View Full Version : Fire Mission. Defund ATF-41P. It's coming.
Added this
FIRE MISSION: ATF-41P is coming - contact Your U.S. Senator and demand that they approve H.R. 2578 – Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, without amendment
It is extremely important to let the Senators know that you want either the House version passed or the House's amendments, Amendment 320 - https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/house-amendment/320 and Amendment 302 - https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/house-amendment/302, to be included in any approved appropriations bill.
1. If you don't have a trust, or know someone who needs a trust, its time to get one ASAP. I'll be happy to answer any questions they have.
2. Submit your form 1s by efiling.
3. Submit your form 4s ASAP
Okay, so ATF-41P is heating up again. After being pushed back to December 2015, the ATF just published another date for final action. But instead of pushing it back for another 6mo, they only pushed final action date back 30 days to January 2016.
Joshua Prince, of the Firearms Industry Consulting Group, has spearheaded opposition to ATF-41P. He published a Blog updating the latest on ATF-41P.
So, the first thing you should be aware of is that it is likely that forms that have been submitted are going to be processed under the pre ATF-41P rules.
So get your trust and submit your forms.
The most likely date that will determine whether your form is processed under the current or the ATF-41P rules is the date the aTF receives the forms.
Since Obama is going to do everything he can to destroy the second amendment by executive action, you can bet on him pushing this.
The one bright light in this is that the ATF will need funding to implement ATF-41P. Congress can defund it. One budget amendment has been prosed that will do just that.
Therefore, I am asking everyone of my TexasGunTrust clients, their friends, family and anyone reading this to immediately contact their U.S. Senator and demand that they approve H.R. 2578 – Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, without amendment.
Please forward this and let your friends know about ATF-41P and ask them to contact their congress critters!
This amendment to the Budget is VERY IMPORTANT TO US. It includes a provision that prohibits the ATF from utilizing any of the appropriated money for implementing a rule requiring a Chief Law Enforcement Officer signature(e.g. ATF-41P).
Restoration of Gun Rights:
On an interesting side note, it also includes a provision providing for the funding of federal firearms relief, which has not been available since 1992. This lets anyone who is now a prohibited person, but has lead a trouble free life since becoming a prohibited person, attempt to restore their 2nd amendment rights.
http://blog.princelaw.com/2015/11/27/atf-41p-update/
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2578
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Why only the chief LEO part, why not defund the whole thing.
The whole thing is bogus.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Agree. But they won't defund the atf.
Added this
FIRE MISSION: ATF-41P is coming - contact Your U.S. Senator and demand that they approve H.R. 2578 – Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016, without amendment
It is extremely important to let the Senators know that you want either the House version passed or the House's amendments, Amendment 320 - https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/house-amendment/320 and Amendment 302 - https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/house-amendment/302, to be included in any approved appropriations bill.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
A few of questions:
Hasn't all funding necessary to propose and publish the rule already been spent?...and defunding can't be retroactive, can it?
MikeN
ATF published and implemented a rule banning import of saiga and other non sporting shotguns.
Congress defended. We still import those shotguns.
www.TexasGunTrust.com
Have y'all contacted your senators?
While this simply adds more hoops to jump through, it requires that basically everyone on your trust be photographed fingerprinted and get a cleo sign-off.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Won't matter with the Omnibus funding bill, because it doesn't include the version of the bill you have listed. Another replacement bill that will be wrapped into the omnibus bill doesn't have that provision.
Until and unless Congress gets off its ass and does its job, we will get no meaningful legislation to help us.
As a matter as of fact, all we may get out of the Omnibus Funding bill is ANTI-gun legislation that funds the anti-gun CDC studies that the Dems insist be in the bill or they will shutdown the government.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/12/us/politics/house-approves-short-term-government-funding-bill.html?_r=0
http://blogs.rollcall.com/news/harold-rogers-bullish-on-omnibus-government-funding/
Here is the new Omnibus Commerce, Justice, Science and Related Agencies bill:
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/2131/text
I really cant stand how our gov. Is functioning we have dems and dems camouflaged as republicans how sad this country has gone to shit.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Attempt to Prevent ATF-41p and to Fund Federal Firearms Relief Through Omnibus Appropriation Bill Failed
by Joshua Prince, Esq.
As many of our viewers are aware, we were closely following H.R. 2578, as it contained two pro-Second Amendment provision, namely Amendment 302 and Amendment 320.
Amendment 302 provided “that such funds appropriated for BATF shall be available to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under United States Code”
Amendment 320 provided ATF was prohibited from “the use of funds to propose or to issue a rule that would change the Chief Law Enforcement Officer certificate requirement with respect to purchase of suppressors and other firearms regulated by the National Firearms Act.”
Unfortunately, these Amendments were stripped from the final bill - HR 2029 - Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016. As a result, you will not find any text related to Amendment 320 and the text in relation to federal firearms relief remains the same as it has since 1992 -
Provided, That none of the funds appropriated herein shall be available to investigate or act upon applications for relief from Federal firearms disabilities under section 925(c) of title 18, United States Code
As the Obama Administration has pledged to work through the Holiday Season on new regulations to limit our Second Amendment rights, including in relation to ATF-41p, we now need to be prepared to bring the FIGHT to ATF, when they implement a final rule regarding 41p.
We put a LOT of blood, sweat and tears into our initial Comment, as well as, our Supplemental Comment. We have over 400 hrs into them that we did pro-bono. Unfortunately, with the magnitude of this type of litigation, we need funding.
While we understand that it is tough this time of year to donate to a cause, anything you can offer would be greatly appreciated. We are attempting to reach our goal in advance of any final rule being promulgated in relation to 41p, so that we can immediately take action, including filing for a preliminary injunction in an attempt to prevent any final rule from being implemented during the litigation.
For more info and to donate see www.FightATF41p.com and our Press Release.
www.TexasGunTrust.com
Thanks for your fight in this.
Since I have 2 in form 3 jail, I will be seeing what I can do.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Last night I joined ASA, American Suppressor Association.
Now to contact my Reps.
There is absolutely no reason for each person on the trust to be photographed and fingerprinted for suppressor purchases.
Auto-X Fil
12-21-15, 07:52
I want the whole NFA revoked, but I wonder if it would be an acceptable compromise to disallow trusts, but remove SBRs/SBSs/suppressors and just leave the NFA for FA/DD/AOW.
That makes no sense. Why disallow trusts but not corps?
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
I doubt there's any "acceptable compromise" to the other side. If yours was proposed, AOWs would definitely need to shift over with suppressors. AOWs currently get grouped with cans in regards to not needing a signature on an F4, or requiring a 5320.20 for interstate transport. I just wish they'd use the $5 transfers with cans.
Although I'd disagree with it, I could see MG/DD being more strictly regulated.
I doubt there's any "acceptable compromise" to the other side. If yours was proposed, AOWs would definitely need to shift over with suppressors. AOWs currently get grouped with cans in regards to not needing a signature on an F4, or requiring a 5320.20 for interstate transport. I just wish they'd use the $5 transfers with cans.
Although I'd disagree with it, I could see MG/DD being more strictly regulated.
I'd have no problem with full BG checks on all trustees and corp. officers who can possess without the primary holder present. So long as the $200 per item fee isn't raised that is. What I really want to see is the need for trusts and corps. eliminated. All it would take is a funding bill with a rider requiring any BATFE office to conduct the check and sign-off if the local CLEO refuses. The U.S. gov't. can't force CLEO's to sign, so they shouldn't be allowed to hide behind them as a reason to not approve either. After all, if they don't know whether an NFA item is prohibited by law in that state, they're too stupid to be regulating them in the 1st place.
Oh, and +1 for OTC Suppressors, SBR & SBS. :)
wilson1911
12-21-15, 14:23
How come removal of silencers was not added to the omnibus that was just signed ?
How come removal of silencers was not added to the omnibus that was just signed ?
Because they hate us, the people?
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
How come removal of silencers was not added to the omnibus that was just signed ?
Because EVERY PRO-GUN rider was taken out. THANKS REPUBLICAN HOUSE AND SPEAKER RYAN!
Because EVERY PRO-GUN rider was taken out. THANKS REPUBLICAN HOUSE AND SPEAKER RYAN!
Not completely true.
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/01/the-omnibus-appropriations-bill-pro-gun-or-anti-gun/
I'd have no problem with full BG checks on all trustees and corp. officers who can possess without the primary holder present. So long as the $200 per item fee isn't raised that is. . . . . .
Seriously? True colors showing
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
I met congressman Culbertson today. Had a few minutes. He stated he was aware that 41p was there and would take appropriate action if the ATF pursues implementation.
He reminded me that he killed the ammo ban.
Might be worth it to email his office about 41P.
Tell that firearms lawyer from Texas said to email and cal. Lol
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Seriously? True colors showing
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Did you stop reading right there? It wasn't a stand alone statement.
Context is your friend. :rolleyes:
Did you stop reading right there? It wasn't a stand alone statement.
Context is your friend. :rolleyes:
Nope. I read the whole thing. That statement that I quoted shows your logic and that is the logic of someone who is willing and actually wants more background checks on more people and that is anti gun. It's one step in the Brady butchers plan of action and congrats. You are playing along.
So yes, I completely agree with your statement that context is your friend. Unfortunately, you're trying to hide your call for expanded, universal background checks by claiming context. I am not going to let you get away with that.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
I'd have no problem with full BG checks on all trustees and corp. officers who can possess without the primary holder present. So long as the $200 per item fee isn't raised that is. What I really want to see is the need for trusts and corps. eliminated. )
This is the offensive part. Not Going to bother quoting the part where you show that you clearly lack understanding of what the CLEO sign off does insinuating that the local sheriff's or task but doing background checks. There's sign off has nothing to do with the conduct of a background check.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
How come removal of silencers was not added to the omnibus that was just signed ?
Because that is dead on arrival. Is easier to simply defund a capricious ruling of the BATF
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Not completely true.
http://www.ammoland.com/2014/01/the-omnibus-appropriations-bill-pro-gun-or-anti-gun/
You're right. I missed one.
And that one didn't even need to be in there. They had the votes to stop it.
It did, however, include:
$60 million more for NICS
* $58.5 million for states to submit NICS records- "There is no registry" YEAH, RIGHT!
* $70 million more for the ATF.
Chorizo, I don't mean this as an argument with you, I just don't want people thinking that the omnibus is anything other than another example of the fact that the majority of Republicans are not conservative and will sell us out in a snap!
jerrysimons
12-24-15, 10:25
So 70 million to the ATF, isn't it safe to say that they got the funding needed for 41p now?
So 70 million to the ATF, isn't it safe to say that they got the funding needed for 41p now?
Depends how it's appropriated
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
So 70 million to the ATF, isn't it safe to say that they got the funding needed for 41p now?
Not just 70 million, 70 million MORE!
4% "real" increase of their total budget...
Chorizo, I don't mean this as an argument with you, I just don't want people thinking that the omnibus is anything other than another example of the fact that the majority of Republicans are not conservative and will sell us out in a snap!
I concur with you. We were sold down the river and until we get some folks with spines and a conservative viewpoint, we are barely holding our own against the progressive tide.
Nope. I read the whole thing. That statement that I quoted shows your logic and that is the logic of someone who is willing and actually wants more background checks on more people and that is anti gun. It's one step in the Brady butchers plan of action and congrats. You are playing along.
So yes, I completely agree with your statement that context is your friend. Unfortunately, you're trying to hide your call for expanded, universal background checks by claiming context. I am not going to let you get away with that.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
So you say, yet you say this:
Because that is dead on arrival. Is easier to simply defund a capricious ruling of the BATF
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Capitulate much? :rolleyes:
Simply put, your reading comprehension sucks. Bad. I never called for UBC's and you're a liar if you say I did. I adamantly oppose UBC's and I'm not afraid to say it. I said I'd be OK with (not support, but not actively oppose) is adding 5330.20 forms for each person on the Trust or Corp., who will be allowed to possess the NFA item WITHOUT the principal person on the Trust or Corp. present. All that does is allow the BATFE to confirm that any individual on the Trust or Corp. in sole possession of the NFA item, is legally eligible to do so. Stop. Nothing more.
At the same time, I specifically stated that what I really want is the CLEO signature for individuals to be eliminated or at the very least, circumvented completely. The only real reason for it is a defacto NFA ban in those jurisdictions where CLEO's refuse to sign, forcing people to establish Trusts and Corps if they want to circumvent a CLEO refusal. That would mean the ONLY reason to form a Trust or Corp., would be for transfer to heirs or getting multiple possessors on the form.
I'd also like to address the elephant in the room. As someone who wrote their own NFA Trust (not an online generic, but a custom NFA Trust), has filed their own BATFE Forms and done intrastate person to person NFA transfers without a dealer, along with direct Trust to interstate dealer transfers for years, the NFA process does not intimidate me. I've gotten 100% approvals with no "trouble status", which I can't say for every dealer transfer I've endured.
You have a vested financial interest in getting people to have you build Trusts for them. The elimination of the CLEO signoff would cut into your profits. So I'd appreciate it if you stopped misrepresenting what I posted and get off my ass! :mad:
I have supported the CLEO signoff.
I support the hpA
F UC k* you dick head
The reality is, I'll go back to making money practicing law doing family in criminal law. That's not the issue. The simple reality is that you are too ignorant to figure out that HPA is dead. We have a shot at defunding funding 41p.
How about you read a known what you said. And quit trying to sorry what you said into something that is anything other than what it is
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
So you say, yet you say this:
Capitulate much? :rolleyes:
Simply put, your reading comprehension sucks. Bad. I never called for UBC's and you're a liar if you say I did.
At the same time, I specifically stated that what I really want is the CLEO signature for i
I'd also like to address the elephant in the room. As someone who wrote their own NFA Trust
You actually did call for expanded universal background checks own trusts and corporations.
You wrote it, own it and quit trying to weasel your way out of it.
And congratulations on doing your own gun trust. Never said it couldn't be done. That doesn't change the fact you call for expanded universal background checks with your own words that you typed yourself.
Since you have called my honor into question, even in light of your plain words calling fir expanded universal background checks on trusts and coros, I want to be very clear:
I have always and will always support the best interest of the Second Amendment community over my financial interest any day and every day of the week.
That includes shall certify legislation in the state of Texas and removal of everything including transferable machine guns from the National Firearms Act.
My guess is, I have a hell of a lot more to lose than you do on both a professional level and investment level and transferable machine guns.
So go screw yourself
Sean Cody
Www.TexasGunTrust.com
Well, that escalated quickly.
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
And while we are at it, which congressmen have you shook thier hand and mentioned defunding 41p to and made them aware of the HPA face to face?
I did that last week before Christmas
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Well, that escalated quickly.
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
You can call me a lot of things. But that jackass stepped over the line.
Some fool that probably has little to nothing in this game accuses me of shilling for my personal gain when he has absolutely no idea how the process works and what can get passed and can't get passed at this time, it pisses me off. Especially after he clearly calls for universal background checks on trust and corporations and then tries to deny his own words
41P affects everyone in the NFA community. Whether a lawyer did your trust or whether you did it yourself or got it from a gun store. 41p affects everybody. Defunding 41p is in reach if it actually gets implemented.
Sean Cody
Www.TexasGunTrust.com
KalashniKEV
12-28-15, 17:55
Because that is dead on arrival.
LOL!
Raise your hand if you didn't think the Omnibus would pass...
...the logic of someone who is willing and actually wants more background checks on more people and that is anti gun.
I think logically, we all want more background checks to prevent criminals and those adjudicated to be looney toons from obatining weapons.
Where we all differ is how it should be executed.
I think background checks should be truly instant, free, and not tied to firearms ownership at all.
Make a www.backgroundcheck.gov. Let people go nuts and check each other all day long for any reason they want.
...until we get some folks with spines and a conservative viewpoint, we are barely holding our own against the progressive tide.
Conservatism/ Progressivism are just distractions for the sheeple. We are discussing issues of Liberty and Tyranny.
I am not going to let you get away with that.
F UC k* you dick head
LOL.. take a chill pill, homey.
Who would hire you with that attitude?
You sound like some kind of...
If you accuse me of putting my finances ahead of the community then you get what you get. if you don't like that you can go somewhere else.
The Problem with expanded background checks is that it's an incremental step on the gun banning Brady Bunch agenda. When we agree to anything, it is one step closer to their ultimate goal of gun confiscation.
You have to remember the ultimate goals of our group vs The Brady Bunch group. The ultimate goal of the Brady Bunch is gun confiscation.
Our ultimate goal is keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and stopping there. The problem is that these two goals are incompatible when any compromise that we make is an incremental step toward the Brady Bunch's ultimate goal.
This is why we cannot give up on anything, especially universal background checks.
Sean Cody
Www.TexasGunTrust.com
1. If you don't have a trust, or know someone who needs a trust, its time to get one ASAP. I'll be happy to answer any questions they have.
2. Submit your form 1s by efiling.
3. Submit your form 4s ASAP
Do you have a recommendation in the San Antonio area to set up a trust?
Thanks in advance!
The mental health background checks are a real slippery slope. Mental health background checks potentially put any veteran into the crosshairs if they ever talk to a mental health provider. Depending on how this law is worded, it could be used to prevent anyone who has ever talk to a mental health professional from purchasing a firearm until they go back to a mental health professional and find one that is willing to ok their possession and purchase of firearms.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
I actually recently dealt with this very issue with a veteran client in a family law case
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Enough. Take the argument to PM.
Done
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
I have no problem with the ATF running a NICS E-check on all Trustees/Settlers and Beneficiaries of a Trust. I also have no problem with Trustees/Settlers having to provide some form of identification when they purchase a NFA item (could be as simple as uploading approved credentials). I do have a problem with the finger printing and CLEO sign-off which have nothing to do with reducing crime and everything to do with denial of rights. I also have a problem with this notion of a Tax Stamp since the power to tax is the power to destroy. There should be, at most, a nominal fee of a few bucks (i.e. <$15) to cover the "cost" of the check whenever you want to buy a NFA item. In fact, there should be no difference between buying a silencer, SBR, or pistol - simply go to the store, fill out your form, provide some ID, run a NICS check, pay, then go home with your item. That easy and Walmart could start carrying the SOCOM line of suppressors.
When it comes to mental health requirements, there is no way to reach a reasonable balance of inquiry vs. medical privacy under our current healthcare system in America. I say that as someone who issues involuntary commitment orders every day. Each state is different in the burden of proof for a commitment and the adjudication process. Most states make it far to easy for disgruntled family members and acquaintances to commit people as a weapon in custody disputes, divorces, etc. Probably 20% of the commitment orders that I see that come already signed by a magistrate are complete BS and part of some feud or misunderstanding. The mental health system is far too fragmented and prone to abuse if allowed to become another hurtle for gun ownership. Thus, we are going to have to tolerate the fact that, on occasion, some determined nuts will go to a gun store, legally purchase a gun, and kill a bunch of people. Sometimes those killed will be kids. This last point is the real heart of the matter; true believers of the 2nd Amendment intuitively understand this and see it as the price of our freedom while anti's find the premise intolerable. You won't find a NRA spokesman willing to confront this last point out of fear of alienating the millions of non-gun owners who support some degree of gun freedom but are not true believers in the 2nd Amendment. However, trust me when I say there is no way to police mental health without crawling up the ass of medical privacy and/or having mental health criteria become another weapon to limit gun ownership just like tax stamps.
Finally, I'm all for people calling their reps to apply political pressure. However, it is unavoidable that people will notice the appearance of a conflict of interest if lawyers who are active in the NFA trust industry start encouraging the purchase of trusts every time there is some movement on 41P. It is going to come across to some as opportunistic even when the motives are genuine. It would be like me telling people to go to their doctor and stock-up on their Tamiflu in preparation for flu season while prescribing the drug and having Genetech stock.
jerrysimons
12-29-15, 10:24
^Exactly. The Constitution guarantees freedom, not safety.
People need to wake up to their rights to provide their own safety as only they can. All arguments for gun control in the name of collective well being are trading rights for the illusion of perceived safety.
If 41p was only that everyone in the trust gets a background check (name and info sent in to run NCIS) with no CLEO sig or fingerprints, or picture required, I could live with that. But as it is I likely will not go to the hassle of acquiring another NFA item if I have to round up everyone in my trust and get them to jump through the hoops with me, to avoid the idiotic hassle of explaining to gramps why he has to go get his mug and prints taken with a permission slip from some bureaucrat.
On the implementation side, what is to keep someone from getting a trust, acquiring NFA items with the settlor/head as the only trustee, then, after receiving approved items, adding the trustees they want? The addition of a trustee form is quite a simple notarized affidavit (my trust is written to where their statues as trustee is contingent upon their legal qualification to posses firearms spelled out as it is on a 4473 anyway). Similarly I can sit down and in a matter of minutes fill out and sign the forms that would unilaterally remove all trustees except for myself from the trust. When I think about 41p implemented I don't see it being in any way enforceable (or even implementable) short of complex a "nfa trust registry" with a verification prior to it being eligible to register NFA items to that trust. OR the ATF simply says no more trusts?
Related - http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/12/28/56511/police-in-california-will-be-able-to-seize-guns-pr/
Police in California can seize guns without prior notice starting Jan. 1
Family members who believe a loved one poses a danger to themselves or others will be able to ask police to seek a temporary “gun violence” restraining order from a judge beginning Jan. 1. The order would allow police to seize the person’s guns for 21 days.
PatrioticDisorder
12-29-15, 15:04
Considering we're now just a couple short days from 41p doomsday, does anyone have any updates?
I'm just hoping this doesn't pass. I'm pretty much SOL in Texas if it does.
Rotorhead84
12-29-15, 16:49
Any idea what happens if this is implemented and you have paperwork submitted using a trust?
Rotorhead84
12-29-15, 16:51
Considering we're now just a couple short days from 41p doomsday, does anyone have any updates?
I don't think they have set any sort of solid date? Just "January 2016"
Any idea what happens if this is implemented and you have paperwork submitted using a trust?
AFAIK no change has ever been retroactive. All in process paperwork should be fine.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Any idea what happens if this is implemented and you have paperwork submitted using a trust?
Historically, the BATFE has process paperwork that was already received before the deadline under the rules that were an effect on the day the documents were received. We have no reason to believe that this will change
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
beschatten
12-30-15, 10:11
Can I get an explanation of this thread like I'm 5 years old? I've never considered a suppressor until recently-so most of this is new to me.
The jist of it seems to be legislative movement that is coming after NFA items, i.e., banning them?
Can I get an explanation of this thread like I'm 5 years old? I've never considered a suppressor until recently-so most of this is new to me.
The jist of it seems to be legislative movement that is coming after NFA items, i.e., banning them?
From what I can gather, if you register with a trust you will still have to get a Chief Law Enforcement Officer signature. Which can basically be a ban if your CLEO wont sign off.
From what I can gather, if you register with a trust you will still have to get a Chief Law Enforcement Officer signature. Which can basically be a ban if your CLEO wont sign off.
That's pretty much it.
An individual is required to provide photos, fingerprints and get CLEO sig. Currently and entity is not. 41P will require all "reaponsible parties" of the entity to provide prints and photos (not sure about a single sig or multiple).
It'll be a hassle for entities, but you can do prints and photos yourself. Most people never try to go through the whole list of acceptable signatures, but there are a few locales where it will end up being a de facto ban.
jerrysimons
12-30-15, 12:55
That's pretty much it.
An individual is required to provide photos, fingerprints and get CLEO sig. Currently and entity is not. 41P will require all "reaponsible parties" of the entity to provide prints and photos (not sure about a single sig or multiple).
It'll be a hassle for entities, but you can do prints and photos yourself. Most people never try to go through the whole list of acceptable signatures, but there are a few locales where it will end up being a de facto ban.
Is CLEO sig is not required for every trustee, or just the trustee filling with the address in the county or municipality on the form 1/4?
Is CLEO sig is not required for every trustee, or just the trustee filling with the address in the county or municipality on the form 1/4?
That's the question I don't recall seeing being answered. I'd sure hope it was just the one. But, would it then matter in regards to who files vs who goes to pick it up and fill out the 4473?
Prints and photos shouldn't be a big deal. In my case, there are only three trustees. But, we cross a county line in the 7 minutes between two of our houses.
I seem to remember reading that the CLEO sign off would be needed for all trustees. Not sure where I read it???
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
jerrysimons
12-30-15, 13:49
That is a big difference. Though I really don't see how trustee info can actually be checked, especially if CLEO is required for all trustees, when the addition and removal of trustees is so simple and easy. With the variations of trusts out there and the fluidity of trustees, how can ATF possibly keep track of this especially if they are requiring info from more than just the filling and picking up trustee. Is it possible they just say no dice on trusts till they get it figured out? It seems the only sure thing is trust forms will not be approved unless accompanied by the same individual requirements (Cleo, pic, prints) for the filling/picking up members but that doesn't accord with the idea of the order requiring checks on everyone.
What a mess. We need to succeed in cutting the funding for this crap! Even shall sign Cleo, while good (what gives Texas!?), is too much of a hassle.
beschatten
12-30-15, 15:22
Thanks for explanation.
Sorry, but I have another dumb question...
If we buy NFA items without a trust, same process of getting a CLEO signature?
Is this signature done to verify and double check identity and conduct a BI?
Is there a list of "requirements" that must be met in order to achieve the CLEO signature? Or is based on whatever the CLEO feels like?
It's a bogus requirement no matter what. If you have a CCW/CHP/etc, it should be signed on the spot, but it's not.
Best thing to give you an idea is look at a Form 1 or 4. Read the yes/no questions (similar to 4473) and the CLEO Certification section (including the instructions on the latter pages). They're just acknowledging they don't have a reason to prohibit you...although many of them insert their personal beliefs instead (or are encouraged to like ours in NC thanks to a communist Atty Gen). We passed "shall sign" legislation a couple months ago and still have CLEO refusing to sign.
We passed "shall sign" legislation a couple months ago and still have CLEO refusing to sign.
And here you have a defacto-ban with legislation in place that actually requires approval, which is exactly what the goal of this BS rule change happens to be...
PatrioticDisorder
12-30-15, 19:57
It's a bogus requirement no matter what. If you have a CCW/CHP/etc, it should be signed on the spot, but it's not.
Best thing to give you an idea is look at a Form 1 or 4. Read the yes/no questions (similar to 4473) and the CLEO Certification section (including the instructions on the latter pages). They're just acknowledging they don't have a reason to prohibit you...although many of them insert their personal beliefs instead (or are encouraged to like ours in NC thanks to a communist Atty Gen). We passed "shall sign" legislation a couple months ago and still have CLEO refusing to sign.
Sounds like the legislature didn't give the bill enough teeth. There needs to be consequences when a CLEO refuses to sign off, it needs to be spelled out.
Can I get an explanation of this thread like I'm 5 years old? I've never considered a suppressor until recently-so most of this is new to me.
The jist of it seems to be legislative movement that is coming after NFA items, i.e., banning them?
To sum it up
The ATF will require that all responsible parties in a trust or corporate or other legal entity shall submit photos, fingerprints and a Cleo signoff
The definition of responsible party is problematic. The way the ATF to find the responsible party does anyone who may come into possession of the weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act. In a corporation, that means the officers and any employees and all employees who might be in possession of the items.
Conceivably, this could include the beneficiaries of a trust.
In jurisdictions that have signed legislation that has been passed, this is not as big a problem as it is in Texas where we failed to pass shall signed legislation last year.
There is some question as to whether the state can force local elected officials to sign form ones and 4s.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Is CLEO sig is not required for every trustee, or just the trustee filling with the address in the county or municipality on the form 1/4?
Finger prints photographs and cheap enforcement signatures are required for every responsible person. Essentially this means every trustee, and potentially every beneficiary depending on how beneficiaries of you by the ATF and what powers the trust gives them.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
I thought I saw a statements that someone could just add trustees after the form for was approved by the 80s. BATF thought about people doing this. All new trustees added to a trust, he responsible persons, must submit fingerprints photographs and see Leo sign off 30 days after being added to the trust.
Now that raises the question of what if you have a temporary trustee that is all the trust less than 30 days.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Sounds like the legislature didn't give the bill enough teeth. There needs to be consequences when a CLEO refuses to sign off, it needs to be spelled out.
They did. If CLEO refuses, or Denies based on something you believe is wrong, you take them to court. I think they have 15 days to sign it. When they get to court, they're forced to pay court costs and then sign it. Just don't know anybody that's taken it that far. For anybody interested, here's the section of the bill that passed. (You could send a copy to your reps if your state doesn't have shall sign legislation).
SECTION 13. Article 53B of Chapter 14 of the General Statutes is amended by adding a new section to read:
"§ 14‑409.41. Chief law enforcement officer certification; certain firearms.
(a) Definitions. – The following definitions apply in this section:
(1) Certification. – The participation and assent of the chief law enforcement officer necessary under federal law for the approval of the application to transfer or make a firearm.
(2) Chief law enforcement officer. – Any official that the United States Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, or any successor agency, has identified by regulation or otherwise as eligible to provide any required certification for the transfer or making of a firearm.
(3) Firearm. – Any firearm that meets the definition of firearm in 26 U.S.C. § 5845.
(b) When a chief law enforcement officer's certification is required by federal law or regulation for the transfer or making of a firearm, the chief law enforcement officer shall, within 15 days of receipt of a request for certification, provide the certification if the applicant is not prohibited by State or federal law from receiving or possessing the firearm and is not the subject of a proceeding that could result in the applicant being prohibited by State or federal law from receiving or possessing the firearm. If the chief law enforcement officer is unable to make a certification as required by this section, the chief law enforcement officer shall provide the applicant with a written notification of the denial and the reason for the denial.
Nothing in this section shall require a chief law enforcement officer to make a certification the chief law enforcement officer knows to be untrue, but the chief law enforcement officer may not refuse to provide certification based on a generalized objection to private persons or entities making, possessing, or receiving firearms or any certain type of firearm the possession of which is not prohibited by law.
(c) An applicant whose request for certification is denied may appeal the decision of the chief law enforcement officer to the district court of the district in which the request for certification was made. The court shall make a de novo review of the chief law enforcement officer's decision to deny the certification. If the court finds that the applicant is not prohibited by State or federal law from receiving or possessing the firearm, is not the subject of a proceeding that could result in the applicant being prohibited by State or federal law from receiving or possessing the firearm, and that no substantial evidence supports the chief law enforcement officer's determination that the chief law enforcement officer cannot truthfully make the certification, the court shall order the chief law enforcement officer to issue the certification and award court costs and reasonable attorneys' fees to the applicant.
(d) Chief law enforcement officers and their employees who act in good faith are immune from liability arising from any act or omission in making a certification as required by this section."
jerrysimons
12-31-15, 05:39
I thought I saw a statements that someone could just add trustees after the form for was approved by the 80s. BATF thought about people doing this. All new trustees added to a trust, he responsible persons, must submit fingerprints photographs and see Leo sign off 30 days after being added to the trust.
Now that raises the question of what if you have a temporary trustee that is all the trust less than 30 days.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Or else what, that trustee is a valid member of the trust but not eligible to posses the trusts NFA assets, according to the ATF? Seems they are wading into the territory of creating law pertaining to how trusts work, arbitrating legal distinctions of trustees. Then 41p is not just a trust registry but a regulation of a trusts legal functions.
Yep. That's the problem with their definition of RP
www.AtomicLabRat.com
Toyoland66
01-03-16, 02:23
E-forms has been down all day, I am hoping it's just a coincidence.
E-forms has been down all day, I am hoping it's just a coincidence.
Just logged in a 0427 hrs CST. Worked just fine.
So can I file without a CLEO still or will I get rejected now?
So can I file without a CLEO still or will I get rejected now?
Still good.
E-forms has been down all day, I am hoping it's just a coincidence.
Just logged in a 0427 hrs CST. Worked just fine.
Yep...it down briefly on Sat. Make sure to do a refresh/reload if you get the message it's down. I got back in within a couple hours.
Rotorhead84
01-03-16, 20:11
To sum it up
The ATF will require that all responsible parties in a trust or corporate or other legal entity shall submit photos, fingerprints and a Cleo signoff
The definition of responsible party is problematic. The way the ATF to find the responsible party does anyone who may come into possession of the weapons regulated by the National Firearms Act. In a corporation, that means the officers and any employees and all employees who might be in possession of the items.
Conceivably, this could include the beneficiaries of a trust.
In jurisdictions that have signed legislation that has been passed, this is not as big a problem as it is in Texas where we failed to pass shall signed legislation last year.
There is some question as to whether the state can force local elected officials to sign form ones and 4s.
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Would the fingerprints, photos, and cleo sign off be a one time thing? Or would it be required for every form filed?
Every form.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Rotorhead84
01-03-16, 20:16
So you guys are making it sound like this is a done deal and we're just waiting for the ATF to officially implement the new rules?
Rotorhead84
01-03-16, 20:27
Every form.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So a trust goes from convenient to incredibly inconvenient.
So you guys are making it sound like this is a done deal and we're just waiting for the ATF to officially implement the new rules?
Basically correct. However, there are still some who believe that it may never be implemented. The rule has been on the radar for over 3 years now but keeps gutting pushed back due to various legal maneuvers from pro-NFA organizations. December of 2015 was supposed to be the most recent implementation deadline, but like others it came and passed. While there is renewed speculation that ATF is approaching implementation since the ATF 41P website now lists January 2016 as zero hour, there are a couple caveats:
1) ATF will probably give some warning of at least 30 days before go time. Thus, it is highly unlikely that we will really see implementation this month. What the website change likely does mean is that future delays are to come in monthly installments instead of yearly.
2) It is also highly likely that ATF will continue processing Form 1s and 4s under the old rules provided they were received or in process by the time 41P is implemented. There is debate about what defines received or in process, but check cashed (or credit card charged if eFiling Form 1) is very likely safe.
3) One of the ATF lawyers has mentioned off the record that a grace period of up to 90-days may be granted even after implementation to allow those waiting on their Form 3 to clear. This is very tenuous and probably not worth banking on unless someone goes on record. Thus, if you are transferring a suppressor from out of state, see if your seller will send a copy of the Form 3 (or SN and length) to your Class 3 dealer who is completing the transfer. Your local dealer can then send in your Form 4. This is perfectly legal and saves you weeks. Most local dealers will wait a couple of weeks to submit the Form 4 to minimize the chance of the form 4 getting approved before the Form 3 and causing fireworks with the transfer.
Do you have anything from ATF website, that it is legal?
I would like get my two form 4's filed.
Would like something to show my dealer.
Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
There's a big difference in "legal" and "common". Dealers file F4s before the F3s are approved all the time. I've had three different dealers do it for me. However, it's technically not allowed to file an F4 for an item that's not yet in your inventory. Granted, it only becomes a problem if you get caught.
It will result in an error letter similar to this:
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/BATFE/FirearmNotInInventory_zpse8vpvjvy.jpg
That being said, business like Silencer Shop have said they were told it was OK. They file theirs two weeks after the F4 if you're using their Powered By program.
Thanks BigWaylon. I recommend that people wait a couple of weeks after the Form 3 is submitted before sending in a Form 4.
skywalkrNCSU
01-04-16, 19:15
How would it work if I ordered a can that is out of stock? Can they file the paperwork before they actually have one?
They would need the serial number. Even then, not sure they would.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How would it work if I ordered a can that is out of stock? Can they file the paperwork before they actually have one?
The short answer is no. They need a serial number and a submitted for 3 at a minimum.
www.AtomicLabRat.com
CLEO signature has been eliminated for all NFA transactions
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download
As I understand it, everyone on the trust must be fingerprinted and pictured
SeriousStudent
01-04-16, 22:35
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download
As I understand it, everyone on the trust must be fingerprinted and pictured
If you have a CHL, your photo and prints are already on file. Granted, that is your state, and not the Federal gubmint.
If you have a CHL, your photo and prints are already on file. Granted, that is your state, and not the Federal gubmint.
Not in Alabama... no picture or fingerprints... leave Texas and come to a state that respects gun rights!;)
SeriousStudent
01-04-16, 22:41
Hahaha - my first CHL was in Indiana 25+ years ago. I paid $25 I think, and they scribbled some stuff on a card. We spent more time talking about magazines for my 1911 than the whole legal stuff.
"You like them Wilsons? They seem pricey, but I heard they run like a spotted-ass ape."
Yes, Deputy, Bill Wilson makes good magazines.
Hahaha - my first CHL was in Indiana 25+ years ago. I paid $25 I think, and they scribbled some stuff on a card. We spent more time talking about magazines for my 1911 than the whole legal stuff.
"You like them Wilsons? They seem pricey, but I heard they run like a spotted-ass ape."
Yes, Deputy, Bill Wilson makes good magazines.
Pretty much how it is here, now.
Back to 41p, let see if I have this correct.
If I buy a NFA item as an individual, I send in a copy of prints and picture for each item.
If I buy an item for my trust, everyone listed on the trust has to send in a copy of prints and picture for each item.
Am I wrong? Did I miss something?
CLEO signature has been eliminated for all NFA transactions
'you are incorrect All responsible persons which is everybody must get a CLEO signoff.
'you are incorrect All responsible persons which is everybody must get a CLEO signoff.
No.. must only NOTIFY CLEO. "signoff"/Certification has been eliminated with 41P.
lahunter57
01-04-16, 22:55
'you are incorrect All responsible persons which is everybody must get a CLEO signoff.
Maybe I'm missing something or read it incorrectly, but on the document released by the ATF it said that the CLEO's need not sign off anymore. They only require notification, whatever that means.
Do you have a source of text proving this incorrect?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
'you are incorrect All responsible persons which is everybody must get a CLEO signoff.
No. It clearly says no more CLEO sign-off, only notification of the CLEO.
It does require all responsible person's whether filing as an individual, trust, corporation, etc., to provide fingerprints and picture. So, everyone on a trust or corp. must give prints and a pic.
Maybe I'm missing something or read it incorrectly, but on the document released by the ATF it said that the CLEO's need not sign off anymore. They only require notification, whatever that means.
Do you have a source of text proving this incorrect?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You have it correct. SC-Texas is Incorrect. There is NO MORE CLEO "Certification" (aka "signoff"), it is NOW simply NOTIFYING the CLEO.
No CLEO sign off, just notifying the CLEO. So..... where does the fingerprinting and picture come in? Do I need to do them every time my trust purchases an NFA Item? Do I do them one time and have them with my Trust?
I would assume one time and have them with the trust but.... That makes too much sense after all it is the gov we are talking about
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
You have it correct. SC-Texas is Incorrect. There is NO MORE CLEO "Certification" (aka "signoff"), it is NOW simply NOTIFYING the CLEO.
That is not what the proposed rule said.
The original 41p got rid of the CLEO sign off.
The actual proposed language re-inserted the language requiring the CLEO signoff.
I hope that the two of you are correct and that I am wrong. Please go to the language of 41p, as proposed and submitted for comment, and show me where they deleted the requirement for a CLEO signoff.
Interesting: This is new: https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download
See page 32 "The Department acknowledges comments regarding expansion of the CLEO certification requirement. The Department has changed the CLEO certification in the proposed rules to a CLEO notification requirement in the final rule for all transferees, whether individuals, trusts, or legal entities."
Yeah, that is what ScottyRyan was referring to.
Ready.Fire.Aim
01-04-16, 23:17
Deleted
And another interesting tidbit. If they actually changed the definiaiton of responsible person, then a trustee may be narrowly defined min my trust to avoid the necessity of fingerprints, yet still be able to posses
That is not what the proposed rule said.
The original 41p got rid of the CLEO sign off.
The actual proposed language re-inserted the language requiring the CLEO signoff.
I hope that the two of you are correct and that I am wrong. Please go to the language of 41p, as proposed and submitted for comment, and show me where they deleted the requirement for a CLEO signoff.
It is taken out SC
"The Department has also reassessed the need for CLEO certification and is implementing a new
approach that focuses on notifying CLEOs. The final rule only requires that the applicant maker
or transferee, including each responsible person for a trust or legal entity, provide a notice to the
appropriate State or local official that an application is being submitted to ATF."
Yeah, that is what ScottyRyan was referring to.
well like I said, I am happy to have been behind the times on that comment.
If they actually change that requirement and the Responsible persons definition then the trust will still be very viable.
It is taken out SC
"The Department has also reassessed the need for CLEO certification and is implementing a new
approach that focuses on notifying CLEOs. The final rule only requires that the applicant maker
or transferee, including each responsible person for a trust or legal entity, provide a notice to the
appropriate State or local official that an application is being submitted to ATF."
already on top of that.
What they did with the responsible person definition is interesting
already on top of that.
What they did with the responsible person definition is interesting
I am on 5 minute delay
OK, I'm reading this and it does not sound as draconian as I first thought. However, I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me. Here is my take on it so far in order of importance:
1) No more CLEO sign off; this has been replaced with simple notification. This is actually a big deal as this rule now essentially eliminates the possibility of liberal CLEOs using ATF rules to limit access to NFA devices.
2) Responsible persons must get finger printed and photographs. For trusts, this appears to be settlors / trustees. The way I'm reading it, beneficiaries do not fall under this requirement? I'd like some legal eagles to chime in and let me know if this is correct.
3) This goes into effect 180 days from publication. I assume that the publication date will be very soon - possibly today or tomorrow?
4) NFA items can be passed in estate on a tax exempt basis.
OK, I'm reading this and it does not sound as draconian as I first thought. However, I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me. Here is my take one it so far in order of importance:
1) No more CLEO sign off; this has been replaced with simple notification. This is actually a big deal as this rule now essentially eliminates the possibility of liberal CLEOs using ATF rules to limit access to NFA devices.
2) Responsible persons must get finger printed and photographs. For trusts, this appears to be settlors / trustees. The way I'm reading it, beneficiaries do not fall under this requirement? It like dome legal eagles to chime in and let me know if this is correct.
3) This goes into effect 180 days from publication in the registrar. I assume that the publication date will be very soon - possibly today or tomorrow?
4) NFA items can be passed in estate on a tax exempt basis.
1) CLEO still for individuals - ETA looks like it is gone for them too!!
3) Should be published within next 2 weeks
PatrioticDisorder
01-04-16, 23:27
OK, I'm reading this and it does not sound as draconian as I first thought. However, I'm not a lawyer, so feel free to correct me. Here is my take one it so far in order of importance:
1) No more CLEO sign off; this has been replaced with simple notification. This is actually a big deal as this rule now essentially eliminates the possibility of liberal CLEOs using ATF rules to limit access to NFA devices.
2) Responsible persons must get finger printed and photographs. For trusts, this appears to be settlors / trustees. The way I'm reading it, beneficiaries do not fall under this requirement? It like dome legal eagles to chime in and let me know if this is correct.
3) This goes into effect 180 days from publication in the registrar. I assume that the publication date will be very soon - possibly today or tomorrow?
4) NFA items can be passed in estate on a tax exempt basis.
Correct on all 4 and if I'm not mistaken based on what I've read, as long as paperwork is "current" the photographs & fingerprints don't need to be sent in every time you buy a new item, that is huge as well. I believe current is defined as, bought an item within the last 24 months...
PatrioticDisorder
01-04-16, 23:27
1) CLEO still for individuals
3) Should be published within next 2 weeks
Incorrect, CLEO sign off is gone completely, replaced with notification. It doesn't matter if it is individual, trust or Corp.
So this is shaping up to be a huge long term win. Allow me to elaborate. A Democrat administration just eliminated the biggest barrier to NFA ownership - CLEO sign off. This positions a Republican administration to remove the fingerprint and photo requirements so that NFA items can be purchased with a NICS check. This would maintain a background check that is so important to the media.
Rather than reducing NFA sales, it seems that this rule is really geared at incentivizing individual rather than trust or corporate NFA purchases. The ATF is doing this by removing a huge barrier to individual purchases (CLEO sign off) and providing some modest protections such as tax free inheritance for NFA estates. Thus, I don't see the number of NFA purchases declining in the next few months. Instead, I bet they will go up,with a modest shift toward individual purchases.
So this is shaping up to be a huge long term win. Allow me to elaborate. A Democrat administration just eliminated the biggest barrier to NFA ownership - CLEO sign off. This positions a Republican administration to remove the fingerprint and photo requirements so that NFA items can be purchased with a NICS check. This would maintain a background check that is so important to the media.
Rather than reducing NFA sales, it seems that this rule is really geared at incentivizing individual rather than trust or corporate NFA purchases. The ATF is doing this by removing a huge barrier to individual purchases (CLEO sign off) and providing some modest protections such as tax free inheritance for NFA estates. Thus, I don't see the number of NFA purchases declining in the next few months. Instead, I bet they will go up,with a modest shift toward individual purchases.
Agree
One negative I see is longer waits as everyone undergoes BGChecks. But I think there is a provision so you do not have do the BGChecks if nothing has changed and you have submitted within the last 24 months. So buy early, buy often!
Trading something that we would have gotten anyway in Texas next session for fingerprints photos and cleo notification isn't a win.
Shall certify would pass next year. We have given up more than we received.
www.AtomicLabRat.com
It's just less of a raping than we expected. You see they took something. But they took less than you thought they would take, so you are jumping up and down like you won something when you simply got something you would have gotten anyway.
www.AtomicLabRat.com
PatrioticDisorder
01-05-16, 00:44
So this is shaping up to be a huge long term win. Allow me to elaborate. A Democrat administration just eliminated the biggest barrier to NFA ownership - CLEO sign off. This positions a Republican administration to remove the fingerprint and photo requirements so that NFA items can be purchased with a NICS check. This would maintain a background check that is so important to the media.
Rather than reducing NFA sales, it seems that this rule is really geared at incentivizing individual rather than trust or corporate NFA purchases. The ATF is doing this by removing a huge barrier to individual purchases (CLEO sign off) and providing some modest protections such as tax free inheritance for NFA estates. Thus, I don't see the number of NFA purchases declining in the next few months. Instead, I bet they will go up,with a modest shift toward individual purchases.
Exactly my take, a rather stunning turn of events considering the current administration. We were on defense, this is the football equivalent of a pick 6.... And with an R win in 2016 the ground has set to further loosen NFA as you stated...
So remove some bs for individuals and add some for everyone else? Still pisses me off because fingerprints and pictures are just another hoop to jump through. One of the big reasons I did a trust was so I didn't have to go out of my way to get proper fingerprints done. Our sheriff's office will do them but they're out of my way and the hours suck, which means taking time off work to get them done.
Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk
scoutfsu99
01-05-16, 02:11
It's just less of a raping than we expected.
Exactly. The same problem we've had for a long time. Gun owners give, give, compromise, and give....and nothing is given or compromised in return. It is a inexorable degradation of our previous rights and freedoms.
But people are ecstatic it isn't as bad as it could've been...:mad:
Given that this seems to be pushing NFA purchases to be made individually vs with trusts, and the proposed rules around selling firearms as a dealer or not, it would seem an underlying strategy is to perhaps determine who is an owner vs what guns they have. Dealing with a who is much easier than dealing with all the boating accidents they may have had....
After that the trick would be to make them ineligible to own/purchase/etc via ''mental health'', domestic violence, etc.
PatrioticDisorder
01-05-16, 04:07
Given that this seems to be pushing NFA purchases to be made individually vs with trusts, and the proposed rules around selling firearms as a dealer or not, it would seem an underlying strategy is to perhaps determine who is an owner vs what guns they have. Dealing with a who is much easier than dealing with all the boating accidents they may have had....
After that the trick would be to make them ineligible to own/purchase/etc via ''mental health'', domestic violence, etc.
I could see many using the individual route now, however trusts still maintain an advantage for those thinking ahead.
Does the inheritance clarification affect property in the trust?
PatrioticDisorder
01-05-16, 06:28
Wrong thread, please disregard.
domestique
01-05-16, 06:33
It doesn't sound like this would stop anyone from submitting a stripped down version of their trust (1 settlor, 2 trustees) and then after getting the NFA item, amending the trust and adding all the trustees they wanted.
Question for those that have done fingerprints. Do they have to be done by LEOs, and then to sign the form for authenticity? Can they be done at home by a competent person? If so, having everyone getting passport photos, and getting fingerprints at a family holiday gathering isn't too bad.
It doesn't sound like this would stop anyone from submitting a stripped down version of their trust (1 settlor, 2 trustees) and then after getting the NFA item, amending the trust and adding all the trustees they wanted.
Question for those that have done fingerprints. Do they have to be done by LEOs, and then to sign the form for authenticity? Can they be done at home by a competent person? If so, having everyone getting passport photos, and getting fingerprints at a family holiday gathering isn't too bad.
I'd be shocked if the fingerprint could be done on anything other than an FD-258 by a LEO designate who signs the card.
Question for those that have done fingerprints. Do they have to be done by LEOs, and then to sign the form for authenticity? Can they be done at home by a competent person? If so, having everyone getting passport photos, and getting fingerprints at a family holiday gathering isn't too bad.
You've always been able to do them yourself. You can order blank cards online with the NFA ORI stamped on them. Do prints and pics at home, and send the notification.
domestique
01-05-16, 07:22
You've always been able to do them yourself. You can order blank cards online with the NFA ORI stamped on them. Do prints and pics at home, and send the notification.
That's what I thought. I have a stack sitting around somewhere.
Thank you.
ETA. link to order forms.
https://www.atf.gov/distribution-center-order-form
Interesting read on another site, which goes along a bit with some of SC-Texas comments.
NFA Lawyers’ Initial Review of Final Ruling ATF 41P
The BATFE and Attorney General finalized proposed regulation 41P on January 4, 2016. A link to same can be found at https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download. As many of you are aware, this regulation impacts gun trusts. This initial review provides an overview of what those key changes are.
This ruling is 248 pages long. At the top of the ruling is the following language:
“This final rule was signed by the Attorney General on January 4, 2016. It is effective 180 days after date of publication in the Federal Register.”
If the rule was published in the Register on January 4, 2016. This means there is still no CLEO signoff, fingerprints, or picture requirement for trusts until July 1, 2016.
Let us get to the “meat and potatoes” of 41P. Of the 248 pages comprising 41P, pages 238-239 are of key importance. Below is the language impacting gun trusts:
§ 479.11 Meaning of terms.
Person. A partnership, company, association, trust, corporation, including each responsible person associated with such an entity; an estate; or an individual.
Responsible person. In the case of an unlicensed entity, including any trust, partnership, association, company (including any Limited Liability Company (LLC)), or corporation, any individual who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority to direct the management and policies of the trust or entity to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the trust or legal entity. In the case of a trust, those persons with the power or authority to direct the management and policies of the trust include any person who has the capability to exercise such power and possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any trust instrument, or under State law, to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the trust. Examples of who may be considered a responsible person include settlors/grantors, trustees, partners, members, officers, directors, board members, or owners. An example of who may be excluded from this definition of responsible person is the beneficiary of a trust, if the beneficiary does not have the capability to exercise the powers or authorities enumerated in this section.
What all of this means is any responsible person in a trust must undergo the following requirements:
Fingerprints
Picture
No CLEO sign-off. You simply notify your CLEO.
Well, who are responsible persons in a gun trust? I will break down the two critical elements.
Responsible persons are:
1) Persons with the power or authority to direct the management and policies of the trust;
AND,
2) Have the power or authority to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for the trust.
It appears as though responsible persons are those who meet both elements. If an individual does not meet both of these elements, they are not responsible persons. Thus, the 41P requirements would not apply to that individual.
In NFA Lawyers’ trusts, co-trustees do not have any power or authority to direct the management and/or policies of the trust. Co-trustees do not meet element number one. We draft trusts this way in order to prevent co-trustees from having any control over your NFA weapons or other firearms in the trust.
Based on the face of 41P, our trusts are already 41P compliant. Co-trustees in our trust will never have to send in fingerprints, pictures, or notify their CLEO. Additionally, 41P clearly states that beneficiaries are not subject to these requirements.
As with many new regulations, there will be much litigation over these topics. The ATF may make revisions or opine further on their position, which may change the impact of 41P.
Regardless, NFA Lawyers will keep our clients apprised of any required changes to their trusts, if any. It has been our pleasure to do business with each and every one of our clients. We will do everything we can to prevent our government from infringing on our Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Sincerely,
/s/ H. Dean Phillips
So...if your trust is set up where the trustees only have the power to possess items, it could be fairly simple to handle. I guess it's also possible to amend a trust to make it so that's how it works?
IANAL...but does anybody else read it the same way?
Be interesting to see how it all rolls out and the legal battles.
The problem is that on page 209 or 210, the ATF states that mere possession may require photographs and fingerprints
www.AtomicLabRat.com
As I read the section on decedent's and nfa, there was never any tax on specified heirs. If you were named in the will to get items, they transferred tax free. Outside the will, standard taxed transfer.
It will be interesting to see how it shakes out for the above definition about not meeting both requirements.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
I agree with that. Heirs named do not pay a transfer tax
AtomicLabRat.com
http://americansuppressorassociation.com/chief-law-enforcement-officer-certification-to-be-removed-from-national-firearms-act-transfers/
The ruling is out. Here is the ATF download link - https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download
Here is the download link to the ATF's final ruling on NFA trusts (41p) - https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download
PatrioticDisorder
01-05-16, 08:05
As I read the section on decedent's and nfa, there was never any tax on specified heirs. If you were named in the will to get items, they transferred tax free. Outside the will, standard taxed transfer.
It will be interesting to see how it shakes out for the above definition about not meeting both requirements.
Sent from my SGP612 using Tapatalk
Tax free transfers within the trust remain.
http://americansuppressorassociation.com/chief-law-enforcement-officer-certification-to-be-removed-from-national-firearms-act-transfers/
Basically my assessment.
Ok......so basically are removing the CLEO part of the process and each member of the trust will have to submit finger prints and a photo when a new item is added?
"With respect to trusts, partnerships, associations, companies, or corporations, this final
rule defines the term "responsible person" as an individual in the organization that has the power
and authority to direct the management and policies of the entity insofar as they pertain to
firearms. This final rule requires that each responsible person complete a specified form and
submit photographs and fingerprints when the trust or legal entity either files an application to
make an NF A firearm, or is listed as the transferee on an application to transfer an NF A firearm."
"The Department has also reassessed the need for CLEO certification and is implementing a new
approach that focuses on notifying CLEOs. The final rule only requires that the applicant maker
or transferee, including each responsible person for a trust or legal entity, provide a notice to the
appropriate State or local official that an application is being submitted to ATF. An "appropriate
State or local official" is the local chief of police, county sheriff, head of the State police, or
State or local district attorney or prosecutor of the locality in which the applicant, transferee, or
responsible person is located."
A win and a loss. No CLEO signature required, but all "responsible persons" of a trust must submit the required fingerprints, photos, and forms.
Random things to note:
9,500+ comments received. Majority opposed the entire proposed rule.
"More than a dozen commenters stated that they supported the proposed rule in its entirety."
Trusts/Corporations filing NFA forms went from 840 in 2000 to 12,600 in 2009 to 40,700 in 2012.
Between 2006 and 2014, there were over 260,000 NFA firearms acquired by trusts or legal entities
That's how I took it-each person on the trust will now submit a Form 4 (or Form 1) when something new is to be added. Call me crazy but I don't see what the huge deal is over this one.
"With respect to trusts, partnerships, associations, companies, or corporations, this final
rule defines the term "responsible person" as an individual in the organization that has the power
and authority to direct the management and policies of the entity insofar as they pertain to
firearms. This final rule requires that each responsible person complete a specified form and
submit photographs and fingerprints when the trust or legal entity either files an application to
make an NF A firearm, or is listed as the transferee on an application to transfer an NF A firearm."
"The Department has also reassessed the need for CLEO certification and is implementing a new
approach that focuses on notifying CLEOs. The final rule only requires that the applicant maker
or transferee, including each responsible person for a trust or legal entity, provide a notice to the
appropriate State or local official that an application is being submitted to ATF. An "appropriate
State or local official" is the local chief of police, county sheriff, head of the State police, or
State or local district attorney or prosecutor of the locality in which the applicant, transferee, or
responsible person is located."
A win and a loss. No CLEO signature required, but all "responsible persons" of a trust must submit the required fingerprints, photos, and forms.
Actually a loss and a loss. Trusts never had to do the CLEO signoff, they are just highlighting and spinning it to make you feel like you're not getting totally screwed.
Actually a loss and a loss. Trusts never had to do the CLEO signoff, they are just highlighting and spinning it to make you feel like you're not getting totally screwed.
The CLEO signoff change is for individuals as well, from what I'm reading.
Which is a win, as trusts cost money and in some places, CLEOs simply don't sign NFA paperwork.
"As noted, the final rule eliminates the CLEO certification requirement. Consequently,
comments asserting tax revenue losses resulting from the refusal of CLEOs to sign certifications
for legal entities are now moot. Moreover, the Department does not anticipate a decline in Form
4 applications. The Department has not observed, and does not anticipate, reduced demand for
NF A firearms or a decline in the filing of applications (Forms 1 and 4). Applications have
generally increased each year and the Department expects this trend to continue as more States
loosen restrictions on the use, in particular, of silencers for hunting or target shooting.
Moreover, because the CLEO notification requirement and the requirements for
fingerprint and photograph submission will be the same under the final rule for individual
applicants and trusts and legal entities, applicants may choose to forgo the formation of a trust or
legal entity and acquire firearms as individuals. A number of commenters have observed that the
proliferation of NFA trusts is a direct result of the CLEO certification requirement for individual
applicants. It is therefore fair to predict that eliminating the certification requirement will
reverse that trend. Applications submitted by an individual are less complex because they do not
require documentation evidencing the existence and validity of a trust or legal entity, such as
articles of incorporation." - Pg 158,159
"With the elimination of the CLEO certification requirement for all NFA applications, including
individuals, the process for individuals who wish to purchase a silencer to protect from hearing
loss becomes less, not more, burdensome." - Pg 160
The CLEO signoff change is for individuals as well, from what I'm reading.
Which is a win, as trusts cost money and in some places, CLEOs simply don't sign NFA paperwork.
I'll give you that. Hence why most went to trust in the first place. Looks like they now want people to file as an individual as the burden will now fall on the trusts. You think wait times are long now, second half of 2016 is going to be a debacle at best.
The irony of the CLEO sign off is that Ohio became a "SHALL ISSUE/SIGN" state last year, meaning that CLEO's have to sign off on NFA transfers. Most of the guys that I run with got trusts due to having a CLEO that wouldn't sign off years ago.
My father and I discussed getting a trust back when he got his first SMG (as I already had mine) but we found that it was pointless for us as we always shoot together and it wasn't worth the hassle of dealing with (plus it cut out family drama that would have occurred as some family members would not have been put on said trust)
I'll give you that. Hence why most went to trust in the first place. Looks like they now want people to file as an individual as the burden will now fall on the trusts. You think wait times are long now, second half of 2016 is going to be a debacle at best.
Maybe some of the:
"The FBI is planning to hire 230 more federal examiners to conduct federal background checks on gun buyers, and the president is seeking funding from Congress to allow ATF to hire 200 new agents and investigators to enforce gun laws. It will also seek $500 million to increase access to mental health care." - Source (http://www.occupydemocrats.com/pres-obama-issues-orders-to-expand-gun-background-checks-funding-for-mental-healthcare/)
will go to cutting down the NFA backlog.
skywalkrNCSU
01-05-16, 08:51
Well I'm not exactly happy about having to get prints and pictures taken but I am pretty happy about the CLEO sign off being eliminated as that was the one thing stopping me from getting the can I want since it is currently out of stock everywhere.
Not a win by any means but at least it isn't a complete kick to the balls.
Maybe some of the:
"The FBI is planning to hire 230 more federal examiners to conduct federal background checks on gun buyers, and the president is seeking funding from Congress to allow ATF to hire 200 new agents and investigators to enforce gun laws. It will also seek $500 million to increase access to mental health care." - http://www.occupydemocrats.com/pres-obama-issues-orders-to-expand-gun-background-checks-funding-for-mental-healthcare/
will go to cutting down the NFA backlog.
Negative. POTUS is asking for the $500 mil. He can only get that from congress and specifically the house. That line item is DOA!
Wait what.....he has to ask for $500M....he can't take that out of his stack of "Obama-Money"??
In all seriousness, once again they made a big deal out of nothing and are trying to show they are fixing a nonexistent problem. You all do realize that we are coming into an election cycle and these idiots are trying to make themselves look good.
In all seriousness, once again they made a big deal out of nothing and are trying to show they are fixing a nonexistent problem. You all do realize that we are coming into an election cycle and these idiots are trying to make themselves look good.
And the fact he won't get his $500 mil so he can go blame Republicans and the Gun Lobby for not protecting the children.
Exactly!!! It's all about the "blame game"
Good write up of the implications of the 41p rule changes - http://blog.princelaw.com/2016/01/05/411-on-the-final-rule-in-relation-to-atf-41p/
Yay for the removal of the CLEO sign off, and boo on most everything else. I have a trust, but any future purchases under these new rules will likely be purchased individually. I'm hoping we can get a president voted in this year that will negate all of these new EOs. I still haven't figured out how it's constitutional for the executive branch to make laws. What ever happened to checks and balances?
Edit:
I still haven't figured out how any of this will prevent criminals from acquiring guns or using them illegally.
I still haven't figured out how it's constitutional for the executive branch to make laws. What ever happened to checks and balances?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5hKeCQELrk
Basically, it's the President giving orders to the Executive Branch, which he is the leader of.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5hKeCQELrk
Basically, it's the President giving orders to the Executive Branch, which he is the leader of.
That's a great explanation. That last bit about one person making decisions for hundreds of millions of people makes me all warm and fuzzy inside.
domestique
01-05-16, 10:21
Good write up of the implications of the 41p rule changes - http://blog.princelaw.com/2016/01/05/411-on-the-final-rule-in-relation-to-atf-41p/
Impact of RPs: One of the largest impacts ATF-41P will have on fictitious entities is the requirement that all RPs will have to submit photographs, fingerprints, a CLEO notification and an NFA Responsible Person Questionnaire (Form 5320.23). See pages 232, 239-247. Further, based on page 96, individuals will be unable to roll their own fingerprints, as has been custom for some over the past decade. However, the final rule includes an exception on page 242-243, where the if the applicant entity has been approved as a maker or transferee within the prior 24 months, there has been no change to the “documentation previously provided” and the entity certifies this by specifying the previously approved form by form type, serial number of the firearm and date of approval, it does not need to submit the photographs, fingerprints and Responsible Person Questionnaire. The final rule, pages 100 and 239, also states that generally speaking, a beneficiary will not be an RP.
Waylon, take alook at that. Bummer.
So I'm looking at the rules, and had a thought. If I bought an NFA item on my trust in the past two years, and buy an item every other year or so, can I use the "documentation previously provided" and never have to submit prints and pics?
PatrioticDisorder
01-05-16, 10:57
Impact of RPs: One of the largest impacts ATF-41P will have on fictitious entities is the requirement that all RPs will have to submit photographs, fingerprints, a CLEO notification and an NFA Responsible Person Questionnaire (Form 5320.23). See pages 232, 239-247. Further, based on page 96, individuals will be unable to roll their own fingerprints, as has been custom for some over the past decade. However, the final rule includes an exception on page 242-243, where the if the applicant entity has been approved as a maker or transferee within the prior 24 months, there has been no change to the “documentation previously provided” and the entity certifies this by specifying the previously approved form by form type, serial number of the firearm and date of approval, it does not need to submit the photographs, fingerprints and Responsible Person Questionnaire. The final rule, pages 100 and 239, also states that generally speaking, a beneficiary will not be an RP.
Waylon, take alook at that. Bummer.
I see the "approved form within 24 months" thing as a big win. We knew 41p was coming, imagine how bad it could have potentially been? I have to submit fingerprints & photograph to get my CWFL in Florida. I'm not saying I'm a fan of it, but it could be worse.
Now hopefully E-file stays and they find a way to link livescan fingerprints (DOJ already uses livescan) to E-files, that would make this a very simple process fellas, especially if you keep your "file current" (by routinely buying NFA stuff).
domestique
01-05-16, 11:07
So I'm looking at the rules, and had a thought. If I bought an NFA item on my trust in the past two years, and buy an item every other year or so, can I use the "documentation previously provided" and never have to submit prints and pics?
I doubt they would count what you already submitted. July is going to be a cluster for a lot of people.
Impact of RPs: One of the largest impacts ATF-41P will have on fictitious entities is the requirement that all RPs will have to submit photographs, fingerprints, a CLEO notification and an NFA Responsible Person Questionnaire (Form 5320.23). See pages 232, 239-247. Further, based on page 96, individuals will be unable to roll their own fingerprints, as has been custom for some over the past decade. However, the final rule includes an exception on page 242-243, where the if the applicant entity has been approved as a maker or transferee within the prior 24 months, there has been no change to the “documentation previously provided” and the entity certifies this by specifying the previously approved form by form type, serial number of the firearm and date of approval, it does not need to submit the photographs, fingerprints and Responsible Person Questionnaire. The final rule, pages 100 and 239, also states that generally speaking, a beneficiary will not be an RP.
Waylon, take alook at that. Bummer.
Yeah I saw that earlier. I think it's always been worded that way, but they accepted them anyway. Just like they let you self-certify on a 5330.20 CoC.
The 24 month thing is interesting. It doesn't specify that the initial one has to follow the new regs, but you assume it does because of the documentation discussion.
My big question is...can it be as simple as doing the prints/photos once? Or maybe even just the prints once and then providing a current photo? Photo and CLEO sig have always had a 12 month requirement, but there wasn't one for prints as they don't change unless your fingers are injured.
It says an approval in the previous 24 months...not documentation in the previous 24. Can I submit prints and photos later this year, and then file a Form 1 once every 23 months and never do prints again? (Especially if I can't roll my own)
PatrioticDisorder
01-05-16, 13:37
Yeah I saw that earlier. I think it's always been worded that way, but they accepted them anyway. Just like they let you self-certify on a 5330.20 CoC.
The 24 month thing is interesting. It doesn't specify that the initial one has to follow the new regs, but you assume it does because of the documentation discussion.
My big question is...can it be as simple as doing the prints/photos once? Or maybe even just the prints once and then providing a current photo? Photo and CLEO sig have always had a 12 month requirement, but there wasn't one for prints as they don't change unless your fingers are injured.
It says an approval in the previous 24 months...not documentation in the previous 24. Can I submit prints and photos later this year, and then file a Form 1 once every 23 months and never do prints again? (Especially if I can't roll my own)
So it sounds like the pro 2a lawyers need to attempt to get 1 set of fingerprints ever, E-File linked with live scan up (paper reduction act, blah blah), and make it easy to upload a photograph and preferably try to extend the number of years needed between updated photos (painless as possible). Perhaps E-file can link up with various CLEO offices and automatically "notify" the CLEO electronically (paper reduction act cited again), easiest way to do the notification if via paper will be head of state police assuming everyone on the trust lives in various municipalities within the same state...
So it sounds like the pro 2a lawyers need to attempt to get 1 set of fingerprints ever, E-File linked with live scan up (paper reduction act, blah blah), and make it easy to upload a photograph and preferably try to extend the number of years needed between updated photos (painless as possible). Perhaps E-file can link up with various CLEO offices and automatically "notify" the CLEO electronically (paper reduction act cited again), easiest way to do the notification if via paper will be head of state police assuming everyone on the trust lives in various municipalities within the same state...
That would be about as painless as we could ask for with it written in its current form.
I could find a way to file a $49 blem lower once every other year, or an F1 can. You're talking a $100-$125 per year "cost" to staying current. And spending it in ways you may have been doing anyway. Decide to F4 a can, and you hit reset anyway.
So it sounds like the pro 2a lawyers need to attempt to get 1 set of fingerprints ever, E-File linked with live scan up (paper reduction act, blah blah), and make it easy to upload a photograph and preferably try to extend the number of years needed between updated photos (painless as possible). Perhaps E-file can link up with various CLEO offices and automatically "notify" the CLEO electronically (paper reduction act cited again), easiest way to do the notification if via paper will be head of state police assuming everyone on the trust lives in various municipalities within the same state...
Clearly you have no experience with Local, State, and Federal Government IT systems.
Whiskey_Bravo
01-05-16, 14:54
So it sounds like the pro 2a lawyers need to attempt to get 1 set of fingerprints ever, E-File linked with live scan up (paper reduction act, blah blah), and make it easy to upload a photograph and preferably try to extend the number of years needed between updated photos (painless as possible). Perhaps E-file can link up with various CLEO offices and automatically "notify" the CLEO electronically (paper reduction act cited again), easiest way to do the notification if via paper will be head of state police assuming everyone on the trust lives in various municipalities within the same state...
After what little experience I have had with .gov systems and the current ATFonline website, they will get to upgrading to these ideas sometime in the year 2137 and it will have cost about 1.9 trillion dollars and it still won't work 100%.
After what little experience I have had with .gov systems and the current ATFonline website, they will get to upgrading to these ideas sometime in the year 2137 and it will have cost about 1.9 trillion dollars and it still won't work 100%.
That's only on the federal level. He's talking about linking that crap with the even crappier state and local gov systems.
Hell, I've got DoD sites that are HTML/web based that the Army REQUIRES me to hit for training purposes that DON'T work AT ALL with IE10, which is the only browser they allow me to have on my work computer. Figure that shit out....
Whiskey_Bravo
01-05-16, 15:06
Hell, I've got DoD sites that are HTML/web based that the Army REQUIRES me to hit for training purposes that DON'T work AT ALL with IE10, which is the only browser they allow me to have on my work computer. Figure that shit out....
lol, sounds like my current company that has mandatory training videos that they posted on youtube, only problem is that they block youtube.
After what little experience I have had with .gov systems and the current ATFonline website, they will get to upgrading to these ideas sometime in the year 2137 and it will have cost about 1.9 trillion dollars and it still won't work 100%.
I've worked with a bespoke .gov reporting system for over a decade. Every "update" is an unmitigated disaster. Short of the utter stupidity I see at work inside the beltway, it's the most infuriating part of the job. :(
lol, sounds like my current company that has mandatory training videos that they posted on youtube, only problem is that they block youtube.
****ing garrison HQ put's out alerts about weather and base closure on Twitter. Tells people to visit twitter for up to date information. They also block twitter....
I've worked with a bespoke .gov reporting system for over a decade. Every "update" is an unmitigated disaster. Short of the utter stupidity I see at work inside the beltway, it's the most infuriating part of the job. :(
When my last branch chief retired, they gave him an "estimate" of his retirement and told him it would be 6 months before they knew what the correct payment would be. If he had been underpaid the previous months they would cut him a check, if overpaid they cut his future payments to compensate. Apparently if you retire as a federal employee, there's a salt mine full of people where they hand carry your paper records from person to person to process your retirement.....
When my last branch chief retired, they gave him an "estimate" of his retirement and told him it would be 6 months before they knew what the correct payment would be. If he had been underpaid the previous months they would cut him a check, if overpaid they cut his future payments to compensate. Apparently if you retire as a federal employee, there's a salt mine full of people where they hand carry your paper records from person to person to process your retirement.....
Ha, I believe it. And I thought getting travel vouchers reimbursed in a timely fashion was a PITA.
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
Ha, I believe it. And I thought getting travel vouchers reimbursed in a timely fashion was a PITA.
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
But Lord help you if you don't submit them within 3 days of returning! :(
But Lord help you if you don't submit them within 3 days of returning! :(
Funny! Not funny :/
You know those M O N E Y stop smoking commercials? It's like that but with memos.
Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
These are my thoughts on ATF41F
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxEO882144
The BATFE's new rule will drastically affect the way that you use your Texas NFA Trust to purchase Silencers, SBRs and other Title III firearms.
I talk about the new Rule, How they will affect the use of your trust to purchase, own and Manage your Silencer and NFA collection and how we can defeat it!
Here is a link to the entire 248 page proposed final rule. Enjoy.
ATF41F In a Nut Shell:
1. It is Business as Usual for 180 days. Then things change.
2. Fingerprints and Photographs are now required for all responsible persons.
3. Trustees: most trustees are responsible persons
4. It may be possible to create a trustee who has limited powers of possession and will not be a responsible person.
5. There is no requirement for new responsible persons to submit fingerprints and photographs to the BATFE until a new form 1 or form 4 is submitted.
6. The Responsible Persons on a trust do not have to submit new Fingerprints and Photographs during the two years (24mo) period following the submission of a form 1 or a form 4 for additional filings.
We need to ask Congress to DEFUND atf41F. The Congress has defunded previous ATF rules that overstepped their authority. The Saiga/Chinese Cowboy Action Shotgun Importation ban was the most recent.
Congress has the anility to Defund ATF41F before it is implemented in July 2015.
DEFUND ATF 41F!
Congressman John Culbertson
Appropriations Committee
Houston office
Phone: (713) 682-8828
Fax: (713) 680-8070
Washington, dc office
Phone: (202) 225-2571
Fax: (202) 225-4381
After you and all of your friends and family have called and emailed Congressman Culbertson, The should email, Call and fax a request to defund ATF41F to their congressional Representative!
Find Your Representative at:
http://www.house.gov/representatives/find/
The next step is to contact your Senators.
Find their contact information here:
https://www.opencongress.org/people/zipcodelookup
If you are from Texas, this is the contact information for your Two Senators!
Ted Cruz
Republican
Phone: 202-224-5922
John Cornyn
Republican
Phone: 202-224-2934
Call, Fax and Email your Representative and Senators.
Ask them to make sure that they vote to DEFUND ATF41F.
On the Legal side, Joshua Prince of the Prince Law Firms and the Firearms Industry Consulting Group is mounting a legal challenge to ATF41F. Please donate to fund this fight that will help ALL of us in the future: www.FightATF41P.com
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxEO882144
Let me just propose a small theoretical if you will....
The current trust system has a known flaw. It is possible for me to add someone to my trust that I am not aware is a felon. Right? I mean, think of all the messed up ways this could happen, but it's pretty much true. It Is Possible.
Now... I'm in no way defending 41P, it's bad for me. But...
Given the option that 41P goes through, and you need to submit data, fingers,and photos for all responsible persons. Is that the preferable outcome compared to a high profile NFA abuse where silencers, SBRs, and SBS get the Hughes Amendment treatment because it happens with someone like Hillary in office?
Just as a devil's advocate approach, don't hate on me because as I see it, I can see a couple ways trusts COULD currently be abused. If I see it, others see it too.
Does no one else remember Chris Dorner's little adventure and the "manifesto" the he (likely not he) put out that had a part about trusts in it? The part the really conveniently spelled out NFA trusts? Just take that scenario and go a little further with it.
IMO, it's over. 41P is happening. No one is going to fall on their sword for it.
jerrysimons
01-07-16, 19:15
Let me just propose a small theoretical if you will....
The current trust system has a known flaw. It is possible for me to add someone to my trust that I am not aware is a felon. Right? I mean, think of all the messed up ways this could happen, but it's pretty much true. It Is Possible.
Now... I'm in no way defending 41P, it's bad for me. But...
Given the option that 41P goes through, and you need to submit data, fingers,and photos for all responsible persons. Is that the preferable outcome compared to a high profile NFA abuse where silencers, SBRs, and SBS get the Hughes Amendment treatment because it happens with someone like Hillary in office?
Just as a devil's advocate approach, don't hate on me because as I see it, I can see a couple ways trusts COULD currently be abused. If I see it, others see it too.
Does no one else remember Chris Dorner's little adventure and the "manifesto" the he (likely not he) put out that had a part about trusts in it? The part the really conveniently spelled out NFA trusts? Just take that scenario and go a little further with it.
IMO, it's over. 41P is happening. No one is going to fall on their sword for it.
Who are letting be a trustee in your trust that you are not sure about? You are on the hook for that as a settlor. It is already illegal, like selling a firearm to someone you have reason to believe is a felon. That is on you.
Furthermore, my trust is written such that a person's qualification as a trustee is contingent upon their eligibility to posses the items under the law, the trustee signs a noterized affidavit stating as much.
There is no reason for 41p/f other than burdens placed on the law abiding. If a person is not eligible to posses firearms and someone is knowingly going to give them access to their NFA items. Why even do a trust at all they can just illegally give them the item anyway. If a trustee is ineligible to posses it is the same kind of illegal anyway.
The silver lining is that CLEO signature is going away. So you no longer need a trust to acquire title-2 firearms.
With the NICS system in place, why can't all "Responsible Persons" go to the nearest FFL and submit to the NICS background check and submit that response with the NFA request? I'll pay the $10 or so per check, saving me hours of time getting pictures and fingerprint cards together just to SBR a $80 lower. Just silly to go get fingerprinted and get a picture for an SBR, when I can use my CCW in my home state to buy anything non-NFA essentially at the speed of a simple fill-out form, pay transaction. Just annoying and unnecessary paperwork when a phone call at my FFL would be the same thing.
Another thing, what was the NFA branch doing for 6-9 months on all this paperwork anyway if not conducting some kind of background check? I have a trust and have submitted and received multiple approvals electronically and paper, but actually don't know this answer.
Who are letting be a trustee in your trust that you are not sure about? You are on the hook for that as a settlor. It is already illegal, like selling a firearm to someone you have reason to believe is a felon. That is on you.
Furthermore, my trust is written such that a person's qualification as a trustee is contingent upon their eligibility to posses the items under the law, the trustee signs a noterized affidavit stating as much.
There is no reason for 41p/f other than burdens placed on the law abiding. If a person is not eligible to posses firearms and someone is knowingly going to give them access to their NFA items. Why even do a trust at all they can just illegally give them the item anyway. If a trustee is ineligible to posses it is the same kind of illegal anyway.
Look, I won't argue with you about it. But here are the facts:
1. It is possible to abuse an NFA Trust. I'm not going to list out HOW other than the single scenario that may give someone a reasonable cover against a police search, or whatever. The real scenarios on how can be abused I won't write on the internet, and no one else should either.
2. Trusts CAN be abused, so that means they are. We just don't know how many or how often.
3. It's done. Move along. It's bullshit, but it's done. Wait for a Republican president and work on ASA's Hearing Protection Act. NFA is gone if Hillary gets in.
4. Count your blessings the EOs that effected NFA were only this. It could have been 922r, "sporting uses", no accepting new taxes, or whatever. At least now trusts are in focus any more.
It all really comes down to whether you know how to abuse the trust or not, the current system was doomed for a long time now.
The silver lining is that CLEO signature is going away. So you no longer need a trust to acquire title-2 firearms.
Yes... But... I think there is danger in the "notification" thing.
It used to be if your CLEO would sign off he'd likely sign and give the forms back to you. Done.
Now... Even if you use a trust, you must "notify" that you applied for a stamp. If that notification means you need to give them a copy of the form1/4, I see the scenario where that's unlikely to get just thrown away. I see it as more likely to get filed somewhere, and in bad cases where the CLEO wasn't going to sign, where now that CLEO takes the info from the form and marks you down in the local PD system as "DANGEROUS WEAPON OWNER", so you get pulled over and that pops up. Sure to make for Officer Friendly to pay you extra attention.
I take issue with notification, but I'm not sure if a phone call works or what notify really means yet.
PatrioticDisorder
01-07-16, 20:11
Let me just propose a small theoretical if you will....
The current trust system has a known flaw. It is possible for me to add someone to my trust that I am not aware is a felon. Right? I mean, think of all the messed up ways this could happen, but it's pretty much true. It Is Possible.
Now... I'm in no way defending 41P, it's bad for me. But...
Given the option that 41P goes through, and you need to submit data, fingers,and photos for all responsible persons. Is that the preferable outcome compared to a high profile NFA abuse where silencers, SBRs, and SBS get the Hughes Amendment treatment because it happens with someone like Hillary in office?
Just as a devil's advocate approach, don't hate on me because as I see it, I can see a couple ways trusts COULD currently be abused. If I see it, others see it too.
Does no one else remember Chris Dorner's little adventure and the "manifesto" the he (likely not he) put out that had a part about trusts in it? The part the really conveniently spelled out NFA trusts? Just take that scenario and go a little further with it.
IMO, it's over. 41P is happening. No one is going to fall on their sword for it.
This, we were facing NFA Armageddon and we actually received a reasonable compromise. We could try petitioning BATFE to maybe extend the number of months/years the prints & photos stay current between purchases but that is small potatoes. I saw 41F (the final version) as a win when we were facing defeat, I just don't get trying to "fight it" at this point.
The silver lining is that CLEO signature is going away. So you no longer need a trust to acquire title-2 firearms.
Exactly, gun trusts were originally created as a work around to unfriendly CLEO's, BATFE is allowing NFA trust holders to keep the important benefits of the trust, allowing multiple people to have possession of items and tax free transfers.
Possible to abuse face-to-face non FFL transfers also
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
PatrioticDisorder
01-07-16, 20:15
Yes... But... I think there is danger in the "notification" thing.
It used to be if your CLEO would sign off he'd likely sign and give the forms back to you. Done.
Now... Even if you use a trust, you must "notify" that you applied for a stamp. If that notification means you need to give them a copy of the form1/4, I see the scenario where that's unlikely to get just thrown away. I see it as more likely to get filed somewhere, and in bad cases where the CLEO wasn't going to sign, where now that CLEO takes the info from the form and marks you down in the local PD system as "DANGEROUS WEAPON OWNER", so you get pulled over and that pops up. Sure to make for Officer Friendly to pay you extra attention.
I take issue with notification, but I'm not sure if a phone call works or what notify really means yet.
Very true, or a CLEO may even make your information public if they are a real gun grabbing dirtbag... I think for most people, your best bet is to choose what CLEO you send your notification to wisely. I will be sending mine to the head of the state police, I trust the professionalism there the info won't be used in devious ways (firearm registries are also illegal in the state of Florida).
Should we ban those?
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
PatrioticDisorder
01-07-16, 20:21
Should we ban those?
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Apples & oranges comparison. Banning private transactions would require new legislation, NFA 1934 had CLEO sign off, fingerprints & photographs in the law as written, so rule change or executive order on that law is possible and we both know full well this was a good compromise, we could have gotten it much worse with CLEO sign off for everyone along with a couple more details that would make life harder. Whoever came up with the final decision did good for NFA owners IMO.
Clearly you have no experience with Local, State, and Federal Government IT systems.
Boy if that isn't the truth! :)
Apples & oranges comparison. Banning private transactions would require new legislation, NFA 1934 had CLEO sign off, fingerprints & photographs in the law as written, so rule change or executive order on that law is possible and we both know full well this was a good compromise, we could have gotten it much worse with CLEO sign off for everyone along with a couple more details that would make life harder. Whoever came up with the final decision did good for NFA owners IMO.
I disagree. The same basic rational applies. It might be abused, so let's add more regulation.
www.TexasGunTrust.com
is it in the register yet
Eurodriver
01-08-16, 06:36
Very true, or a CLEO may even make your information public if they are a real gun grabbing dirtbag... I think for most people, your best bet is to choose what CLEO you send your notification to wisely. I will be sending mine to the head of the state police, I trust the professionalism there the info won't be used in devious ways (firearm registries are also illegal in the state of Florida).
That's actually a good piece of advice.
Help me here if I am missing something but do you know of another situation in your day-to-day activities that you would have to give another agency (CLEO) your tax records? I take major issue with this. I know everyone sees this as a silver lining but I agree with PatrioticDisorder, the way it is structured is a massive issue.
jerrysimons
01-08-16, 12:57
Let me spell it out what noodles said. The abuse is where someone registers items to a trust and then adds trustees to the trust who themselves are disqualified from possessing firearms. This is all kinds of illegal already. The so-called benefit is this ineligible person would then show his trust paperwork to an inquiring LEO and the LEO just goes about his business without further questions. That is faulty because an LEO is going to run his own checks on the persons ID to see their record. If the person is a felon possessing a gun saying "no officer, I am good to go," the officer doesn't just take at his word without checking. No different for NFA trusts, if his computer returns dirt on the trustee it doesn't matter what your little papers say. If a trustee is found to be ineligible to posses firearms with legal access to a trusts NFA assets a world of hurt is coming down on that trustee and likely the trust settlor also, especially if said trustee is actually found in possession of an NFA item.
41p does nothing to prevent this so called abuse either because it does not keep track of trustees added to the trust after approval of items takes place. This change doesn't protect against anything, it only adds more hoops for trusts to jump through than previously required. While the screwing could have been worse, using trust to register NFA items is still getting screwed.
The only people getting a benefit out of 41p are individuals no longer having to grovel for CLEO approval, which IMO is a terrible way to register anyway.
So, one thing I'm not quite clear on even after reading a few opinion pieces on the effects. I already have several NFA items purchased through trust. Are the picture/prints/CLEO notification requirements applicable to the items I already have in trust or only future purchases?
So, one thing I'm not quite clear on even after reading a few opinion pieces on the effects. I already have several NFA items purchased through trust. Are the picture/prints/CLEO notification requirements applicable to the items I already have in trust or only future purchases?
Only items purchased after it takes effect.
Well, it coulda been worse then. It's a shame my future purchases will be on the local confiscation list, but at least my old purchases will only be on the federal confiscation list. I'll just have to hope they don't all work together or something.
Help me here if I am missing something but do you know of another situation in your day-to-day activities that you would have to give another agency (CLEO) your tax records? I take major issue with this. I know everyone sees this as a silver lining but I agree with PatrioticDisorder, the way it is structured is a massive issue.
I could be wrong, but wouldn't a CLEO releasing information about your tax filing be an illegal release? If my CLEO told the world about my tax application, I'd be suing them in court. :mad:
Only items purchased after it takes effect.
Purchased or transferred? Or paperwork submitted?
Paperwork submitted
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Purchased or transferred? Or paperwork submitted?
It goes in effect 180 days after publication. Any transaction after that must comply.
Anything "pending" at the time is exempt.
I received an email from SilencerCo today with the cliff notes.
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=a1d29a8e791b7e5fccbeaa366&id=d34c923998&e=4b4997d82e
ATF 41P RULING RESPONSE
After reviewing the almost ten thousand comments from loyal Second Amendment supporters such as yourself, the ATF came back with answers to those comments and a ruling on 41P. The ruling weighs in at 248 pages. In the interest of providing you with the information you need without having to spend hours reading it yourself, we have provided a summary below:
We will not see any changes take effect until 180 days after the official ruling has been published in the Federal Register. The ruling has not been published at this point.
This ruling is not retroactive and will not apply to applications that are in pending status, or to previously approved applications for existing legal entities and trusts holding NFA items. Anything that is in process before the effective date will be grandfathered under the current rules (Page 198).
Once the final ruling goes into effect, the CLEO certification rule will change to simply CLEO notification for all silencer purchases - whether through a trust, LLC, or as an individual.
Once the ruling goes into effect, the responsible persons in a trust or LLC must have a background check completed which will require fingerprinting and photographs, much like when an individual purchases a silencer today.
The ruling provides a clear answer in regards to what happens when a person or entity that owns a trust dies. The person who is authorized to dispose of the property of an estate may possess a firearm or other item (such as a silencer) that is registered to a decedent during the term of probate without such possession being treated as a transfer under the NFA. Also, any transfer of the NFA item to any beneficiary of the estate is tax exempt.
Bottom line: Once this ruling is officially published, things will continue as they are for 180 days - so don’t wait any longer to get your trust and silencer(s) - paperwork in process at the end of the 180 days will be grandfathered.
As always, we will keep you up-to-date with any new information as soon as it becomes available to us.
PatrioticDisorder
01-08-16, 16:42
Let me spell it out what noodles said. The abuse is where someone registers items to a trust and then adds trustees to the trust who themselves are disqualified from possessing firearms. This is all kinds of illegal already. The so-called benefit is this ineligible person would then show his trust paperwork to an inquiring LEO and the LEO just goes about his business without further questions. That is faulty because an LEO is going to run his own checks on the persons ID to see their record. If the person is a felon possessing a gun saying "no officer, I am good to go," the officer doesn't just take at his word without checking. No different for NFA trusts, if his computer returns dirt on the trustee it doesn't matter what your little papers say. If a trustee is found to be ineligible to posses firearms with legal access to a trusts NFA assets a world of hurt is coming down on that trustee and likely the trust settlor also, especially if said trustee is actually found in possession of an NFA item.
41p does nothing to prevent this so called abuse either because it does not keep track of trustees added to the trust after approval of items takes place. This change doesn't protect against anything, it only adds more hoops for trusts to jump through than previously required. While the screwing could have been worse, using trust to register NFA items is still getting screwed.
The only people getting a benefit out of 41p are individuals no longer having to grovel for CLEO approval, which IMO is a terrible way to register anyway.
You miss the point, 41p was proposed 2 1/2 years ago, the rule change was well within the BATFE's authority to do so. 41p was happening regardless if you liked the status quo or not, it could have been dramatically worse for gun owners, it is a legitimate compromise, one I believe benefits gun owners tremendously considering the circumstance, mainly the fact Obama admin wanted 41p and wanted it to be as punitive as possible on gun owners, this was one of B. Todd Jone's jobs (**** with gun owners). We truly caught a huge break with this ruling regardless if you see it that way or not.
I'm all for doing away with NFA completely and if/when we have the power I'd even be ok with incremental changes such as changing NFA (getting all but full auto off, getting suppressor only off, whatever incrementalism works for the left and it could work for us gaining rights), but you need to recognize where the power is right now (and on 41p the power was with the administration, NOT gun owners).
jerrysimons
01-08-16, 18:52
You miss the point, 41p was proposed 2 1/2 years ago, the rule change was well within the BATFE's authority to do so. 41p was happening regardless if you liked the status quo or not, it could have been dramatically worse for gun owners, it is a legitimate compromise, one I believe benefits gun owners tremendously considering the circumstance, mainly the fact Obama admin wanted 41p and wanted it to be as punitive as possible on gun owners, this was one of B. Todd Jone's jobs (**** with gun owners). We truly caught a huge break with this ruling regardless if you see it that way or not.
I'm all for doing away with NFA completely and if/when we have the power I'd even be ok with incremental changes such as changing NFA (getting all but full auto off, getting suppressor only off, whatever incrementalism works for the left and it could work for us gaining rights), but you need to recognize where the power is right now (and on 41p the power was with the administration, NOT gun owners).
I get it it. It's not as bad as it could have been which is good. But it is completely bs in the first place and I am not about to grovel at the feet at the administration because they only screwed us a little bit. This didn't need to happen at all.
Compromise? What compromise? Things were fine the way they were.
RedRallyeZ
01-09-16, 06:57
It goes in effect 180 days after publication. Any transaction after that must comply.
Anything "pending" at the time is exempt.
http://us2.campaign-archive2.com/?u=a1d29a8e791b7e5fccbeaa366&id=d34c923998&e=4b4997d82e
Im still somewhat hazy on this exact date.....
Hypothetically, if i e-filed a for an SBR using my trust the day before this all goes into effect, am i subject to new rules or old?
Im reading that Form 1/4's need to be PENDING before July, not SUBMITTED. obviously the problem there is that there is no hard date when that transition between pending and submitted actually takes place.
PatrioticDisorder
01-09-16, 07:06
Im still somewhat hazy on this exact date.....
Hypothetically, if i e-filed a for an SBR using my trust the day before this all goes into effect, am i subject to new rules or old?
Im reading that Form 1/4's need to be PENDING before July, not SUBMITTED. obviously the problem there is that there is no hard date when that transition between pending and submitted actually takes place.
Old rules
Taking into account the impact and timing of ATF-41P, is there any general consensus on how to proceed? I put off jumping into the NFA pool to get an SBR until after the final changes were issued. I had originally planned to go the trust route and pay an attorney to create it because no chance in hell of Chief LEO in my area signing off (I checked). I then planned to file a Form 1 electronically, get one of my lowers engraved after I got the stamp, and then purchase an appropriate upper.
My tired, old, pea brain suggests to go ahead with my original plan in order to get the ball rolling ASAP and avoid a potential flood of applications that may occur after 180 days. I realize that I may be able to avoid the cost ($300) of having an attorney create the trust by waiting until the summer and, thus, save money that could otherwise be plowed into an upper. Thoughts/suggestions? What am I missing?
On a related note, I'm really torn between having an actual attorney prepare a trust and going with an online version. Savings are substantial, but I really don't want to worry about having problems down the road with the DIY version.
Dist. Expert 26
01-13-16, 10:22
Taking into account the impact and timing of ATF-41P, is there any general consensus on how to proceed? I put off jumping into the NFA pool to get an SBR until after the final changes were issued. I had originally planned to go the trust route and pay an attorney to create it because no chance in hell of Chief LEO in my area signing off (I checked). I then planned to file a Form 1 electronically, get one of my lowers engraved after I got the stamp, and then purchase an appropriate upper.
My tired, old, pea brain suggests to go ahead with my original plan in order to get the ball rolling ASAP and avoid a potential flood of applications that may occur after 180 days. I realize that I may be able to avoid the cost ($300) of having an attorney create the trust by waiting until the summer and, thus, save money that could otherwise be plowed into an upper. Thoughts/suggestions? What am I missing?
On a related note, I'm really torn between having an actual attorney prepare a trust and going with an online version. Savings are substantial, but I really don't want to worry about having problems down the road with the DIY version.
You should be able to get a trust drawn up for about $150. $300 is a little ridiculous for 4 pieces of paper.
That being said, the attorney that drew up my trust told me that the online trusts are almost always totally fine. He has multiple NFA items of his own, so his opinion goes a little further than other attorneys who have no firsthand experience in the matter.
I charge $300 for m4 carbine members. But I also answer my phone on Saturday and Sunday and after hours and I am there whenever you have a question or need help. You're not going to get that from the free internet gun trust in a box that cost a dollar 99. Also, most of the dollar 99 internet gun trust, well they may be valid, but they are pretty crummy trust and have a lot of holes in them. That said they do work assumjng you filled in the blanks properly
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
$300 is a little ridiculous for 4 pieces of paper.
I paid less per piece of paper, because I have about 30 pages in mine. :p
But, I'm also under $3.50 per stamp at this point...so I'm good with it. ;)
Trust is worth their weight in gold. I just got back my last stamp today, and want to put in one more for a CZ Scorpion pistol as soon as the FDE version comes into stock
Sorry to be a pain, but would someone give me the Reader's Digest version of what this is all about, and its practical implications? I really don't want to have to read the previous 200+ posts to get snippets here and there.
Thanks!
Readers digest
In 6 mo
Fingerprints photos
Cleo notification
https://youtu.be/FWxEO882144
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Sorry to be a pain, but would someone give me the Reader's Digest version of what this is all about, and its practical implications? I really don't want to have to read the previous 200+ posts to get snippets here and there.
Thanks!
https://www.arsenalattorneys.com/firearms-blog/navigating-the-new-rules-for-gun-trusts
PatrioticDisorder
01-16-16, 19:09
Sorry to be a pain, but would someone give me the Reader's Digest version of what this is all about, and its practical implications? I really don't want to have to read the previous 200+ posts to get snippets here and there.
Thanks!
1. Same rules until July 13, 2016 which means as long as you have a form postmarked or form 1 filed under E-file it is current rules.
2. All "responsible persons" on trust will need to submit fingerprints & photos, although if you stay current by filing new form 1 or 4 without letting 24 months lapse between forms you stay current and don't need to resubmit new fingerprints & photos. Also when adding a new member to the trust their photos & fingerprints are not required until you file a new form (unsure if everyone will need to resubmit if this happens).
3. CLEO notification will be required on form 1/4s for trusts & individuals, CLEO sign off for individuals goes away. Basically you will now need to mail a Cleo (designated by BATFE) a copy of your form 1/4, no biggie they can't refuse to sign like before, no signature needed.
steppenwolf
01-16-16, 19:53
1. Same rules until July 13, 2016 which means as long as you have a form postmarked or form 1 filed under E-file it is current rules.
2. All "responsible persons" on trust will need to submit fingerprints & photos, although if you stay current by filing new form 1 or 4 without letting 24 months lapse between forms you stay current and don't need to resubmit new fingerprints & photos. Also when adding a new member to the trust their photos & fingerprints are not required until you file a new form (unsure if everyone will need to resubmit if this happens).
3. CLEO notification will be required on form 1/4s for trusts & individuals, CLEO sign off for individuals goes away. Basically you will now need to mail a Cleo (designated by BATFE) a copy of your form 1/4, no biggie they can't refuse to sign like before, no signature needed.
Okay, so what I'm not clear on is on post-7/13/16 F1s/F4s INDIVIDUAL applications ... Say you submit an F4 for a can on 8/1/16, along with FP cards & photos, and get approved with a 10/1/16 tx stamp, and then you submit another F4 on a can on 12/1/16, ... does that 24-month "look-back" rule mean you DON'T have to re-submit duplicate FP cards & photos with the 12/1 app?
PatrioticDisorder
01-16-16, 20:03
Okay, so what I'm not clear on is on post-7/13/16 F1s/F4s INDIVIDUAL applications ... Say you submit an F4 for a can on 8/1/16, along with FP cards & photos, and get approved with a 10/1/16 tx stamp, and then you submit another F4 on a can on 12/1/16, ... does that 24-month "look-back" rule mean you DON'T have to re-submit duplicate FP cards & photos with the 12/1 app?
Based on what I read in the BATFE ruling, it appears you wouldn't have to submit photos & prints on the 12/1 app, UNLESS a responsible person was added to the trust. I am also under the impression that as long as you buy at least every 24 months that photos & prints could theoretically be a one time deal as you could "stay current."
Readers digest
In 6 mo
Fingerprints photos
Cleo notification
https://youtu.be/FWxEO882144
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Thanks!
https://www.arsenalattorneys.com/firearms-blog/navigating-the-new-rules-for-gun-trusts
Thank you!
https://www.arsenalattorneys.com/firearms-blog/navigating-the-new-rules-for-gun-trusts
Thank you!
1. Same rules until July 13, 2016 which means as long as you have a form postmarked or form 1 filed under E-file it is current rules.
2. All "responsible persons" on trust will need to submit fingerprints & photos, although if you stay current by filing new form 1 or 4 without letting 24 months lapse between forms you stay current and don't need to resubmit new fingerprints & photos. Also when adding a new member to the trust their photos & fingerprints are not required until you file a new form (unsure if everyone will need to resubmit if this happens).
3. CLEO notification will be required on form 1/4s for trusts & individuals, CLEO sign off for individuals goes away. Basically you will now need to mail a Cleo (designated by BATFE) a copy of your form 1/4, no biggie they can't refuse to sign like before, no signature needed.
Thanks!
Okay, so what I'm not clear on is on post-7/13/16 F1s/F4s INDIVIDUAL applications ... Say you submit an F4 for a can on 8/1/16, along with FP cards & photos, and get approved with a 10/1/16 tx stamp, and then you submit another F4 on a can on 12/1/16, ... does that 24-month "look-back" rule mean you DON'T have to re-submit duplicate FP cards & photos with the 12/1 app?
There's nothing in the statute that I see that gives the 24-month window for an individual.
steppenwolf
01-16-16, 21:07
Based on what I read in the BATFE ruling, it appears you wouldn't have to submit photos & prints on the 12/1 app, UNLESS a responsible person was added to the trust. * * * ."
Thanks, ... but my question isn't about trust or entity apps. It's regarding F1s/F4s apps sent in by individuals.
Does the 24-month rule in 41F about FP cards/photos apply to individual apps or only to entities apps?
steppenwolf
01-16-16, 21:12
There's nothing in the statute that I see that gives the 24-month window for an individual.
Okay, thanks BW.
It doesn't make sense (to me) that ATF wouldn't apply the same rule to apps from both submitters. But that's my opinion.
PatrioticDisorder
01-16-16, 21:20
There's nothing in the statute that I see that gives the 24-month window for an individual.
That's not the way I interpreted the ruling.
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download
Pg . 247 section 479.85 (c) specifically addresses the 24 month issue, it refers to applicant entity.... "Applicant entity" sounds vague but (a) addresses individual specific issues, (b) deals with trust specific issues and being there is a section (c) it seems reasonable to me it applies to any applicant, hence applicant entity, otherwise it seems it would have been listed under (b).
Bear with me on this one...but I finally decided to read through most of the document on the registry. Didn't worry about the comments, just the initial discussion and then the amendments themselves. Prior to this I'd just read all the summaries people were posting.
IANAL...but I'm not seeing the 24-month window to not provide prints and photos. What I'm seeing is a 24-month window to not provide a copy of your trust/corp documents, but you still need a photo within the last year plus prints. For those that have simply read others interpretations, I'll copy/paste what I just read. From here down, everything in italics is straight from the registry document...the bold is my input.
I'll go over the Form 1, but the Form 4 info is basically a duplicate...
In the beginning of the document, you get this:
C. Amendment of 27 CFR 479.62 and 479.63
With respect to an application to make a firearm, the Department proposed several amendments to 27 CFR 479.62 (“Application to make”) and 479.63 (“Identification of applicant”).
Amendments to § 479.62 proposed to:
1. Provide that if the applicant is a partnership, company, association, trust, or corporation, all information on the Form 1 application must be furnished for each responsible person of the applicant;
2. Specify that if the applicant is a partnership, company, association, trust, or corporation, each responsible person must comply with the identification requirements prescribed in the proposed § 479.63(b); and
3. Require the applicant (including, if other than an individual, any responsible person), if an alien admitted under a nonimmigrant visa, to provide applicable documentation demonstrating that the applicant falls within an exception to 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B) or has obtained a waiver of that provision.
Amendments to § 479.63, where the applicant is an individual, proposed to maintain the CLEO certification but omit the requirement for a statement about the use of a firearm for other than lawful purposes. This section proposed to require, instead, that the certification state that the official is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph accompanying the application are those of the applicant and that the official has no information indicating that possession of the firearm by the maker would be in violation of State or local law.
The Department stated that the CLEO's certification that the CLEO “is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph accompanying the application are those of the applicant,” is an existing requirement for an individual applicant (see 27 CFR 479.63); however, this certification was not reflected on the current form. ATF proposed to modify the Form 1 to include this certification for individuals and include the same certification on Form 5320.23 for responsible persons within a trust or legal entity.
Additionally, amendments to § 479.63, where the applicant is a partnership, company, association, trust, or corporation, proposed to:
1. Provide that the applicant must be identified on the Form 1 application by the name and exact location of the place of business, including the name of the county in which the business is located or, in the case of a trust, the address where the firearm is located. In the case of two or more locations, the address shown must be the principal place of business (or principal office, in the case of a corporation) or, in the case of a trust, the principal address at which the firearm is located;
2. Require the applicant to attach to the application:
•Documentation evidencing the existence and validity of the entity, which includes complete and unredacted copies of partnership agreements, articles of incorporation, corporate registration, declarations of trust, with any trust schedules, attachments, exhibits, and enclosures; however, if the entity had an application approved as a maker or transferee within the preceding 24 months, and there had been no change to the documentation previously provided, the entity may provide a certification that the information has not changed since the prior approval and must identify the application for which the documentation had been submitted by form number, serial number, and date approved;
•A completed ATF Form 5320.23 for each responsible person. Form 5320.23 would require certain identifying information for each responsible person, including each responsible person's full name, position, Social Security number (optional), home address, date and place of birth, and country of citizenship;
•In accordance with the instructions provided on Form 5320.23, a 2 x 2-inch photograph of each responsible person, clearly showing a full front view of the features of the responsible person with head bare, with the distance from the top of the head to the point of the chin approximately 11/4 inches, and which must have been taken within 1 year prior to the date of the application;
•Two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card) for each responsible person. The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them; and
•In accordance with the instructions provided on Form 5320.23, a certification for each responsible person completed by the local chief of police, sheriff of the county, head of the State police, State or local district attorney or prosecutor, or such other person whose certification may in a particular case be acceptable to the Director. The certification for each responsible person must be completed by the CLEO who has jurisdiction over the area in which the responsible person resides. The certification must state that the official is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph accompanying the application are those of the responsible person and that the certifying official has no information indicating that possession of the firearm by the responsible person would be in violation of State or local law.
ATF also sought public comments regarding the feasibility of asking CLEOs to certify that they are satisfied that the photographs and fingerprints match those of the responsible person and whether changes were needed to this proposal.
Notice the 24-month window is only mentioned for the "Documentation evidencing the existence and validity of the entity..."
And then at the end, you get the actual statute:
4.Section 479.63 is revised to read as follows:
§ 479.63 Identification of applicant.
(a) If the applicant is an individual, the applicant shall:
(1) Securely attach to each copy of the Form 1, in the space provided on the form, a 2 x 2-inch photograph of the applicant, clearly showing a full front view of the features of the applicant with head bare, with the distance from the top of the head to the point of the chin approximately 11/4 inches, and which shall have been taken within 1 year prior to the date of the application; and
(2) Attach to the application two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card). The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them.
(b) If the applicant is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company (including a Limited Liability Company (LLC)), association, trust, or corporation, the applicant shall:
(1) Be identified on the Form 1 by the name and exact location of the place of business, including the name and number of the building and street, and the name of the county in which the business is located or, in the case of a trust, the primary location at which the firearm will be maintained. In the case of two or more locations, the address shown shall be the principal place of business (or principal office, in the case of a corporation) or, in the case of a trust, the primary location at which the firearm will be maintained;
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, attach to the application—
(i) Documentation evidencing the existence and validity of the entity, which includes complete and unredacted copies of partnership agreements, articles of incorporation, corporate registration, and declarations of trust, with any trust schedules, attachments, exhibits, and enclosures;
(ii) A completed ATF Form 5320.23 for each responsible person. Form 5320.23 requires certain identifying information, including each responsible person's full name, position, home address, date of birth, and country of citizenship if other than the United States;
(iii) In the space provided on Form 5320.23, a 2 x 2-inch photograph of each responsible person, clearly showing a full front view of the features of the responsible person with head bare, with the distance from the top of the head to the point of the chin approximately 11/4 inches, and which shall have been taken within 1 year prior to the date of the application;
(iv) Two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card) for each responsible person. The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them.
(c) If the applicant entity has had an application approved as a maker or transferee within the preceding 24 months, and there has been no change to the documentation previously provided, the entity may provide a certification that the information has not been changed since the prior approval and shall identify the application for which the documentation had been submitted by form number, serial number, and date approved.
The only thing I see referred to as "documentation" is the trust/corp documents. Not the photos and prints. So in (c), when it says "no change to the documentation previously provided", the only thing with the 24-month window is the supporting documentation. The prints (which don't show an expiration date) and the "taken within 1 year prior" photo would still be a requirement.
This would put an individual on a level playing field with a responsible person.
I like it even less after I actually read it. Anybody else read if the same way I do?
And this is why we need to defund 41 f and get rid of the Cleo sign off by statute
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
PatrioticDisorder
01-16-16, 22:15
Waylon, we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. The only documentation mentioned in (a) for individuals is rhe photographs & fingerprints, if this 24 month window was applying to trusts only it would have been listed under (b)(2)(v) or (b)(3) and not under (c).
Silencershop also seems to interpret it the same way I do, but will be getting clarification on it soon.
http://blog.silencershop.com/atf-41f-published-today/
Waylon, we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one. The only documentation mentioned in (a) for individuals is rhe photographs & fingerprints, if this 24 month window was applying to trusts only it would have been listed under (b)(2)(v) or (b)(3) and not under (c).
Silencershop also seems to interpret it the same way I do, but will be getting clarification on it soon.
http://blog.silencershop.com/atf-41f-published-today/
Oh, don't get me wrong...I hope I'm misreading it. I just don't think they're calling prints or photos "documentation".
I think the initial section I posted is very clear in that it's the trust only. I see your point on the statute itself, but also that only (b) mentions (c)...which means it's only for non-individual submissions.
We'll let the lawyers hash it out.
Silencer Shop also posted this on 12/15/15:
Originally Posted By SilencerShop:
Is it panic time?
After working closely with federal & state lawmakers and regulatory agencies (including the ATF & NFA Branch) – it’s obvious that nobody wants 41P to be implemented (other than the current administration).
If it did go into effect, it would create problems at every level – for both government & industry.
We don’t have a crystal ball any more than anybody else, but everything we hear from the ATF, NFA Branch, and lawmakers indicates that it will continue to be put on hold indefinitely.[/span]
Read more in our latest blog post.
http://blog.silencershop.com/41p-asa/ (http://blog.silencershop.com/41p-asa/)
Moose-Knuckle
01-17-16, 03:07
Edit: Never mind asked and answered.
And this is why we need to defund 41 f and get rid of the Cleo sign off by statute
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
What is the status of that? Early in the thread you mentioned somethings along that line.
I keep seeing that 41f will go into effect July 2016. Has 41f been added/written to the federal registry yet?
I keep seeing that 41f will go into effect July 2016. Has 41f been added/written to the federal registry yet?
Yes. 7/13/16 is the in-effect date.
FWIW...I heard SS had been told at SHOT that my explanation above was correct. I asked them in their Industry Forum, and they replied:
Originally Posted By SilencerShop:
Yes that is correct, according to our meeting with the ATF you will have to submit photos and prints each time. You will not have to submit the trust however.
PatrioticDisorder
01-29-16, 17:25
FWIW...I heard SS had been told at SHOT that my explanation above was correct. I ask them in their Industry Forum, and they replied:
So what are the new rules surrounding fingerprints? Where do we have to do them? Can I get like 10 sets at once? What if I put in 5 form 4's at once, do I need 5 sets of prints? This seems very asinine on the part of BATFE, no damn common sense.
So what are the new rules surrounding fingerprints? Where do we have to do them? Can I get like 10 sets at once? What if I put in 5 form 4's at once, do I need 5 sets of prints? This seems very asinine on the part of BATFE, no damn common sense.
I don't know if it's changed...but currently you provide one set (two cards) per submission. If you send in five F4s in the same envelope, that's one submission.
All that the statute says is:
Two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card) for each responsible person. The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them.
PatrioticDisorder
01-29-16, 18:49
I don't know if it's changed...but currently you provide one set (two cards) per submission. If you send in five F4s in the same envelope, that's one submission.
All that the statute says is:
Two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card) for each responsible person. The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them.
So I would assume individuals can download the form and fill it out & do the fingerprints yourself(obviously following instructions and getting all the landmarks)? Perhaps it is written somewhere but is there a special kind of paper you need to use? Special ink?
So I would assume individuals can download the form and fill it out & do the fingerprints yourself(obviously following instructions and getting all the landmarks)? Perhaps it is written somewhere but is there a special kind of paper you need to use? Special ink?
You can order the cards here (https://www.atf.gov/distribution-center-order-form). Choose the NFA option from the dropdown. I got a dozen of them last week.
Here (http://www.sirchie.com) is the brand of ink pad I see recommended, but I haven't bought one, yet. Lots of people get the stuff off eBay. There are also card holders that supposedly make it easier.
I've never had to do them...but I plan on practicing sometime in the fairly near future.
Hey, is there anything new on this? I just heard from my class 3 FFL, that we need to submit prints and pics with all submissions NOW... not just after the July 13th? date, and that the ATFE just went and made this change on their own. Forgive me if I missed it, I just read thru this thread and my eyes are getting weary.
Scott
Hey, is there anything new on this? I just heard from my class 3 FFL, that we need to submit prints and pics with all submissions NOW... not just after the July 13th? date, and that the ATFE just went and made this change on their own. Forgive me if I missed it, I just read thru this thread and my eyes are getting weary.
Scott
Negative. Your dealer is wrong!
Without a clear plan to transfer the responsibilities to other agencies and give them budgets and time to create them this is doomed to failure.
I would much rather see the US Marshals Service get it's budget doubled and force tripled to take on these responsibilities. It would seem that the FBI would be the more natural choice but their multiple violations of the McClure-Volkmer Act are a clear indicator that new blood and a new ethos are required for this job.
BATF agents who aren't veterans(most aren't) couldn't qualify for US Marshals currently and just pick up where they left off with a new agency(but with the same poisoned mindset).
Maybe they could finish out their tenure as postal workers to stay on track for their pensions.
Hahahaha!
If I file an eForm 1 in the next week with a trust is there anything different I must do?
If I file an eForm 1 in the next week with a trust is there anything different I must do?
Nope.
If I file an eForm 1 in the next week with a trust is there anything different I must do?
No. Not at all.
Precisely what information must be including in CLEO notification?
Can it be a letter to the CLEO stating: "Hi ____, I'm registering/transferring an NFA item." With a return address on the envelope?
Or do you have to forward a copy of all your forms?
How can you prove that you notified the CLEO? Can you just send it via registered mail or do you have to follow some state-created procedure?
Precisely what information must be including in CLEO notification?
Can it be a letter to the CLEO stating: "Hi ____, I'm registering/transferring an NFA item." With a return address on the envelope?
Or do you have to forward a copy of all your forms?
How can you prove that you notified the CLEO? Can you just send it via registered mail or do you have to follow some state-created procedure?
There were draft copies of the new F1 and F4 published recently, but the links I have are now dead.
The notification involves sending a copy of the F1/F4 to CLEO. If filing as an entity, you send the new 5320.23 form for each responsible person.
On the new F1/F4, there's a spot for you to record who you sent it to, at what address, and exactly when you did it...and you simply sign it.
The wording in 41F for a Form 4 (Form 1 is similar) says:
(c) Notification of chief law enforcement officer. Prior to the submission ofthe application to the Director, all transferees and responsible persons shall forward a completed copy of Form 4 or a completed copy of Form 5320.23, respectively, to the chief law enforcement officer of the locality in which the transferee or responsible person is located. The chief law enforcement officer is the local chief of police, county sheriff, head of the State police, State or local district attorney or prosecutor. If the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company, association, or corporation, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at its principal office or principal place of business; if the transferee is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a trust, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at the primary location at which the firearm will be maintained.
Here (https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/form/application-make-and-register-firearm-atf-53201-draft/download) is a new link to the Draft copy of the F1, and you can see the Law Enforcement Notification section.
It references Instruction 2g, which says:
Law Enforcement Notification. The applicant must provide a copy of the Form 1 to the chief law enforcement officer who has jurisdiction over the area of the applicant’s address shown in item 3b of the Form 1. In addition, if the applicant is other than an individual, a copy of the Form 5320.23, National Firearms Act (NFA) Responsible Person Questionnaire, for each responsible person must be provided to their respective chief law enforcement officer. The chief law enforcement officer is considered to be the Chief of Police; the Sheriff; the Head of the State Police; or a State
or local district attorney or prosecutor.
Eurodriver
04-02-16, 18:42
So it's similar to a C&R notification, correct?
Would suck if your letter got lost in the mail or something...
So it's similar to a C&R notification, correct?
Would suck if your letter got lost in the mail or something...
registered mail?
BufordTJustice
04-02-16, 19:38
registered mail?
Yep. With return receipt.
Wouldn't even worry about registered mail. Spread the love. Send some to sheriff, some to head of state police, some to chief of police. Not even sure I'd worry about tracking number. Slap a stamp on a regular envelope and be done with it. Sign off that you mailed it. Good enough.
You're given the requirements. Don't add to them unnecessarily.
Wouldn't even worry about registered mail. Spread the love. Send some to sheriff, some to head of state police, some to chief of police. Not even sure I'd worry about tracking number. Slap a stamp on a regular envelope and be done with it. Sign off that you mailed it. Good enough.
You're given the requirements. Don't add to them unnecessarily.
The problem comes when a cleo decides he didn't receive notification and you can't prove otherwise.
PatrioticDisorder
04-03-16, 14:26
The problem comes when a cleo decides he didn't receive notification and you can't prove otherwise.
The fact you must provide the BATFE with a space for the CLEO info should be good enough IMO. It may as well say "provide CLEO information here for which CLEO you want informed of your Form 1/4", so even if the CLEO you notified somehow lacks integrity (or the form gets lost in the mail) I have no doubt the BATFE will be notifying them on their own anyway.
The problem comes when a cleo decides he didn't receive notification and you can't prove otherwise.
You don't have to prove they received it. I'd bet a majority of them go straight in the trash. You simply document the who/when/where of sending it.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.