NY Times Article on Trusts


PDA






Speedo66
February 25, 2013, 08:07 PM
The Times today has an article on gun trusts, which of course get characterized as a "loophole".

They interview various law enforcement officials, gun store owners, and others.

Putting a spotlight on gun trusts on a national forum like the Times cannot bode well for their future.

My advice to anybody contemplating one is to get started as soon as possible.

Here's the article: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/in-gun-trusts-a-legal-loophole-for-restricted-firearms.html?hp&_r=0

If you enjoyed reading about "NY Times Article on Trusts" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
bikemutt
February 25, 2013, 08:24 PM
My SOT requires a BG check when an NFA item is transferred, I had no idea it was optional.

medalguy
February 26, 2013, 08:59 AM
Yep. A check is done on whoever picks up the gun upon transfer.

Bubbles
February 26, 2013, 12:18 PM
My SOT requires a BG check when an NFA item is transferred, I had no idea it was optional.
It's not required, but many FFL/SOT's including us will do one on whoever picks up the firearm if the transferee is a trust or corporation. I've never had a complaint about it.

This is also why the NFA branch is working on eliminating the CLEO signoff and making it notification, while simultaneously changing the process so that all members of a trust and/or corp need to submit fingerprints and photos with a F1 or F4.

Gato Montés
February 26, 2013, 02:17 PM
However, Jim Bueermann, the president of the Police Foundation, a research organization in Washington, said, “My guess is that the majority of police chiefs would agree that there is a reason why, as a general rule, people are prohibited from owning silencers, machine guns and what we would call sawed-off rifles or shotguns.”

Yes, and that reason is all of the ignorant lazy police chiefs out there who feel that this isn't their job. This whole "loophole" wouldn't exist if these PUBLIC servants served the public accordingly, as it's my opinion the ATF saw the gross negligence on the part of CLEO's in blocking the LEGAL sale of Title II items and allowed this to continue.

Maybe someone should inform super trooper Bueermann that the closing of this loophole comes at the cost of their special permission which they decide the ability of law abiding peasants to acquire said items.

What a clown.:fire:

Speedo66
February 26, 2013, 08:31 PM
"what we would call sawed-off rifles or shotgun".

Yep, no inflammatory language there. Or maybe he just never took the time to learn the proper name under the law.

Doesn't matter, chiefs are politicians, and go which ever way the political wind tells them to go.

AlexanderA
February 26, 2013, 10:16 PM
Doesn't matter, chiefs are politicians, and go which ever way the political wind tells them to go.

Police chiefs may be politicians, but they're appointed politicians. By and large, they don't have to stand for election, so they're not accountable to the public, but only to the next layer of officials who appoint them.

Sheriffs, on the other hand, are usually elected. In my jurisdiction, the sheriff is the one who signs as CLEO on NFA applications, not the police chief.

m21black
February 27, 2013, 09:33 AM
When the Resident State Trooper wanted to come to my house to check what I owned in order to get his sign off on a suppressor I contacted the ATF and a lawyer, the ATF inspector advised me to set up a trust, the lawyer stated that what the Trooper was requiring was illegal and actionable. I opted to use the lawyer to establish a trust.

rjrivero
February 27, 2013, 10:48 AM
My SOT requires a BG check when an NFA item is transferred, I had no idea it was optional.

It's not required, but many FFL/SOT's including us will do one on whoever picks up the firearm if the transferee is a trust or corporation. I've never had a complaint about it.

This is also why the NFA branch is working on eliminating the CLEO signoff and making it notification, while simultaneously changing the process so that all members of a trust and/or corp need to submit fingerprints and photos with a F1 or F4.

If the Form 4 is done as an individual, there is no NICS phone approval required. A 4473 must be filled out, but it does not have to be called into NICS at the time of transfer.

If the form 4 is done as another legal entity (LLC/Corp/Trust) then the person picking up the item MUST fill out a Form 4 and MUST call it in for approval prior to picking up the item. There is nothing "optional" about it. Clear and simple in the ATF 5320.8 Chapter 9.12 and 9.12.1

Section 9.12 Are FFLs/SOTs required to initiate a background check of the transferee under the Brady Law in connection with the transfer of an NFA firearm? No. Although 18 U.S.C. § 922(t) requires an FFL to complete a National Instant Criminal Background Checks System (NICS) check of the firearm recipient prior to completing the transfer, subsection 922(t)(3)(B) removes ATF-approved transfers of NFA firearms from the NICS requirement for individuals.

9.12.1 NFA Transfers to other than individuals. Subsequent to the approval of an application requesting to transfer an NFA firearm to, or on behalf of, a partnership, company, association, trust, estate, or corporation, the authorized person picking up the firearm on behalf of, a partnership, company, association, trust, estate, or corporation from the FFL must complete the Form 4473 with his/her personal information and undergo a NICS check. See also, question P60 in the ATF FAQs.

Bubbles
February 27, 2013, 12:56 PM
If the Form 4 is done as an individual, there is no NICS phone approval required. A 4473 must be filled out, but it does not have to be called into NICS at the time of transfer.

If the form 4 is done as another legal entity (LLC/Corp/Trust) then the person picking up the item MUST fill out a Form 4 and MUST call it in for approval prior to picking up the item. There is nothing "optional" about it. Clear and simple in the ATF 5320.8 Chapter 9.12 and 9.12.1
I'm well aware of what's in the NFA handbook. I'm also aware of my IOI telling me they can't do jack about it if FFL's don't run NICS since there's no statutory authority for it; ATF just published the info in the NFA handbook, but nothing in the law lets ATF enforce the provision.

Again, this is why the ATF wants everyone on a trust or corp to have to submit prints and photos, and it's being done in conjunction with the CLEO signoff becoming CLEO notification. All of that will get pushed through as an update to CFR 479, and that process will take a while.

JustinJ
February 27, 2013, 07:27 PM
Personally i found the article to actually be quite well done and balanced with input from different perspectives. By definition, if a trust holder or members of the trust can get an NFA item without the background check that comes with purchasing as an individual, it is a loophole. Just because something is a loophole does not automatically make it bad.

What i don't understand is why it takes so long to approve NFA items, especially if bought through a trust. If the NFA is not doing a background check, which shouldn't take six months either, what are they "reviewing" while we wait?

bikemutt
February 27, 2013, 09:08 PM
What i don't understand is why it takes so long to approve NFA items, especially if bought through a trust. If the NFA is not doing a background check, which shouldn't take six months either, what are they "reviewing" while we wait?

The way it was explained to me is on average it takes 6 minutes to process each form. If you consider the number of forms, the number of inspectors and the number of minutes in each business day, the picture becomes more clear.

It's the old canard; nine women cannot produce a baby in one month.

Akita1
February 27, 2013, 10:32 PM
The lawyer quoted in the article is setting up my NFA. We all know that the Old Grey Lady has an agenda but admit they treated him with less than their usual gross contextual abuse.

JTW Jr.
February 27, 2013, 10:39 PM
Interesting... if you look at their data:

http://www.atf.gov/statistics/

1,112,041 NFA Firearms Processed by Fiscal Year

137,649 NFA Forms Processed by Fiscal Year ( 2012 )....

tepin
February 28, 2013, 01:28 AM
Also... close the NFA - how many federal jobs do you kill? Probably not gonna happen.

Gato Montés
February 28, 2013, 11:31 AM
Personally i found the article to actually be quite well done and balanced with input from different perspectives. By definition, if a trust holder or members of the trust can get an NFA item without the background check that comes with purchasing as an individual, it is a loophole. Just because something is a loophole does not automatically make it bad.

What i don't understand is why it takes so long to approve NFA items, especially if bought through a trust. If the NFA is not doing a background check, which shouldn't take six months either, what are they "reviewing" while we wait?

It takes so long because there are like 9 examiners for EVERYONE! At $200 a pop (OK, sometimes $5) you'd think they could at least double the amount of staff they have.

My problem with the article stems from the assumption that the LEO certification on Form1/4s is asking permission; it's not. The question asked on the form is as follows:

I have no information indicating that the transferee will use the firearm or device described on this application for other than lawful purposes. I have no information that the receipt or possession of the firearm or device described in item 4 would be place the transferee in violation of State or local law.

It's a simple local check, that's it. In case a law was in the process of being passed they don't want people from that jurisdiction jumping last minute, nor if that person is involved with a legal case where his rights may be stripped if found guilty. But if neither of these two elements are in play then it is the duty of that CLEO to sign the form. He may not simply choose not to; it's his job, and if he is uncomfortable because of his lack of knowledge on the process then it's his job to inform himself.

My CLEO gratefully signed my forms. In fact, he was so excited at the prospect of me getting a silencer he wants me to bring it with my firearms to the station to demonstrate at the station's range. He also opened up that range for my use any time as long as they weren't using it for quals. I have an awesome CLEO, but lots do not. There is a reason they are getting rid of the CLEO certification, because a lot of these clowns were screwing over law abiding citizens out of sheer arrogance.

JTW Jr.
March 1, 2013, 01:22 AM
there are like 9 examiners for EVERYONE!

I thought the total of full time was 21 , with 9 part-time or seasonal positions on top of that now ?

Bubbles
March 1, 2013, 10:41 AM
There are nine examiners, the remainder are contractor examiner's assistants.

There was a job posting on usajobs.gov a while back for more examiners but I don't know if those folks have started yet.

CoRoMo
March 1, 2013, 11:40 AM
At $200 a pop (OK, sometimes $5) you'd think they could at least double the amount of staff they have.
LOL!!

That'd be assuming the bureau actually wanted to expedite the rights of American gun owners!

rdhood
March 1, 2013, 11:47 AM
The way it was explained to me is on average it takes 6 minutes to process each form.

and

137,649 NFA Forms Processed by Fiscal Year ( 2012 )....

These two items means that it takes about 10-11 people to handle all of the NFA items per year. That is about $1 million in salaries/benefits.
137649 applications at $200 each produces about $27,529,800 in revenue. By my estimation, the NFA is raking in the money and giving piss poor service.

CoRoMo
March 1, 2013, 12:11 PM
I'm flat-out surprised that they don't have only one part-time examiner as opposed to focusing nine full time employees with Cadillac benefits packages to the task.

Bubbles
March 1, 2013, 12:14 PM
137649 applications at $200 each produces about $27,529,800 in revenue...
That's all forms, not just F1's and F4's. Remember that there's no tax paid when submitting a F2, F3, F5, F6, and F10.

If you enjoyed reading about "NY Times Article on Trusts" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!