More media BS... Now it's NFA Trusts!!!!

[No2sc2]

Supposedly under NFA handbook, people who used corps or Trust must be NICS checked when picking up the approved item. Alot of them just ignore it since form 4473 doesn't specify when selling NFA items. It just has the option "No background check required for NFA items".

Its not illegal to not check NICS on Trust/corps applicants. Its at the dealer's discretion just like "delayed" NICS after 3 days.

 

[batoncolle]

I cannot honestly say I have definitive proof they run a background check, but everything I have read from SMEs says they do a similar type of NICS background check, and then they verify the trust and person against state laws to ensure they can be in possession of a firearm. There is a reason these things take forever or otherwise they would just be rubber stamping. Also yeah you can add a prohibited person to a Trust, but providing them access to the firearm would be crime and the Trust itself gives access in writing so this is a slippery slope.

 

[batoncolle]

One other point to add. Unless you used to work with the ATF or know someone that worked in the department, we are pretty much all speculating on some of these items. You basically have to read as much as you can and form your own common sense opinions.

NFA items are in a grey area for reason. Original legislation was a complete cluster because as usual the pols had no clue about the subject matter they were attempting to legislate on in that period. In addition no one commits crimes with NFA items because if you go through all this trouble you are a law abiding citizen. The only crimes committed with NFA items I am aware of are the guy with the suppressor. And from everything I have read, the nutjob ex-cop Dorner, flaming liberal I might add, did not actually use an NFA item to commit his crimes, but I could have missed something. As such the libs have not had a "crisis" to push their agenda on NFA items so now they are simply trying to manufacture one out of thin air with this trust issue - kind of like Fast and Furious.

 

[Quiet Riot Firearms]

You're right, we are all speculating. I would be very surprised if the ATF was not doing at least 10,000' background checks on every name in the trust. NO I don't have proof of this, but to just say "they dont have fingerprints so they aren't background checking" is kinda naive. Why are trusts taking just as long as individual transfers? The ATF blames the FBI for the long wait due to background checks.

 

[old fogie]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/gun-trusts-legal-loophole-report-002821658.html



What a bunch of CRAP!!! They start off with "The New York Times reports that gun trusts are intended to allow the owner of a firearm to pass down his or her weapons to family members in a responsible way." -- Right, we should get RIGHT on that problem, cause who would want to pass down a suppressor to his widow, without making her an instant felon? Insanity I say!

So by having a trust they make it sound like you just pop over to the gun store and whistle out with a new SBS or suppressor. Doesn't mention the fact that there's STILL a 6 month wait and a ATF background check. Yeah, real big loophole there!!!

We then go on to say the insane cop had an NFA trust... But did he USE any of those items in his spree?

I don't think it would be speculating to say that when confiscation time comes, NFA Trusts will be first on the list.

 

[atl3695]

No speculation. In the article itself, the ATF confirms that background checks aren't done on trusts and corporations. In this time of pushing new laws, do you think they wanted to admit they are doing such a poor job with administering current ones.

Why do a background check when even if something comes back, the form has to be approved? a crime is not commited until a prohibited person POSSESES the weapon. the gun can be in Atlanta and the trustee who signed could be in Savannah and never even see the weapon. that is perfectly legal.

Could you imagine if security corporations like Blackwater or Wacenhut or the other hundreds of security firms in this country, had to get clearance for EVERYONE who might be using class 3 weapons. For each weapon? Your talking thousands of people and it would take forever. No, the gun is registered to the corp alone and they distribute to employees. The employee who signs for the corporation could be a 3 time felon, but as long as he doesn't take possession of the weapons, it is ok. The guns are registered to the corp/trust, not him, he is just an agent.

Many laws in tis country favor corps and allow them to do things individuals cannot. This is just another example. In the eyes of the law, a corporation is a "person". That "person" is the one registering the weapon. Not the trustee, grantor, or beneficiary.

 

[batoncolle]

You're right, we are all speculating. I would be very surprised if the ATF was not doing at least 10,000' background checks on every name in the trust. NO I don't have proof of this, but to just say "they dont have fingerprints so they aren't background checking" is kinda naive. Why are trusts taking just as long as individual transfers? The ATF blames the FBI for the long wait due to background checks.

Yes I know. I agree with you. My point was on certain NFA matters, which are grey areas, you need to educate yourself and form your own opinion. Most of the laws on the books are pretty clear cut to follow - it's just some of the procedures.

 

[batoncolle]

No speculation. In the article itself, the ATF confirms that background checks aren't done on trusts and corporations. In this time of pushing new laws, do you think they wanted to admit they are doing such a poor job with administering current ones. .

The day I actually believe what the ATF and NY Times say is the day I know this country has done a 180 degree turn. As I said previously I have read enough SMEs to form my own opinion on the matter, and I feel pretty confident they do some type of background check similar to NICS which does not require fingerprints.

Why do a background check when even if something comes back, the form has to be approved? a crime is not commited until a prohibited person POSSESES the weapon. the gun can be in Atlanta and the trustee who signed could be in Savannah and never even see the weapon. that is perfectly legal.

I am no lawyer, but I would assume this falls somewhere in the area of intent, and you would have to be a fool to do it. Probably why we have yet to ever see a legal issue in this area.

Could you imagine if security corporations like Blackwater or Wacenhut or the other hundreds of security firms in this country, had to get clearance for EVERYONE who might be using class 3 weapons. For each weapon? Your talking thousands of people and it would take forever. No, the gun is registered to the corp alone and they distribute to employees. The employee who signs for the corporation could be a 3 time felon, but as long as he doesn't take possession of the weapons, it is ok. The guns are registered to the corp/trust, not him, he is just an agent.

Many laws in tis country favor corps and allow them to do things individuals cannot. This is just another example. In the eyes of the law, a corporation is a "person". That "person" is the one registering the weapon. Not the trustee, grantor, or beneficiary.

We are not talking about corporations here, and neither was the article. We are talking about trusts although you can also form a corporation for NFA items, but they are separate legal entities. Personally I had no choice but to go the trust route because the CLEOs in my area at the time would not do it, one of which later resigned under questionable activities. Funny how that works.

A trust is actually one of the last levels of asset protection an individual has in this country, and they are used to do a lot more than acquiring NFA items. I recently set up an asset protection trust for my mother that costs a heckuva lot more than a firearm trust. And I plan to do one for myself as well in the near future just to protect my family from a grandfathered standpoint.

 

[atl3695]

We are not talking about corporations here, and neither was the article. We are talking about trusts although you can also form a corporation for NFA items, but they are separate legal entities.

A trust is actually one of the last levels of asset protection an individual has in this country, and they are used to do a lot more than acquiring NFA items. I recently set up an asset protection trust for my mother that costs a heckuva lot more than a firearm trust. And I plan to do one for myself as well in the near future just to protect my family from a grandfathered standpoint.

If you set one up recently, you know a trust is also a separate legal entity. The ATF makes no distinction between corps and trust in relation to nfa items. Same exact process. They recently proposed a new rule requiring checks on trust members and principle officers of the corp. Why would they need this if already done?

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

The offset of this proposal is the CLEO sign off requirement would be removed.

Never underestimate the stupidity of government laws. My point in original post was not to get into a debate, but just to point out this was not some "media bs" that will blow over. Especially after Dormer, the trust rules will be changed. Was just suggesting any one that had been putting it off, get it done now.

 

[batoncolle]

If you set one up recently, you know a trust is also a separate legal entity. The ATF makes no distinction between corps and trust in relation to nfa items. Same exact process. They recently proposed a new rule requiring checks on trust members and principle officers of the corp. Why would they need this if already done?

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

The offset of this proposal is the CLEO sign off requirement would be removed.

Never underestimate the stupidity of government laws. My point in original post was not to get into a debate, but just to point out this was not some "media bs" that will blow over. Especially after Dormer, the trust rules will be changed. Was just suggesting any one that had been putting it off, get it done now.

A trust and a corporation will get you the same results in the end, but you have to jump through a lot more hoops when setting up a corp, and it is more costly which is why the vast majority go the trust route.

And the NFA rule changes were already proposed before the crazed liberal Dorner did his thing. IMHO the rules changes were proposed for two reasons: 1. To get more control over the current process because we continue to let them strip our rights. 2. To perform background checks on trust members other than the Grantor, or whoever initiates the NFA process. I never said I thought they were running background checks on everyone on a Trust. I think it is just the person initiating the original paperwork.

And we are both in agreement that you should get it done asap.