Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Title II "Loophole"

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by Hypnogator, May 26, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Hypnogator

    Hypnogator Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    1,809
    Location:
    AZ, WA
    Today while waiting for a connecting flight in the Phoenix airport, I heard the talking heads on CNN blathering about a "Title II Loophole" which supposedly allowed the unwashed masses to purchase "high-powered" weapons. Unfortunately the background noise mostly overrode the audio, so all I could really see was the banner headline. Anyone know what this is all about? :confused:
     
  2. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    The claim is that people who use corps or trusts to purchase NFA firearms because the CLEO won't sign off are bypassing the background check associated with a F1/F4 transfer. This is false because NFA transfers to a trust or corp require that the person filling out the 4473 pass NICS before the firearm can be transferred.
     
  3. hso

    hso Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    48,576
    Location:
    0 hrs east of TN
  4. kingcheese

    kingcheese Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2008
    Messages:
    677
    with legal matters involving firearms, loophole means sure way to get arrested, jailed, and end up on public television
     
  5. avs11054

    avs11054 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2010
    Messages:
    649
    Location:
    AZ
    I was reading all the comments at the end of the article. Most of the people seem to have their heads on straight. I was suprised to see that for a CNN website.
     
  6. paramedic70002

    paramedic70002 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2006
    Messages:
    402
    Location:
    Franklin, VA
  7. a-sheepdog

    a-sheepdog Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Messages:
    466
    Location:
    Houston, Texas
    NFA trusts are by no means a loophole. Anyone listed on the trust is going to have a background check and it will be thorough. This is just another plot by liberal media to aid the gun grabbers.
     
  8. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Oregon
    Yes those legal MG owners are just going on daily shooting rampages aren't they!
    There's been, what, 2 murders with legal MGs in 77 years? The horror! Why, your odds of getting killed by one of those is almost as high as your odds of dying from a 747 hitting the amtrak train you are riding on...on the 4th of July!
     
  9. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    I can only remember one, the cop with the Uzi or Mac who shot his wife.

    What's the other? Seems like you are right but I can't remember any others.

    But anyway, I hate the media. Anytime you follow the law now it's a "loophole".

    So today when I go to dinner I am going to drive under the speed limit, thereby taking advantage of the "highway loophole".
     
  10. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Oregon
    Last edited: May 27, 2011
  11. PTK

    PTK Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,712
    Location:
    Montana
    It was a MAC10. That's the only murder I can recall, and was by a LEO against his wife, but he's probably talking about that one self defense case for the other one... the fella with the Ruger AC556, who had to shoot to defend from a gang of sorts.


    DoubleTapDrew

    I hadn't heard of that. That makes three prominent NFA cases, two murder, one legal self-defense.
     
  12. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Oregon
    Well there have been a few legal self defense cases (usually NFA dealers defending their business or themselves) but I don't know if you can count those since they weren't crimes. In the Gary Fadden case IIRC it was a customer's AC556 he was testing or demoing when he worked for HK. I think HK picked up the $60k legal bill. Hey, maybe that's why we suck and they hate us! :p
     
  13. CleverNickname

    CleverNickname Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,175
    Location:
    TX
    A form 1 by a trust or corporation won't have a background check performed on anyone. Neither will an intra-state form 4 where the transferor is a non-SOT and the transferee is a trust or corporation. Also, only the trustee or corporate officer that completes a transfer from an FFL will have a NICS check performed on them, but any other trustees or corporate officers won't have a check performed.

    None of this really bothers me, but they are correct that trust or corporate transfers can bypass a NICS check in certain instances.
     
  14. pikid89

    pikid89 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    1,556
    Location:
    The Gator Nation
    in Micanopy, Florida, a while back, there was a dealer named harry beckwith that defended his shop with a FA Smith & Wesson SMG of some sort, theres an article about it hanging on the wall of the shop
     
  15. FIVETWOSEVEN

    FIVETWOSEVEN Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2009
    Messages:
    5,076
    No one was killed by the owner when he was firing the S&W M76 though, the guy driving the vehicle however was killed by a single round (out of 30) from the owner's AR 15.
     
  16. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    9,768
    We have a winner; however, if we didn't have "news" like this we also wouldn't have all of the BS drama "real life" shows I also don't view.
     
  17. alex4922

    alex4922 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Messages:
    62
    There was a gunshop owner in Decatur Georgia in the ? 70s I think that had some gangbangers drive through his shop window in the middle of the night and had the bad judgement of pulling a gun on him. I think I remember him using an M 16. Took down several of them. Good riddance.

    A
     
  18. PTK

    PTK Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,712
    Location:
    Montana
    I seem to recall his primary firearm being a S&W model 76 9x19mm SMG.
     
  19. dirtymike1

    dirtymike1 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2010
    Messages:
    222
    I'm sure I'm wrong, but I thought that to be placed on the trust you were subject to a background check, therefore any transfers wouldn't require additional checks for everyone on teh trust, only the purcahsing person.
     
  20. CleverNickname

    CleverNickname Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,175
    Location:
    TX
    If I wanted to add another member to my LLC I'd just have to notify the Texas Secretary of State. They don't perform any LE functions and so can't perform a background check. Even then, NICS can only be used when a firearm is transferred. Also they have no way of knowing that the LLC is just a vehicle for title II firearm ownership in the first place. iANAL and don't have any experience with trusts but I believe adding a new trustee to a trust is even simpler and just requires updating the trust paperwork and no notification to any governmental entity at all.

    Now if a corporation is an FFL and changes ownership the ATF makes the new owner go through a background check like if it was a new application. But that's different from a non-FFL corporation that owns firearms.
     
  21. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,168
    Location:
    Virginia
    The main impetus for the use of NFA trusts is non-signing CLEOs. That's clearly an abuse by the CLEOs, because all that the paperwork that they're asked to sign says is that they have "no knowledge" that the proposed possession would violate state or local law, or that the possessor would use the items for illegal purposes. Both of these parts are better verified through the regular ATF clearance process (check of local laws and criminal records).

    Abolish the whole CLEO signing requirement (as has been proposed within ATF, apparently), and the whole problem goes away.
     
  22. Romeo 33 Delta

    Romeo 33 Delta Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2011
    Messages:
    402
    AlexanderA ... EXACTLY what I have always believed. I don't even begin to understand how they dare NOT sign in a case where the person asking for this signature is clearly a good citizen. CLEO's should have ABSOLUTELY NO descretion in that case and I should NOT have to ASK. If I pass the NICS check ... done and done!
     
  23. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,168
    Location:
    Virginia
    The CLEOs that refuse to sign take that attitude because of (a) local political pressure, (b) fear of blame or liability if the gun ends up being misused, and/or (c) personal bias against guns. Take it out of their hands and relieve them of the worry.

    The whole CLEO signing procedure is a relic of the past, when there was no fast and reliable national means of checking the applicant's background or of the complicated network of local laws. Now the ATF can check these things literally in minutes (if they wanted to).

    The question the ATF has to answer is whether they want to retain another artificial roadblock in the process, or whether they want to streamline the process. Retaining an artificial roadblock, it seems to me, goes contrary to their duty to efficiently administer the NFA law.
     
  24. MasterSergeantA

    MasterSergeantA Member

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2008
    Messages:
    613
    Location:
    Arizona Territory
    OMG! Someone used "ATF" and "efficiently administer the NFA law" in the same post. (Sorry...my black humour occasionally surfaces.)

    Alexander has made some valid points and done it very well. Another issue that has been pursued in the past is that the Forms 1 and 4, among others, are essentially federal TAX documents and fall outside the purview of local law enforcement. That argument has not yet been accepted by the ATF, but it does get resurrected now and again.

    Verifying the trust documents or articles of incorporation on non-individual requests actually takes much longer and has been one of the reasons that the process has yet again bogged down. It was nice to have your Form 1 turned around in 3-4 weeks; that did not last with the increase of corporate and trust applications.

    Alexander is also correct about the "artificial roadblock". There are states that simply do not allow possession of any NFA items. Having the CLEO sign-off in 'NFA-friendly' states is a useless waste of time. A NICS check will garner the same results for ATF that it will for the CLEO. In less gun-friendly states like the People's Democratic Republic of Maryland, one cannot even transfer a legally owned handgun to another individual without going to a State Police barracks, filling out some paperwork and waiting at least a week while it is processed. The states can add to the law, but not take away or ignore parts of it. So if the CLEO thinks there is sufficient reason to restrict ownership of NFA itmes, he/she should take it to the legislature and have the STATE law changed. As it stands, it allows the CLEO a measure of power that the constitution never meant him/her to have. (Of course, if you can find a local judge or justice of the peace to sign off, you can ignore the sheriff or chief of police. Now THAT is what I call a loophole.)

    My local guy is Larry Dever, Sheriff of Cochise County. We have bigger issues down here on the Arizona border than whether I can own NFA firerams. Since I know Larry pretty well, I just carry my paperwork to a local function and catch him there. Otherwise, driving down to the county seat to drop it off is a big PITA in addition to being unneccesary. Once I have an approved Form 1 or 4, it should not be hard to verify my eligibility for further acquisitions.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page