Details of New Executive Actions to be Announced Jan.5

Status
Not open for further replies.
Write your senators and congresskids and let them know that 41P is awful and cannot be implemented. If anything, the whole NFA items classification needs to be done away with and all guns, suppressors, machineguns, SBRs, SBSs, AOWs should be sold like any other firearm.

41P is the proposed legislation that would make the use of a trust to obtain NFA items and big PITA by requiring fingerprints and photos for everyone listed as responsible persons in the trust. It basically adds yet more administrative obstacles, costs, and time to obtaining NFA items.

41P has me more wound up than the background check thing.

No, no, no! 41P (now 41F) is a net positive for the NFA community. It adds some inconveniences for trusts, but it removes the CLEO signoff requirement for everyone. This is a biggie. The CLEO signoff requirement was a major roadblock, and was the main reason that trusts were being used in the first place.

The rest of Obama's package of proposals is mere rhetoric, and doesn't make substantial changes to the existing rules. The CLEO signoff, however, is substantial. Ironically, then, the net effect of Obama's actions is pro-gun. (Shhh... don't tell the media.)
 
41P is terrible. If people have an issue with getting the CLEO sign off, they could get a trust (any lawyer can draft one up and there are ones available elsewhere for $75-100) and avoid not only the CLEO sign off but also fingerprints, photos, and have an excellent legal vehicle for passing on NFA items and protecting those NFA items as well as persons listed in the trust. However now that it looks like 41P is going to be implemented, there are fingerprints and photos for everyone. It's a net negative.
 
If it were a voting issue I would vote for 41p on the elimination of the CLEO alone.

You trustees had to get fingerprints and photos for your CCW permit so it's not like you were flying under the government radar. So for you this is a mere connivence issue.

For someone like me it's the difference between owning a can and not. All I really see in opposition to this is a lot of sour grapes from people who had $$$$$ tied up in trusts that are no longer needed to accomplish the same goals
 
Fingerprints and photos are a Once every 24 month slight inconvenience. Trusts cost money and time, and are not always going to be the best option, regardless if the CLEO would sign or not.

41P, now 41F, is going to benefit me come July, with two NFA Form 1 submissions.

Passing NFA on to heirs is not difficult, as it currently stands. It's another form, but since the only people I would consider adding to a trust, can't be added for several years, a Form 1 makes the most sense for me today.

Personally, the more I find out about 41P/F, the better it sounds.
 
I'll step in here and ask a question. If the ATF is supposed to have control of people who sell firearms, dealers mostly, and they do such a poor job of regulating those, how are they going to regulate people who sell a few guns a year from collections? All you have to do is look at the number of sales on GB to see that there are hundreds a day, maybe thousands, on just one website.

Some of the responses here lead me to believe that some are worried that a few private sales from a collection is going to run them afoul of the latest EO when U S code says it is perfectly legal. Maybe the chief wants the ATF to start busting people who sell anything without a FFL, appears that way from his presentation, but I don't think it's in the cards. The ATF can't even check the records of FFL's now in a timely manner. How are they going to track all those private sales through FFL records?

Until the ATF comes out and specifically says that one needs a FFL to sell a firearm the EO is just wishful thinking. I don't think they will and if they do it will be challenged by congress in short order. The ATF has to base its regulation on the 68 GCA and cannot arbitrarily change the intent of that act based on the wishes of the president. That has already been demonstrated when the ATF ran afoul congress in the surplus ammo debacle and the SC when he ordered the INS to violate US immigration code. The last ATF director resigned because he couldn't stand the heat from congress.

I'm sure the DOJ will try to reinterpret the 68 GCA to fit the president's agenda but the text is as clear as it possibly can be.

but such term shall not include a person who makes

occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement

of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his

personal collection of firearms;

It's going to be very difficult to get around that, even for a DOJ attorney.
 
Last edited:
You trustees had to get fingerprints and photos for your CCW permit so it's not like you were flying under the government radar.

1- Not all states require a permit to carry a concealed handgun
2- Not everybody chooses to get a permit to carry a concealed handgun
3- It's not about "flying under the radar" by, for some reason, trying to keep your fingerprints from being taken, it's about the extra time, expense, and hassle created
 
We are not going to have to wait long to see how the new EO works out.
Very soon the first "gun seller" will be arrested and charged for selling 3 guns, at a loss, from his personal collection, gun show or FTF, makes no difference. He will be paraded at a press conference by the ATF and FBI. CNN will jump all over the story and claim a victory for Obummer and we will have an idea about the "interpretation" of the law.
Just make sure you are not that poor fellow.
Well, it looks like someone has fallen for Obama's dog and pony show; hook, line and sinker. Nothing has changed for private(non-dealer) sales of firearms. This is stepped up enforcement on unlicensed dealers, if they can get the manpower to do it. There is no Executive Order. This is an Executive Action that provides guidance to Federal agencies.
 
For those of you who think 41P/F is so wonderful because the CLEO signoff is going away, I ask why you would buy NFA items as an individual. The benefits of buying with a trust are far greater than buying as an individual. As an individual, you need fingerprints, photos, and CLEO signoffs for each NFA item that you purchase.

With a trust, my fellow trustees can receive my NFA items when the ATF sends back the tax stamp (this is useful if I am out of state either on a deployment, vacation, etc), they can use the items, they can possess the items, and in the event of my death, there is no additional paperwork or confusion over who owns the items as they are owned by the trust.

With trusts, you can either draft your own for free or get a lawyer to draft one for you for. I had an attorney draft mine. He charged either $400 or $500... I can't remember. Before anyone says that that's a lot of money, I argue that it's petty cash considering that it was done by an attorney who specializes in gun law and when we spend $200 per NFA item on the tax alone, $500 to eliminate all the fingerprinting, photos, and CLEO signoff and to fast-track NFA purchases is a small price to pay. All I had to do was send him a list of names of people that I wanted on the trust and talk with him for about 15 minutes. With trusts, no one needs to get fingerprinted, photographed, and no CLEO signoff is needed.

For those who whine that the CLEO signoff is difficult to obtain, you could have easily gotten a professionally-drafted trust with a few minutes on the phone and a few bucks and been buying NFA items as you wished without having to get fingerprints, photos, CLEO signoffs, or make any CLEO notifications. The CLEOs in my area are all gun-friendly and I was able to literally walk in and out in 5 minutes with the CLEO signature. I know this because I purchased my first NFA item as an individual before finding out about the benefits of a trust. My point is the regardless of whether the CLEO signoff was easy or difficult to obtain, a trust is still the best way to make NFA purchases. I can literally buy an NFA item and give a copy of my trust to my Class III/SOT and wait for the tax stamp to come back.

A trust might not be appealing if you do not know the law and cannot draft a trust for yourself, if you think that paying an attorney to draft one is too costly (if you think that is too costly then you probably should reconsider getting into NFA), if you purely plan to be the only one to shoot/possess/use your NFA items, you do not care what happens to your NFA items if you die or are otherwise incapacitated, or if you just don't have any family/friends.

My point is that it is irresponsible to not have a trust if you are plunging into NFA. Those of us who make multiple NFA purchases and are serious about NFA items, typically have trusts. While I agree that having to get fingerprints and photos every 2 years is not terrible, it is definitely worse than simply giving a copy of my trust to my Class III/SOT. And besides that, you could theoretically have hundreds or thousands of trustees listed in your trust. While most trusts likely have 1-5 persons listed, there is no limit as to the number of trustees. They just have to be able to legally possess NFA items. Getting all of the trustees listed can potentially become problematic if you have a lot of people in your trust and if they live in various locations.

For those of you who wish to dispute what I said, I encourage you to talk to others who are into NFA items as well as your Class III/SOT and attorneys who specialize in gun law. You will find that trusts are not time-consuming, not expensive, and are the fastest, easiest, and make the most sense from a legal perspective.
 
Trusts have always been a loophole, the anti's knew it and WE knew it and exploited and then overexploited it as such.

We all knew that party was going to end. I for one am quite thankful it ended with a concession that is removal of the CLEO signoff.

Face it. If you weren't simply using the trust as a loophole and were all about the actual benefits then you have nothing to complain about as trusts are still there for you.

This will be a net positive. Now the only obstacle to suppressor ownership is a $200 tax and some time. This removes almost all of the artificial inflation in the suppressor market. Look for a price war soon!
 
"No, no, no! 41P (now 41F) is a net positive for the NFA community. It adds some inconveniences for trusts, but it removes the CLEO signoff requirement for everyone. This is a biggie. The CLEO signoff requirement was a major roadblock, and was the main reason that trusts were being used in the first place."
The 'NFA community' as it stands doesn't have trouble getting CLEO signoff or using trusts. It's only the newbies or downtrodden slave-staters (or countyers?) who are salivating at the prospect of paying to have their finger prints taken by a hostile sheriff (prepare for traffic scrutiny afterwards, btw). Since many of them are already put off by the whole registration thing, I doubt this new level of scrutiny will be attractive.

Also of significance, is that the 'road block' was one of the more legally vulnerable aspects of the status quo, which would probably end up getting knocked down in court regardless (rest assured Obama would have left it in effect if he had been told it was constitutional to do so). Not to mention the fact that the CLEO signoff can always be reinstated at any time. Meanwhile, those with family trusts & far-flung trustees are now somewhat SOL, having to either radically revise their documentation, or severely increasing the burden & difficulty of adding new items.

"Face it. If you weren't simply using the trust as a loophole and were all about the actual benefits then you have nothing to complain about as trusts are still there for you."
Well, I do have to take time off and pay to have my stamps taken every time like a common criminal now, and call attention to myself at my local (luckily friendly) law enforcement apparatus. Can't say that's something I'd call a net positive (and it isn't something much of the potential NFA community is going to bother with anyway). Paying to get stamps taken so I can pay 200$ for another stamp seems a mite Kafkaesque, no?

Most likely, trust usage will fall, as will overall user volume in the NFA system after a very brief initial spike. Bad thing for the NFA community.

TCB
 
Most likely, trust usage will fall, as will overall user volume in the NFA system after a very brief initial spike. Bad thing for the NFA community.

TCB


I think you are mistaken. Only time will tell but I predict if this new change stays for a few years you will see suppressors become as ubiquitous as poly pistols and AR's did after the AWB sunset.

The trust loophole around CLEO put enormous artificial inflation on what's essentially a cheap part.
 
Speaking of Virginia, we have machine gun registration at the state level. The former Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli (a Republican, btw), ruled that trusts cannot register machine guns. For a while, this caused the ATF to apply a moratorium to approvals of transfers to trusts in Virginia. The matter was finally resolved by a procedure under which the trust would "own" the machine gun, but the state registration would be by the natural person who was in actual possession. This satisfied the ATF, and it resumed approvals for trusts. But the state registration on an individual basis negates part of the reason for using a trust. The actual person possessing the gun will be on the record regardless. It's not clear that the gun can be passed around among trustees who are not state registrants. That would put them afoul of the Virginia Uniform Machine Gun Act.
 
I don't know if the pace of NFA sales will accelerate beyond it's already burgeoning popularity just because of the 41F CLEO notification change, but I certainly don't see them slowing down. My first suppressor was bought privately, but the second is under a trust, I really am not sure which route I'll take next time. Since the CLEO sign off is going away, and the ATF clarified what happens to your cans if you die, I'm not seeing as much value in my trust. I'm aware of the legal underpinnings of trusts, and how they can be useful in certain situations, but NFA trusts were popular for their utility in getting around some complexities with NFA ownership, now that things have been clarified, and some constraints removed their benefits are not as compelling for me.
 
For those of you who think 41P/F is so wonderful because the CLEO signoff is going away, I ask why you would buy NFA items as an individual.
Because in my individual case, at this point in time, an individual build or transfer makes more sense and fits my needs better than a trust.


The benefits of buying with a trust are far greater than buying as an individual. As an individual, you need fingerprints, photos, and CLEO signoffs for each NFA item that you purchase.
And in less than six months, so will you.


With a trust, my fellow trustees can receive my NFA items when the ATF sends back the tax stamp (this is useful if I am out of state either on a deployment, vacation, etc), they can use the items, they can possess the items, and in the event of my death, there is no additional paperwork or confusion over who owns the items as they are owned by the trust.

This is the one major advantage a trust has over an individual.

With trusts, you can either draft your own for free or get a lawyer to draft one for you for. I had an attorney draft mine. He charged either $400 or $500... I can't remember. Before anyone says that that's a lot of money, I argue that it's petty cash considering that it was done by an attorney who specializes in gun law and when we spend $200 per NFA item on the tax alone, $500 to eliminate all the fingerprinting, photos, and CLEO signoff and to fast-track NFA purchases is a small price to pay. All I had to do was send him a list of names of people that I wanted on the trust and talk with him for about 15 minutes. With trusts, no one needs to get fingerprinted, photographed, and no CLEO signoff is needed.

Prior to July 1st, 2016, anyone getting NFA would have been better suited by a trust, provided they had people to add as trustees. I'll give you that. Those who don't have trustees, well the overall process was still simpler. But since that's all going away, why would an individual still go with a trust?

For those who whine that the CLEO signoff is difficult to obtain, you could have easily gotten a professionally-drafted trust with a few minutes on the phone and a few bucks and been buying NFA items as you wished without having to get fingerprints, photos, CLEO signoffs, or make any CLEO notifications. The CLEOs in my area are all gun-friendly and I was able to literally walk in and out in 5 minutes with the CLEO signature. I know this because I purchased my first NFA item as an individual before finding out about the benefits of a trust. My point is the regardless of whether the CLEO signoff was easy or difficult to obtain, a trust is still the best way to make NFA purchases. I can literally buy an NFA item and give a copy of my trust to my Class III/SOT and wait for the tax stamp to come back.

Dust in the wind. Only relevant for the next six months.

A trust might not be appealing if you do not know the law and cannot draft a trust for yourself, if you think that paying an attorney to draft one is too costly (if you think that is too costly then you probably should reconsider getting into NFA),

I have entirely different reasons for not wanting a trust. Maybe those reasons don't apply to you. Big deal, you're not me.

if you purely plan to be the only one to shoot/possess/use your NFA items, you do not care what happens to your NFA items if you die or are otherwise incapacitated, or if you just don't have any family/friends.

Yeah, pretty much. And you're overblowing the inheritance process. It's actually quite simple.

My point is that it is irresponsible to not have a trust if you are plunging into NFA. Those of us who make multiple NFA purchases and are serious about NFA items, typically have trusts. While I agree that having to get fingerprints and photos every 2 years is not terrible, it is definitely worse than simply giving a copy of my trust to my Class III/SOT. And besides that, you could theoretically have hundreds or thousands of trustees listed in your trust. While most trusts likely have 1-5 persons listed, there is no limit as to the number of trustees. They just have to be able to legally possess NFA items. Getting all of the trustees listed can potentially become problematic if you have a lot of people in your trust and if they live in various locations.

Seems like trusts will be rife with inconvenience. The same inconvenience individual transfer experienced.

For those of you who wish to dispute what I said, I encourage you to talk to others who are into NFA items as well as your Class III/SOT and attorneys who specialize in gun law. You will find that trusts are not time-consuming, not expensive, and are the fastest, easiest, and make the most sense from a legal perspective.

If I planned on NFA purchases prior to July 1st, a trust might make sense. But believe me, I've done my research, and in my individual case, a trust doesn't make sense.
 
A (frequent) FFL seller at yesterday's Germantown gun show is a former assistant/vice mayor of a very small TN town.

He knows of two guys who were convicted years ago by the ATF of being Unlicensed dealers. "X" told me that the ATF took very detailed notes at a given show, then at each of the next few shows, numerous different firearms were sold each time from the guys' tables.
My question: weren't both sellers aware of somebody noting detailed documentation of multiple guns each time? Or was it Not obvious to the sellers, with no written info about serial numbers required? Seeing the same clean-cut guy twice doing so might give a seasoned seller an odd feeling.

One guy paid a $10,000 fine, but the other guy was locked in prison for two years. That's either all that "X" knows, or all that he wanted to describe.
 
Last edited:
USAF_Vet and others are throwing out July 1st as the date when 41 takes effect. That is not true. It takes effect 180 days after 41 has been published in the Federal Registry. The ruling/document that came out the first week of January is not the publishing in the Federal Registry. It was the ruling and the version (possibly with minor tweaks) to be published in the Federal Registry. However, the actual publishing has yet to occur and, therefore, the 180 day countdown has not yet begun.
 
Last edited:
Trusts have always been a loophole, the anti's knew it and WE knew it and exploited and then overexploited it as such.

We all knew that party was going to end. I for one am quite thankful it ended with a concession that is removal of the CLEO signoff.

Face it. If you weren't simply using the trust as a loophole and were all about the actual benefits then you have nothing to complain about as trusts are still there for you.

This will be a net positive. Now the only obstacle to suppressor ownership is a $200 tax and some time. This removes almost all of the artificial inflation in the suppressor market. Look for a price war soon!
I find it hard to believe that the CLEO signoff was the largest obstacle to universal suppressor ownership. For some people it was the largest obstacle but I think for most the $200, the wait, and the paperwork is still going to keep them from owning one if they haven't already. Therefore I find it hard to believe the overall cost will drop significantly at all. I also think some people are waiting to see if the hearing protection act passes, which if it did would definitely do what you describe.

Personally I'm glad to see that an actual "compromise" was made (as in giving along with the taking) but as a trust holder I'm definitely going to be forced to make some kind of changes to my documents and future purchases will be a much bigger hassle.
 
I find it hard to believe that the CLEO signoff was the largest obstacle to universal suppressor ownership. For some people it was the largest obstacle but I think for most the $200, the wait, and the paperwork is still going to keep them from owning one if they haven't already. Therefore I find it hard to believe the overall cost will drop significantly at all. I also think some people are waiting to see if the hearing protection act passes, which if it did would definitely do what you describe.

Personally I'm glad to see that an actual "compromise" was made (as in giving along with the taking) but as a trust holder I'm definitely going to be forced to make some kind of changes to my documents and future purchases will be a much bigger hassle.

I agree. It seems to me (we have no hard data to know), most people have been turned off of suppressors due to:

-Ignorance of what it takes to acquire one legally
-Stigma the masses/public/ignorant often put on suppressor ownership
-$200 tax
-Months and months of waiting to take possession of something you already paid for
-Hassle of paperwork
-Hassle of who can possess it/moving to a different address or state
-Cost of the product itself


Sure there are plenty of people that expressed interest in NFA but local CLEO all said no...but I don't think, % wise, it was most. Maybe we'll find out now
 
Warp wrote:

It seems to me (we have no hard data to know), most people have been turned off of suppressors due to:

-Ignorance of what it takes to acquire one legally
-Stigma the masses/public/ignorant often put on suppressor ownership
-$200 tax
-Months and months of waiting to take possession of something you already paid for
-Hassle of paperwork
-Hassle of who can possess it/moving to a different address or state
-Cost of the product itself

You may be overlooking the most important factor of all -- that suppressors don't actually "silence." It's not like in the movies, where the guns just go "pfft." At best, suppressors muffle the noise somewhat. When people realize this, they're less likely to go through the hassle of getting one.

I think that part of the attraction of suppressors is precisely because they're regulated under the NFA. This is the lure of the "forbidden fruit." That's why I don't think that, if suppressors were removed from the NFA, sales of them would increase as much as people expect.
 
I find it hard to believe that the CLEO signoff was the largest obstacle to universal suppressor ownership.
I listen to Tom Gresham's Gun Talk radio program each week (via podcast) and he has stated several times that the sheriff in his Louisiana parish refuses to sign any NFA forms, period.

If that is true for a nationally known gun writer and TV producer/personality in a so-called "gun friendly" state, I'm sure it's also true elsewhere.

Then there are the ten states that flat out outlaw silencers altogether. So in those ten states this change won't make any difference.
 
I would suggest that the $1,000 entry fee to buy a silencer was an obstacle. A new gun owner just starting out with a wife and car payments, rent, etc isn't your prime customer. Silencer owners are a much older and upscale demographic.

As for the OP's original point - it should be more than obvious that there were no EO's by now. For all the posting and fearmongering on the internet, we got - nada. Some directives to the ATF, DOD, etc suggesting that those bureaucracies try to do something. Even adding more staff to the ATF has to be budgeted and then actually hired and trained - their field performance won't even been noted during this Administration. The next President will reap the benefits of their work.

Despite the orchestrated cryfest pulling every emotional string possible, the net result is a President who did NOT issue executive orders. Not one. Unlike the Presidents detractors, who still blare that he is the #1 ranked "illegal" order issuer, we got nuthin' here.

All the Chicken Littles who were proclaiming door to door confiscation, forced buybacks, etc have nothing to point to - a decidedly anti gun President didn't do it. Maybe we should give the man some credit when it comes to Constitutional understanding. After all, that is an area he formerly taught and intstructed at the college level. He was given the same title of Senior Lecturer as Judge Posner. Fits - he is a pedantic lecturer.

Aside from the demonizing that politicians do these days. the President did NOT issue illegal orders whatsoever as a result of this latest "Executive Action." Because of that, I think we need to put on notice that posters who continually dredge up the spectre of confiscation need to check that attitude at the door. Or, to remind themselves, It Ain't Going To Happen.

Let's not forget that the front running anti gun candidates making campaign promises are now shackled by this lack of actual performance. What one President does in their Administration has an effect on what the next can do. It cuts both ways - saying that she will consider an Australian buyback is now seriously undercut by the President's lack of orders. And that is because he realized there is no Constitutional basis for it. It also goes to another candidates pronouncements about liberalizing the laws. Not his authority - it's Congresses, and his campaign rhetoric on that issue is exactly that.

Campaign promises are worth exactly NOTHING. President Obama has not returned all the troops from Southwest Asia, and hasn't closed GTMO. I seriously doubt we will see much done by ANY other President in that regard. State, DOD, and Congress will advise Obama's successor and influence their decision just as much. And so will the ATF -

We aren't voting in kings and queens as much as the rabble rousers on the internet like to post.
 
Aside from the demonizing that politicians do these days. the President did NOT issue illegal orders whatsoever as a result of this latest "Executive Action." Because of that, I think we need to put on notice that posters who continually dredge up the spectre of confiscation need to check that attitude at the door. Or, to remind themselves, It Ain't Going To Happen.

The only reason it won't happen is if we don't let them do it. Confiscation is their stated goal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top