ATF draft rule published to close "Trust Loophole"
- Thread starter CanDoEZ
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast
Member Benefits:
No ad networks! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
awptickes
Member
Read the EO. It was a nonsensical move to try to keep the focus of the media on guns. The EO didn't do anything...
The key part is CLEO approval FOR transfers into the trust.
This will deny many htousands of people from NFA based on their local CLEO.
It also may create a situation where existing NFA held in Trusts might be declared improperly registered, retroactively, and therefore contraband to be surendered for disposal.
All depends on how hard they want to f#ck gun owners. My guess? Pretty hard. Look for this to happen after the new rules get in place.
They reverse themselves all the time.
Ask Bill Akins.
This will deny many htousands of people from NFA based on their local CLEO.
It also may create a situation where existing NFA held in Trusts might be declared improperly registered, retroactively, and therefore contraband to be surendered for disposal.
All depends on how hard they want to f#ck gun owners. My guess? Pretty hard. Look for this to happen after the new rules get in place.
They reverse themselves all the time.
Ask Bill Akins.
Lex Armarum
Ultimate Member
- Oct 19, 2009
- 3,450
There is no requirement for CLEO approval for trust transfers; the rule merely requirement CLEO notification for all transfers which the law currently requires only for individual transfers.
As for ex post facto registration, legally I do not believe the ATF can do that. The law, as written now, allows trust ownership w/out fingerprints and photographs. Nothing the ATF does in the future can change that fact.
Lex Armarum
Ultimate Member
- Oct 19, 2009
- 3,450
Watch here:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions[publication_date][is]=08%2F29%2F2013&conditions[type]=PRORULE
and here:
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201304&RIN=1140-AA43
to see if, and when, the ATF posts the new proposed rule for comment.
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/search?conditions[publication_date][is]=08%2F29%2F2013&conditions[type]=PRORULE
and here:
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201304&RIN=1140-AA43
to see if, and when, the ATF posts the new proposed rule for comment.
Here you go....
http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/08/3...hecks-for-fictitious-entity-nfa-applications/
This says they're considering requiring CLEO sign-off for all "responsible persons" in a trust.
This whole thing is a cluster f*ck. People can be added/removed from a trust at any time iaw state law - how can the government try to regulate this?
http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/08/3...hecks-for-fictitious-entity-nfa-applications/
This says they're considering requiring CLEO sign-off for all "responsible persons" in a trust.
This whole thing is a cluster f*ck. People can be added/removed from a trust at any time iaw state law - how can the government try to regulate this?
Yep, told ya so.
C'mon guys - you're not being cynical enough here to keep up with what is the actual intent of things like this.
You guys wanna talk "law this" and "law that"... STOP IT! Laws mean nothing. Interpretation of the law is everything. And you aren't the ones deciding how it's interpreted, are you? Same for policy. You don't write it, and you don't implement it, either.
Forget trying to read and determine what the law is and start examining their intent instead.
They are democrats. They want to ban guns - period. If they can't ban them outright, they want to make them as hard to get as possible, for as few people as possible. If they can't get everything they want, then they'll settle for everything they can get. This example falls under that rule.
The only purpose of this policy change is to bar tens of thousands, maybe more, people from owning NFA.
That's it. That's all. It really is that simple.
They just realized that with a simple policy change, without any act of Congress or any input from anyone, that they can f#ck with people they don't like. Why on earth do you think they'd pass up that opportunity? Remember who we're talking about here... Saul Alinsky wrote the playbook for these people.
Two upsides that I can see...
1) prices on NFA, especially MG's, will be coming down some as lots of potential buyers are removed from the pool because the CLEO where they live won't sign. Bad for those folks, good for everyone else.
2) God-willing, this country won't last much longer anyway, and NFA laws will be moot in whatever confederation of regional unions that organize after it breaks up. We need a couple more democrats like the current idiot, and 20 million former illegals to bring it about in the next couple decades, but it's gonna happen.
That's the short and sweet of it, yep.
fightinbluhen51
"Quack Pot Call Honker"
- Oct 31, 2008
- 8,974
All of this fast paced BS serves but two purposes; to discourage folks from buying arms and to turn those that own them into criminals. Nothing more, nothing less.
Makes me want to get a few things and be done with things that aren't Joe Biden specials.
Makes me want to get a few things and be done with things that aren't Joe Biden specials.
Lex Armarum
Ultimate Member
- Oct 19, 2009
- 3,450
STOP. Read my posts in SWO Daddy's original thread before going off the deep end
Users who are viewing this thread
Forum statistics
Latest threads
-
Just want to thank the extremely awesome folks at Tyler Firearms (5 Viewers)- Started by GenoBluzGtr
- Replies: 4
-
-
Clearance Liqui Moly Motorbike 4T SAE 15W-50 Street | Full Synthetic Motor Oil | 4 Liter (2 Viewers)- Started by mpollan1
- Replies: 3
-
-
-
-
