ATF Proposing Changes To NFA Gun Trusts

[tyeo098]

Set up a trust for each item.
When you want to sell said, add the buyer to your trust, then disassociate yourself from the trust.

Tax free transfer

 

[dogtown tom]

tyeo098 Set up a trust for each item.
When you want to sell said, add the buyer to your trust, then disassociate yourself from the trust.

Tax free transfer

Tax evasion
And if you don't think so ATF has gone after dealers who only used their SOT for their personal use.

 

[Blackhawk30]

I would say that this is a good thing as it removes the LEO sig which is impossible to get in many areas.

 

[Bubbles]

I know quite a few couples who shoot and who hold their Title II firearms in an NFA trust because they didn't want to have to purchase "his" and "her" SBR's and suppressors.

 

[Deer_Freak]

Well, there's no reason for bothering with a trust, for THAT purpose, and they'd likely become a whole lot less popular. I believe there are some other grand benefits to a "gun trust" that's set up properly.

Aside of the government can't just seize your guns because a board member got into trouble (just remove the troublemaker from the board), you can control your guns from the grave.

 

[waterhouse]

Another supposed benefit of a trust is that your spouse, children, etc. can have access to the guns in your absence. Do you really want them shooting your FA guns without you being there?

I don't own any full autos, but I certainly want my spouse (and my brother, who is also on the trust) to be able to shoot quietly when I'm not there and enjoy my SBR and SBS as well. My family shoots many of my title I guns when I'm not there, why should my NFA stuff be any different?

One of the purported benefits is passing the guns on to your heirs without an additional transfer approval or tax. But a tax-free transfer to your beneficiary can be done via a Form 5 anyway. A trust is not a substitute for a properly-drawn will.

I am not an attorney, but I have unfortunately had several family members pass away. In my experience, even with properly drawn wills, estates can take several months to get sorted out. I've also never filed a Form 5, but if the wait time is anything like Form 4 or Form 1 I wouldn't want the NFA items to just be in limbo while the estate and Form 5s are sorted out.

In its current form, I see little downside to a properly written trust. If I have to start getting 5 sets of fingerprints for ever Form I send in I'll certainly see that as a downside.

 

[wally]

Requiring photos and fingerprints is harassment plain and simple. They get their panties in a wad about a simple "voter ID" requirement, but this is "reasonable" to them.

 

[Outlaw Man]

The only reason I have against my wife or family taking my guns shooting without me is that I'm missing out on the fun!

I like the voter ID reference. To get up in arms about an ID requirement for voters and not care about fingerprints on legal gun purchases is to place far too great an emphasis on one of our enumerated rights over another one - an all too common practice, these days.

Yes, fingerprints have always been required for non-trust/corporation purchases, but we need to be stripping regulations and requirements, if anything.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Another supposed benefit of a trust is that your spouse, children, etc. can have access to the guns in your absence. Do you really want them shooting your FA guns without you being there? As for merely having the guns in the home with the owner away, I've never heard of the ATF making an issue of that. And with the prevalence of divorce these days, having a divorcing spouse as co-trustee on your (very expensive) automatic weapons could really be messy.

Even if I didn't want family to shoot my NFA weapons when I am not present, I might still want my hypothetical spouse to be able to get into the safe where they are kept in case of a bump in the night.

While I haven't heard of ATF pursuing those cases either; they have said it is illegal. Given the government's disregard for the law lately and their willingness to use agencies for political persecution, I just don't feel comfortable openly contradicting an ATF interpretation of the law even if they have never enforced it.

So even if the new regulation passed, I would still be using a trust to hold NFA items.

 

[dc dalton]

Newly released ATF document shows they intend to require CLEO documents (fingerprints, photos and a local law enforcement signature) for ALL 'responsible parties' of a gun trust.

Image is from page 14 of this document: https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/f...uctive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I just read that myself. The original document is here:
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/f...uctive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf

Bad, bad, news. What is ATF going to do when the tens of thousands of people who already possess NFA items via trust or corporation can't get a CLEO sign off?

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.

 

[AlexanderA]

They pulled a switcheroo. The original proposal was that the CLEO signoff requirement would be eliminated in exchange for trust and corporation "responsible parties" having to submit photos and fingerprints. This would have removed the main incentive for forming NFA trusts, and hopefully have streamlined the approval process.

Now, however, -- I just read the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking -- we get the worst possible result. The CLEO signoff stays, and now it will apply to all entities -- individuals, trusts, corps, etc. Each "responsible party" of a trust or corp will have to submit a separate form containing the CLEO signature, photo, and fingerprints. If "responsible parties" are later changed or added, this new form will have to be submitted within 30 days of the change.

Somebody showed bad faith, and I don't think it was the ATF. Reading the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, it looks like the change was made at the last minute. Holder's office and the White House are to blame for this. All I can say is that we should flood them with comments during the 90-day comment period (as if it will do any good).

 

[NickEllis]

Anyone have a direct link? I can't find this through the search functions at the .gov site.

 

[Zoogster]

AlexanderA said:

Now, however, -- I just read the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking -- we get the worst possible result. The CLEO signoff stays, and now it will apply to all entities -- individuals, trusts, corps, etc. Each "responsible party" of a trust or corp will have to submit a separate form containing the CLEO signature, photo, and fingerprints. If "responsible parties" are later changed or added, this new form will have to be submitted within 30 days of the change.

Somebody showed bad faith, and I don't think it was the ATF. Reading the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, it looks like the change was made at the last minute. Holder's office and the White House are to blame for this. All I can say is that we should flood them with comments during the 90-day comment period (as if it will do any good).

Yeah I noticed the difference from what they have wanted for some years now too.
The ATF has been wanting to get rid of trusts for awhile. Offering to remove CLEO signoff if the public would agree. So it is an issue that would have been on the minds of people in the ATF.
However the ATF did not have an acting director and I don't know who was briefing the president or his cabinet on behalf of the ATF at the time.
They also were under scrutiny for the Fast and Furious and not in a position to be creating more disliked legislation.
However in July an ATF director was confirmed for the first time in years (and it would only be a formality to be sworn in after so he likely started working then) and just sworn in.
This has come less than a month later.
The new people briefing the president or his cabinet, potentially that new director or his staff, is likely who brought this issue to the attention of the presidential candidate and actually got changes proposed. Changes that removed the pro-gun aspect because they are much more confident now that higher ups are on thier side.
It likely was on thier radar because others in the ATF were grumbling about it already, they have been proposing it for a long time.
With a new director and staff and likely restructuring there is new people between the president and the ATF, and it appears they are more favorable with using ATF expertise in firearm regulations to help Obama figure out ways of increasing firearm restrictions.

Otherwise it is unlikely something as mundane as trusts and the NFA would even be well known to the President.
It is a relatively obscure area of law pertaining to a minority of the population and is not on the radar of the average citizen.
Someone new has been briefing the president or his legal advisors and shined a spotlight on this issue and got the big guys to push for change.
Someone in the ATF helped the presidential legal advisors understand there was some more anti gun actions that could be taken with high chance of success and little challenge through mere regulatory changes and reinterpretation of existing law.
Also being an obscure thing most of the public is unaware of and that impacts a small population it is unlikely to result in rallying opposition and congressional action.