Forget the proposal to add background checks to Trusts. It gets much WORSE

Silencers and short barrels are not specifically listed. Just sayin.

I would believe this falls under the phrase "NFA firearm". And it does specifically mention applications to make a firearm, which is a Form 1. While a complete firearm would be transferred on a Form 4, if anyone wants to make their own SBR it is filed on a Form 1.


I would say the descriptions in this proposal are vague for a reason, and it is not friendly to the legal gunowner.
 
All that will really depend on how they define 'responsible person'. Is that limited to just the executor, or do the beneficiaries and trustees also count? If you add someone to your Schedule B, but remove them before you apply for another stamp, do you still have to supply their background data?

This could get so convoluted it's ridiculous, and that's just simple gun trusts.

Imagine if you were a firearms prop company for movies, and you had a couple of hundred NFA firearms registered to your corporation. Does this mean that everyone in the corporation now needs a background check? Just the firearms techs who touch them? Just the board of directors and CEO?

It'll be interesting. Hopefully they will be forced to realize what a problem this is and quietly back off.

Folks often forget the non-enthusiast nfa guys. Very good point here.
 
If anyone has written a really good response to the Federal Register in the comment section then what if you post it in this discussion and we can all copy and paste and submit to the Federal Register.
Thanks
 
Here's problem #1 right for us GA trust folks...

"...if other than a natural person (e.g., a corporation or trust), by the name and address of the principal officer or authorized representative of the entity, as well as the employer identification number of the entity."

We here don;t have to file our trusts in GA, or get an employee identification number, yet this rule is saying that is required now. That means the trust now has to be registered with the IRS.

Great.
 
Wow, no wonder the NFATCA were so quick to shout 'it wasn't us!'. The ATF just threw them under the bus...

"ATF received a petition for rulemaking, dated December 3, 2009, filed on behalf of the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association (NFATCA). The petition requests amendments to §§ 479.63 and 479.85, as well as to corresponding ATF Forms 1 and 4."

...

The NFATCA expressed concern that persons who are prohibited by law from possessing or receiving firearms may acquire NFA firearms through the establishment of a legal entity such as a corporation, trust, or partnership.
 
OK, so by 'responsible person' they mean literally everyone...

...the term includes any individual, including any grantor, trustee, beneficiary, partner, member, officer, director, board member, owner, shareholder, or manager, who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any trust instrument, contract, agreement, article, certificate, bylaw, or instrument, or under state law, to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the entity.
 
If anyone has written a really good response to the Federal Register in the comment section then what if you post it in this discussion and we can all copy and paste and submit to the Federal Register.
Thanks

This link was posted in another thread by QRF.

In "theory" they should be reading and reviewing all comments so we do not want copy and paste the same comment. If they truly are reviewing all comments, then send a ton of well written individual comments, and keep them reading until 11:59 am January 20th, 2017.
 
Back
Top Bottom