ATF sends NFA trust rule change proposal to Whitehouse


PDA






scndactive
August 27, 2013, 12:33 AM
http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pending-regs/318133-white-house-reviewing-draft-gun-control-rul

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is working on a new regulation that would require more background information when the weapons are sold to someone through a corporation or legal trust

Sorry if this is a duplicate, or just plain hot air. Ran across it while looking into getting a suppressor. Can anyone confirm or deny?

Story was written 8/21/13, and says the proposal was sent on 8/20/13, but the document in the link to .gov is dated 07/00/13 ???? what the.......:scrutiny:

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

If you enjoyed reading about "ATF sends NFA trust rule change proposal to Whitehouse" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Arizona_Mike
August 27, 2013, 03:37 AM
This was proposed a few times before and died, the most recent being 2012. It would negate the new dealer-to-trust all electronic system as well so it is probably a parallel efford by someone in the administration and not a ATF priority.

Mike

crazy-mp
August 27, 2013, 10:28 PM
This is partly true new changes in F4's would eliminate the sheriff sign off and make it notification, so you would drop papers off that said I am getting a suppressor, SBR etc. With that change all members of a trust LLC or corp would have to submit fingerprints. This may be the "more background information".

scndactive
August 28, 2013, 08:15 AM
Notification to the CLEO instead of sign off sounds great, but what will you do when they ask for proof of notification, and the CLEO refuses?

Neither the ATF nor this administration will ever do any thing to expand our 2A rights.

taliv
August 28, 2013, 04:26 PM
i'm surprised they didn't revoke the citizenship card too

crazy-mp
August 28, 2013, 10:30 PM
Notification to the CLEO instead of sign off sounds great, but what will you do when they ask for proof of notification, and the CLEO refuses?

When you apply for a FFL, no matter what kind you have to notify the local sheriff, what they do with the application I have no idea. It most likely varies from department to department, most probably shred it a few might have a file cabinet with them, and there will probably be a couple that will keep a file with who bought what, like I said no evidence of any but just a guess.

Aaron Baker
August 28, 2013, 10:30 PM
Requiring fingerprints and photographs for all trustees makes no sense.

It would become standard for the grantor to amend the trust to remove all trustees before submitting the paperwork, then amend the trust again a week later to add back the trustees.

The ATF can't re-write state trust law, no matter how badly they may want to.

Aaron

Arizona_Mike
August 29, 2013, 11:43 AM
I think I was right about this being political. It's being rolled out by the president along with a new ban on reimportation of surplus guns. At a time the process is taking more than a year (several weeks for the check, 8-10 weeks to go pending and 9mo from pending to approved) this is the last thing the system needs.

Prince Yamato
August 29, 2013, 06:04 PM
It's purely political. The president is acting like a child and trying to punish those who are in opposition to him. He got butt-hurt when people rejected calls for gun control. None of the changes will decrease crime. They are only punitive measures enacted against the law abiding.

Bubbles
August 30, 2013, 01:42 PM
Someone else will have to read through this and correct me if I'm wrong, but IMO folks with trusts are getting a very raw deal out of this - see pg 13-16. CLEO signoff is being expanded to trusts and corps, with prints and photos now required as well.

https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/inside-atf/2013/082913-wash-machine-guns-destructive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf

AlexanderA
August 30, 2013, 06:12 PM
I've read the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Contrary to earlier reports, the CLEO signoff requirement is not being eliminated. Instead, it's being extended to "responsible parties" of trusts and corporations. (The only tweak is that the CLEO statement will not contain the words that the CLEO "has no knowledge" that the weapon will be used illegally -- the statement will still have to certify that possession would not violate state or local law.)

There is nothing in the proposed regulations that would address the problem of willful non-signing by CLEO's. If you're in a jurisdiction in which the CLEO refuses to sign, you won't have the option of getting around this by forming a trust. In cases like that, we'll be back to trying to find compliant alternatives, such as judges or DA's, that are willing to sign. Or, we'll be forced to move to a friendlier jurisdiction, or to give up the idea of owning an NFA weapon.

The economic effect will be to make an illiquid NFA market even more illiquid. Eventually, prices will have to come down -- but this won't help you if you can't get "permission."

Bartholomew Roberts
August 30, 2013, 08:00 PM
If you wish to comment on the proposed regulation, Reference Docket Number ATF41P and follow instructions at www.regulations.gov or see page 49 of the above-linked PDF for how to send a hardcopy (confidential comment) that will not be public record.

Prince Yamato
August 31, 2013, 12:58 AM
I think the non-compliant CLEO deal can be resolved if states pass "shall-sign" laws that require a CLEO to sign off on NFA items provided the person in question is not prohibited.

This would effectively negate the issue of CLEOs not signing.

Bartholomew Roberts
August 31, 2013, 08:40 AM
This would effectively negate the issue of CLEOs not signing

The Texas legislature doesn't meet again until 2015 - and some states just aren't ever going to pass that law - which means less demand for NFA items and ultimately fewer companies making them.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 4, 2013, 05:43 AM
Tom Odom at the Prince Law Blog has prepared an analysis of procedural problems with the proposed rule change: http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/08/30/procedural-issues-with-atfs-draft-proposal/

This proposed rule change has not been published in the Federal Register yet so it appears the comment period has not yet started.

Additionally, the Prince Law Blog has prepared sample letters to send to ATF for FFLs (http://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sba-1-letter.docx) and for individuals who were denied a CLEO sign off (http://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/cleo-letter.docx)

Please do not just cut and paste these letters; but instead use them as a rough template to form your own personalized letters including specific relevant details. Remember ALl information will be public record so you may need to exercise INFOSEC during submission.

wacki
September 5, 2013, 02:28 PM
What is INFOSEC? How do you implement it anyway?

Telekinesis
September 5, 2013, 02:43 PM
What is INFOSEC? How do you implement it anyway?


I assume it means Information Security. Kinda like OPSEC. Basically act like your comments are going to be published (because well, they will be). Don't threaten to start a civil war and don't give out personal information and you should be fine.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 5, 2013, 07:22 PM
By INFOSEC, I mean Information Security. Your comments and any identifying information will be published. So if your comment is "My collection of 140 collectible machineguns is no threat. - Signed John Q. Public at 123 Robme Way" be prepared to see that published in an internet searchable format.

zignal_zero
September 6, 2013, 12:13 AM
Actually it already is ILLEGAL for a CLEO to refuse to sign. This does not stop them from refusing, just like deputies perform illegal searches every day. By refusing to sign, he is suggesting there IS a reason you are forbidden or that he DOES have knowledge of why you should be prohibited.

Years ago, in South FL, several NFA enthusiasts filed a class action suit against the CLEO. He lost and began signing forms.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 6, 2013, 01:25 PM
Years ago, in South FL, several NFA enthusiasts filed a class action suit against the CLEO. He lost and began signing forms

Do you happen to know the parties in that case, what district of Florida it occurred in or any other identifying information?

MErl
September 6, 2013, 04:01 PM
Actually it already is ILLEGAL for a CLEO to refuse to sign. This does not stop them from refusing, just like deputies perform illegal searches every day. By refusing to sign, he is suggesting there IS a reason you are forbidden or that he DOES have knowledge of why you should be prohibited.
Nothing to stop them from requiring another BG check and associated fees before they sign though. Yes a 90 day wait and $100 is better than not signing at all, unless there is another option like a trust.

Bubbles
September 6, 2013, 10:12 PM
Here's the proposed rule change in the federal register:
https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/09/09/2013-21661/background-checks-for-responsible-persons-of-a-corporation-trust-or-other-legal-entity-with-respect

The public comment period starts on Monday.

zignal_zero
September 7, 2013, 11:12 AM
Bartholomew -

I know one of the people who was personally familiar with the case. I'm not sure whether or not he was one of the litigants. Unfortunately, he paid $299 for his Powder Springs M10 so this happened so long ago, details may be hard to acquire. I will try to make contact with him, tho, and see what particulars I can come by.

Bartholomew Roberts
September 7, 2013, 06:18 PM
zignal, if you can I would appreciate it. I am trying to collect all the cases dealing with CLEO sign off litigation in one place for obvious reasons. So any lead you could provide me would be great.

zignal_zero
September 10, 2013, 12:37 AM
No prob, man, happy help any TitleII enthusiasts I can. I'm pretty busy, so it might take a couple days for me to get in touch with him but I will do my best :)

wacki
September 12, 2013, 02:20 AM
What are the odds this goes through? Arizona Mike says this is no big deal but there are many veterans on NFA centric forums that are saying otherwise. They are quite worried about this.

Arizona_Mike
September 12, 2013, 12:41 PM
You have mischaracterized my assessment. I said it is very political and coming from the White House (as it flies against internal streamlining efforts the ATF has been making) not that it isn't a big threat.

On the contrary, I am pulling the trigger on two more Form 1s because of these proposed changes!

Mike

Bubbles
September 12, 2013, 01:35 PM
What are the odds this goes through?
IMO very high, ATF has the power to draft and enforce its own regs as long as it follows the FedGov process for changing CFR's.

Outlaw Man
September 16, 2013, 04:47 PM
Have they addressed new trustees being added to a trust that already has transferred items? I have a child on the way that may or may not be born before this goes into effect. It would be nice to avoid yet another set of fingerprints and photographs by setting up the trust now and getting some transfers started.

Which begs the question of what will happen to those already playing the waiting game. No way I'd get approval in time. Babies come faster!

Arizona_Mike
September 17, 2013, 01:12 PM
Have they addressed new trustees being added to a trust that already has transferred items? I have a child on the way that may or may not be born before this goes into effect. It would be nice to avoid yet another set of fingerprints and photographs by setting up the trust now and getting some transfers started.

Which begs the question of what will happen to those already playing the waiting game. No way I'd get approval in time. Babies come faster!
My understanding is that they are only proposing to change the approval process and not asking Congress to chbange the law. State law governs changes to trusts. That said, if they want fingerprint cards for everyone named on a trust, I suspect people will start getting multiple trusts.

Mike

Bartholomew Roberts
September 17, 2013, 03:12 PM
One of the issues the current proposal specifically asks for commentary on is the feasibility of requiring any new trustee added to a trust to be sent to ATF within 30 days on a new form that will require fingerprints, CLEO sign off, etc.

Arizona_Mike
September 17, 2013, 04:31 PM
One of the issues the current proposal specifically asks for commentary on is the feasibility of requiring any new trustee added to a trust to be sent to ATF within 30 days on a new form that will require fingerprints, CLEO sign off, etc.
I don't think that they can require that as the weapon is owned by the trust. I think that would be making a new crime not in statute.

What they are proposing is retroactively changing the meaning of the law (26 U.S.C. 5871) by amending the definition of a person in 27 CFR 479.11 to make something a crime that was not made a crime by Congress!

Mike

Bartholomew Roberts
September 18, 2013, 08:37 AM
Well, the problem is the current Administration knows there is a split Congress that will not pass controversial laws. So they are just interpreting the authority delegated by Congress in whatever way pleases them knowing that it will be years until a challenge winds its way through court and that Congress will not clarify the authority delegated due to the split.

Frankly, until Congress is willing to challenge the Executive on these extreme interpretations, this problem will continue regardless of who is in the White House.

SharpsDressedMan
September 18, 2013, 05:50 PM
One of the reasons for the process of the trusts in gun purchases, and several other loopholes in the NFA procedures was to accommodate corporations in acquiring otherwise "regulated" machineguns, such as MP5's, etc. Would it surprise anyone that Blackwater (owned and operated by former Federal agents) managed to acquire MP5's, otherwise not available to anyone except machine gun dealers as samples, as did other elite bodyguard and security companies in and around Washington D.C. for high end, government related security work here stateside?

Arizona_Mike
September 18, 2013, 07:30 PM
If Academi has newer MG's (and I have no doubt they do) this has nothing to do with trusts or corporations using the NFA transfer process. They probably have the rihgt kind of FFL and/or possess these weapons overseas.

I could own a brand new MP5 too with no paperwork, I just could not bring it into the US.

Mike

Arbo
September 18, 2013, 07:45 PM
Isn't this one one of Obama's recent EO's does?

Aaron Baker
September 18, 2013, 09:01 PM
Isn't this one one of Obama's recent EO's does?

No.

No President, including this one, can change the ATF's regulations by executive order. There's a process that must be followed, and it is being followed.

There were a number of misleading headlines in various news outlets that referred to "executive actions" that people misunderstood as referring to Executive Orders. The ATF's proposed rulemaking is an action by the executive branch, but it is not an Executive Order.

Aaron

If you enjoyed reading about "ATF sends NFA trust rule change proposal to Whitehouse" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!