Wonder how that would effect adding a person to a said trust after item the nfa item/items are approved.

What I read is that it was for transfers only. I imagine that you could have one person on a trust. Buy what you want. Add to trust. Then add people to the trust afterwards as the "trust" is the owner, not the individuals added and it wouldn't be a transfer.

I'm not a lawyer though.

 

[combat45acp]

I see, I took "require each responsible person" as anyone who is in the trust and is able to take positive control of weapon.

I have no clue, but I have seen trust with a lot of people in them...it would take a stack of FP cards and a photo album!

 

[Stainer]

Since I don't have a trust, this works out better for me. For you out there with a trust and a lot of people in the trust, it seems as if it could be a lot of work.

 

[downzero]

The cited authority for this is 26 U.S.C 7805, which allows the treasury secretary to prescribe new regulations (usually relating to the tax code, which is the remainder of title 26).

I don't see how that would grant any authority at all to the BATFE, which falls under the Department of Justice (and thus the Attorney General, not the Treasury Secretary).

It appears to me that not only are they trying to circumvent Congress, they are doing so by a method that appears unlawful to me.

But don't take my word for it, read the law for yourself:
26 USC § 7805 - Rules and regulations | LII / Legal Information Institute

 

[dudley0]

I enjoyed having the Trust/LLC because I didn't want the local LEO to know about my legally owned NFA items.

Small towns and loose lips

 

[CountryBoy19]

I enjoyed having the Trust/LLC because I didn't want the local LEO to know about my legally owned NFA items.

Small towns and loose lips

That was my thought too... now that they're going to send a list of what I have to the CLEO I'm thinking I'll just have to ensure that my trust "resides" in a county far away from where I am...

I wonder if that will work to throw them off? I don't think its technically illegal.

Either way, I think if this goes through it's reallly going to muck up everything. Imagine how slow the processing will be when 10 sets of prints etc get submitted with a form?

 

[boozoo]

Any more news on this one?

 

[Beowulf]

As part of the other improvements the ATF is looking at though is moving to a more updated electronic form system (starting with Form 3s for dealers first, but eventually trickling out to general public transfers).

The ATF is way behind the times with the ridiculous fingerprint cards and paper forms. With electronic fingerprinting and online forms, you could get the paper turned around extremely quickly (plus, computerizing the background checks, removing any manual data entry from the forms to their databases).

 

[Echelon]

... but you would no longer need LEO sign-off, which was the primary reason for doing a trust in the first place!

I don't know. It is convenient to avoid the fingerprints and CLEO sign off, but I formed a trust so that both myself and my wife could legally possess the trust property. I didn't personally feel comfortable knowing I could be deployed, leaving that stuff around here and her not legally being able to play if she wanted.

 

[samot]

It is not fingerprints for everyone in the trust !
Its fingerprints for a "responsible person" on the trust .
Which is still yet to be determined..........
There were/ are many cases of trusts being made by one person , only to provide NFA items to a restricted person on the trust .
That is ATFs reasoning behind the change .
Per the meeting with ATF at SHOT

 

[JoshuaW]

It is not fingerprints for everyone in the trust !
Its fingerprints for a "responsible person" on the trust .
Which is still yet to be determined..........
There were/ are many cases of trusts being made by one person , only to provide NFA items to a restricted person on the trust .
That is ATFs reasoning behind the change .
Per the meeting with ATF at SHOT

Is there any citation for this?

 

[ryknoll3]

This change blows. I like the idea of getting rid of CLEO sign-off for individuals (the way I do it) but hate the loss of privacy the trust user's are going to experience.

The only good thing is at least in this instance, there is a LITTLE bit of take to go with the give. Usually it's the whole "We're here to steal your house, but we'll settle for taking your car. See, we compromised." thing.

 

[xryan.jacksonx]

There were/ are many cases of trusts being made by one person , only to provide NFA items to a restricted person on the trust .

What is the point of that? While I suppose it might be legal for a felon to have ownership in a firearm, what benefit is gained? It is still just as illegal for them to physically posses it. I don't see how this would be any different than going the individual route and just letting the felon borrow the gun. If you get caught you are screwed either way.

 

[JoshuaW]

What is the point of that? While I suppose it might be legal for a felon to have ownership in a firearm, what benefit is gained? It is still just as illegal for them to physically posses it. I don't see how this would be any different than going the individual route and just letting the felon borrow the gun. If you get caught you are screwed either way.

I suppose the difference is with the trust the prohibited takes the item, they can show a LEO that they are on the forms, LEO might drop it. If it was an individual, the LEO knows prohibited cant have it, because they arent on the forms. LEO will investigate further to find that not only can they not have it, they are prohibited.