ATF draft rule published to close "Trust Loophole"

I don't like how it says the forms must be sent to the CLEO in the jurisdiction of the entity. I see no reason to let local police know what I have if I can help it. That's part of what people use trusts for.

teratos said:

They can argue that you can still (in free States) buy firearms without all of the hubub of photos/prints. A SBR or AOW is not necessary for the exercise of that right. Of course, if you look at Miller, they looked at military firearms in use at the time. In this era, that would be the M4, which is both FA and a SBR.......

Click to expand...

That sums up the arguments pretty well.

I can't wait for the day that NFA is challenged and judged to be the unconstitutional pile of excrement that it is, but I know we're taking baby steps down that path to build the precedent case by case and there are bigger fish to fry first.

Is the actual proposed rule available? I hope I don't need my wife's (co-trustee) prints every time I buy an NFA item... she doesn't even know about the NFA stuff I buy until it comes home.

Guess who's probably about to be axed as a trustee?

HT4 said:

Is the actual proposed rule available? I hope I don't need my wife's (co-trustee) prints every time I buy an NFA item... she doesn't even know about the NFA stuff I buy until it comes home.

Guess who's probably about to be axed as a trustee?

Click to expand...

I think this is it - http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43 (ETA - was in Post #2, as well).

MJD438 said:

I think this is it - http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43 (ETA - was in Post #2, as well).

Click to expand...

I saw that. It's the abstract, not the rule. The link appears to be to current regs, not the proposed regs.

Subscribing to the thread.

2AHokie said:

That sums up the arguments pretty well.

I can't wait for the day that NFA is challenged and judged to be the unconstitutional pile of excrement that it is, but I know we're taking baby steps down that path to build the precedent case by case and there are bigger fish to fry first.

Click to expand...

Me too. I think they would have an easy time of keeping some of the AOW's and SBS's tightly regulated. If you have an originalist SCOTUS, the M4 would be cash and carry.

HT4 said:

Is the actual proposed rule available? I hope I don't need my wife's (co-trustee) prints every time I buy an NFA item... she doesn't even know about the NFA stuff I buy until it comes home.

Guess who's probably about to be axed as a trustee?

Click to expand...

The fact they are trying to define a new type of person(s) as "responsible person", lends me to believe this would be a one time thing for trusts and corporations. After you submit all the photos and fingerprints, they would presumably be accepted on future NFA transfers. I can't imagine corporations doing photos and fingerprints for each new NFA item for each new person, that would be a paperwork disaster!

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

Click to expand...

2AHokie said:

This isn't fully directed at you, but...

I disagree that having to submit photos and fingerprints for inclusion in some massive government database to exercise a fundamental human right can ever be considered a good thing.

Click to expand...

If you're going to argue that, you may as well also argue for abolition of BATFE under a strict interpretation of the 2A and relegating firearms laws and regulations, if any, to the states.

Yes, the National Firearms Act is unConstitutional. But that ship has sailed.

squirrels said:

If you're going to argue that, you may as well also argue for abolition of BATFE under a strict interpretation of the 2A and relegating firearms laws and regulations, if any, to the states.

Yes, the National Firearms Act is unConstitutional. But that ship has sailed.

Click to expand...

I do argue that. Almost everything our federal government does is unconstitutional under 10A and a lot more of whatever is left is unconstitutional under 1A, 2A, and 4A, but that's another topic for a different thread.

And I don't think NFA has been challenged in a post-Heller/post-McDonald legal landscape. There's lots of groundwork to do first - like "establish" the crazy notion that our inalienable human rights don't end when we step out our front doors just because politicians think they should.

I don't want to get too off-topic, but I just wanted to chime in and expose another point of view that doesn't appreciate being extorted into inclusion in an expansive biometric database meant to identify criminals, when I have broken no law. This possible (likely?) rule change is nothing to cheer about, from where I'm sitting.

If it's just one-time to submit the prints and photos of the trustees, that's not a big deal.

I need a trust so my wife can use my NFA items. That doesn't go away because I've got more paperwork to do now.

No CLEO sign off so the need for a trust (as used by the majority of us) will be nullified.

HT4 said:

I hope I don't need my wife's (co-trustee) prints every time I buy an NFA item.

Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing.

erwos said:

If it's just one-time to submit the prints and photos of the trustees, that's not a big deal.

Click to expand...

Yeah. If you need prints everytime it's going to add up $ and hassle fast.

squirrels said:

This is a good thing.

The biggest hassle with NFA paperwork wasn't the photos and prints, it was the fact that you had to send it to two agencies (CLEO and BATFE) for sign-off. The main reason for most NFA trusts was to bypass CLEO sign-off.

Now you go straight to BATFE...one-stop.

Everyone thought they were clever with the NFA trust system. No one thinks of the potential downsides...particularly the possibility that the SC or some other court could rule that trusts don't enjoy the same rights (i.e. 2A) as individual citizens, if someone wanted to press the issue.

I am surprised that so many people just wanted to pretend that this wasn't coming.

Click to expand...

Agreed, this has been in the air for a while....

Arcamm said:

So is it worth doing a trust now?

Click to expand...

it depends on the individuals circumstance. Since my wife has full legal access due to being on the trust she can play NFA all day if she wants without me having to hold her hand. Plus if I am deceased I believe it makes it much easier for her.

squirrels said:

This is a good thing.

The biggest hassle with NFA paperwork wasn't the photos and prints, it was the fact that you had to send it to two agencies (CLEO and BATFE) for sign-off. The main reason for most NFA trusts was to bypass CLEO sign-off.

Now you go straight to BATFE...one-stop.

Everyone thought they were clever with the NFA trust system. No one thinks of the potential downsides...particularly the possibility that the SC or some other court could rule that trusts don't enjoy the same rights (i.e. 2A) as individual citizens, if someone wanted to press the issue.

I am surprised that so many people just wanted to pretend that this wasn't coming.

Click to expand...

Arcamm said:

So is it worth doing a trust now?

Click to expand...

Mike OTDP said:

In my opinion, no.

Click to expand...

Actually, there are still benefits to owning NFA items under a trust as opposed to individual ownership. Yes, the fingerprint, photopgraph, and CLEO sign-off exception was a big factor for many NFA enthusiasts for getting a trust but that isn't the only benefit of an NFA trust.

Here are some benefits of NFA trusts besides avoidance of fingerprints, photographs, and CLEO sign-off:

1. A trust lets you share your NFA items with other people not under your direct supervision. As an individual owner, you cannot let another person use your NFA items unless that person is under your direct supervision. A trust grants other trusted persons unfettered and unsupervised access to your NFA items such as your spouse, friends, family members, etc. Whomever you choose to name as a co-trustee.

2. A trust serves your estate planning and unforeseen circumstances needs. If you die as an individual owner, your spouse or personal representative of your estate must file the appropriate paperwork with the ATF to transfer the ownership of your items from you to your estate/heirs. In the throws of grief, I do not believe that your family members will remember to file that paperwork in a timely matter. A trust with a substitute trustee obviates this problem by providing for a fail and a mechanism to pass your items on. Also, if at some point in the future, you are declared a "prohibited person" under the law, a trust provides a mechanism for passing on your NFA firearms in a controlled fashion instead of a fire sale in order to get those firearms out of your possession (remember, as an individual owner, you cannot just hand them over to a third party to hold until you find a new owner for your toys).

3. A trust is as much an investment vehicle/ownership mechanism as it is a means to circumvent the f/p/CLEO requirement. A trust places the NFA items out of your name directly and into the trusts name meaning that said items are protected from different types of liability. The trust can also have financial benefits if you happen to make a profit on your NFA items.

I knew that when the ATF published this rule that many folks would say that there wasn't a benefit to an NFA trust anymore but those folks are dead wrong. They fail to understand the utility of trusts and the benefits trusts provide. A short-sighted person only looks at the f/p/CLEO benefits and fails to realize the other benefits that their NFA trust bestows.

I hope this helps some folks understand.

2AHokie said:

This isn't fully directed at you, but...

I disagree that having to submit photos and fingerprints for inclusion in some massive government database to exercise a fundamental human right can ever be considered a good thing.

Looks like I missed the boat on getting into NFA items.

*Cue the "if you don't have something to hide..." responses*

Click to expand...

teratos said:

They can argue that you can still (in free States) buy firearms without all of the hubub of photos/prints. A SBR or AOW is not necessary for the exercise of that right. Of course, if you look at Miller, they looked at military firearms in use at the time. In this era, that would be the M4, which is both FA and a SBR.......

Click to expand...

It may not be necessary for the exercise of that right, BUT the consistution was rather explicit in stating that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed". Would you like a pointy stick, Sir? No waiting, no registration.

Why do you think they did that? Because they knew that arms would evolve and that restrictions on specific arms would not be in the best interest of a free populace. So you can argue all day that I have the right to bear arms by giving me a pointy stick, but that ignores a clearly stated directive in the consistution. The right to bear arms is the ONLY one where the drafters of the constitution went out of their way to specifically and unequivocally state a right was not to be infringed. It should be obvious to all but the most intellectually challenged that this is the intent of the clause "shall not be infringed".

I also agree, that requiring fingerprints and photos is not something that free persons should submit to in the exercise of their natural and guarranteed rights. Government mandated fingerprints and photos once were generally reserved for criminals and security clearances/positions of public trust. No the government wants more and more control. We didn't always have drivers licenses, social security cards, photo id, etc. In 1935 only 39 of the states even had drivers licenses! Speaking of which, you can get a drivers license at 14 in South Dakota, and driving tests there didn't even exist until 1959. Drivers licenses were never about "safety" and always were about control/revenue.

Now we have more government control headed your way... how soon until they want DNA samples (like the military)?

bobthefisher said:

The fact they are trying to define a new type of person(s) as "responsible person", lends me to believe this would be a one time thing for trusts and corporations. After you submit all the photos and fingerprints, they would presumably be accepted on future NFA transfers. I can't imagine corporations doing photos and fingerprints for each new NFA item for each new person, that would be a paperwork disaster!

Click to expand...

That would be logical, but we are dealing with the government... Don't forget that you send a new copy of your trust with every form 1 or 4... or a new fingerprint card and picture. Requiring extra copies of crap they don't need has never phased Uncle Sam before. This ain't a model of effeciency that we are dealing with here.

That said, I will with you retain hope that logic will invade this utterly illlogical process.

Any idea on when this will take affect?

Rusty Shackleford said:

Actually, there are still benefits to owning NFA items under a trust as opposed to individual ownership. Yes, the fingerprint, photopgraph, and CLEO sign-off exception was a big factor for many NFA enthusiasts for getting a trust but that isn't the only benefit of an NFA trust.

Here are some benefits of NFA trusts besides avoidance of fingerprints, photographs, and CLEO sign-off:

1. A trust lets you share your NFA items with other people not under your direct supervision. As an individual owner, you cannot let another person use your NFA items unless that person is under your direct supervision. A trust grants other trusted persons unfettered and unsupervised access to your NFA items such as your spouse, friends, family members, etc. Whomever you choose to name as a co-trustee.

2. A trust serves your estate planning and unforeseen circumstances needs. If you die as an individual owner, your spouse or personal representative of your estate must file the appropriate paperwork with the ATF to transfer the ownership of your items from you to your estate/heirs. In the throws of grief, I do not believe that your family members will remember to file that paperwork in a timely matter. A trust with a substitute trustee obviates this problem by providing for a fail and a mechanism to pass your items on. Also, if at some point in the future, you are declared a "prohibited person" under the law, a trust provides a mechanism for passing on your NFA firearms in a controlled fashion instead of a fire sale in order to get those firearms out of your possession (remember, as an individual owner, you cannot just hand them over to a third party to hold until you find a new owner for your toys).

3. A trust is as much an investment vehicle/ownership mechanism as it is a means to circumvent the f/p/CLEO requirement. A trust places the NFA items out of your name directly and into the trusts name meaning that said items are protected from different types of liability. The trust can also have financial benefits if you happen to make a profit on your NFA items.

I knew that when the ATF published this rule that many folks would say that there wasn't a benefit to an NFA trust anymore but those folks are dead wrong. They fail to understand the utility of trusts and the benefits trusts provide. A short-sighted person only looks at the f/p/CLEO benefits and fails to realize the other benefits that their NFA trust bestows.

I hope this helps some folks understand.

Click to expand...

Rusty, while all of your benefits are valid.

One very big concern is now all of my trustees will need to submit photos, and fingerprints every time I make an NFA purchase. I don't think that is sustainable for me as we are geographically dispersed. Unless I have read this wrong, I will actually need to remove everyone but myself from the trust. The biggest reason I got a trust is because I value my time more than any other benefits. Anything that is reasonably priced that will save me time, is a win in my book.