Proposed Rule Change

[samot]

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.

The CLEO removal
And the changes in the trusts have nothing to do with each other .
Even without the CLEO removal ATF had been working on the "trust loophole" ........
Everyone just correlates the two because they were written on the same piece of paper .

 

[samot]

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.

Eggzactly

 

[samot]

Is there any citation for this?

Yes
And more than 20 ongoing "current" issues

 

[JoshuaW]

Yes
And more than 20 ongoing "current" issues

Do you care to link to them or provide some form of reference for the rest of us who would like to look them over?

 

[boozoo]

Just to be 100% clear.... what they want in fingerprints would be the "responsible party" of the trust and not everyone on the trust? And this would be for every Form 4 submitted?

I'm not sure that closes any loopholes unless they plan to toss the responsible party in the pokey for having prohibited persons/etc in possession? Just seems like the way to really close it is to add a process for "clearing" anyone on the trust or being added to it.


So if I get a trust set up next month like I was thinking of doing, and the rules do change later... then only real change to me is fingerprints for every subsequent Form 4 after the rules change, right?

Right now the only reason I was looking at doing it was to set up my family as being able to take possession.

 

[samot]

Just to be 100% clear.... what they want in fingerprints would be the "responsible party" of the trust and not everyone on the trust? And this would be for every Form 4 submitted?

I'm not sure that closes any loopholes unless they plan to toss the responsible party in the pokey for having prohibited persons/etc in possession? Just seems like the way to really close it is to add a process for "clearing" anyone on the trust or being added to it.


So if I get a trust set up next month like I was thinking of doing, and the rules do change later... then only real change to me is fingerprints for every subsequent Form 4 after the rules change, right?

Right now the only reason I was looking at doing it was to set up my family as being able to take possession.

ATF has not determined what a / the responsible person is/will be .
And I am not 100% sure , but I dont think the prints and other required info would be for every form 4......
More for setting the trust up initially is the way they explained it.

 

[samot]

Do you care to link to them or provide some form of reference for the rest of us who would like to look them over?

After some sleep I will attempt to .

 

[IndyDave1776]

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

That sounds about right with one caveat: When in our lifetimes has the federal government felt any obligation to operate within the law?

 

[boozoo]

One more silly question.... if they do go the route of only requiring prints at the time of setup, did they mention anything about what they'll do regarding trusts that already exist?

 

[ryknoll3]

Nowhere has ATF hinted that the fingerprints might be a one time deal. This is just speculation by those that realize what a huge hassle it would be if you had several people on your trust to get prints and pics every time you submit a new Form 1/4. Thing is, NFA was set up to be a hassle and a burden, so I wouldn't be surprised if they did require that. They probably can't do anything about trusts that already exist until the trust acquires another item, then they will require the prints/pics for each "responsible person." (yet to be defined)