View Full Version : Gun Trusts - ...Used by criminal organizations
This is my first post here, so if this is the wrong section, please correct me. I felt that the indifiduals that populate this forum might have the most info on the subject.
I've been saving my pennies to purchase a Colt 6933 from GRTactical. It might be another six months, as my first child is on the way and convincing my wife that a $1000 (plus $200 stamp) gun is a worthwhile expenditure of funds. But I digress.
I watched with interest our President's gun forum. In it, he states that the "gun trust loophole" is used by criminals and shell corporations to access restricted things like silencers, machine guns, "sawed-off shotguns" (it just sounds so scary to say that...right).
Does anyone know of statistics to prove or disprove his statements? I live in an area where I can likely have either the local chief of police or sheriff sign off for me, and I've read on here and other places that others have done so in the local area. So, I may not even pursue a trust, but I would absolutely like to have an answer should anyone wish to discuss this topic.
Frankly, it sees likely to me that some might use such a procedure to acquire things like silencers from less-than-careful vendors, but when it comes to SBR's and automatic weapons... I find it hard to believe.
Does anyone have input?
black22rifle
01-09-16, 06:39
The main reason lots of people went the trust route in addition to not needing the chiefs signature was because it was quicker and did not require a photo and prints be sent in.
Anything can be used by criminals.
From the few cases I have read in the media of a criminal having an NFA item the item was illegally in his possession(felon, stolen, ect.).
Frankly, it sees likely to me that some might use such a procedure to acquire things like silencers from less-than-careful vendors, but when it comes to SBR's and automatic weapons... I find it hard to believe.
Does anyone have input?
Yeah. The whole transaction has to get approved by the ATF after waiting an inordinate amount of time. Trust, Corporation, Individual, it doesn't matter. It still has to clear the Feds. No "less than careful" vendor can sidestep the ATF approval without committing a felony.
Jusdt rfemember, anything out of OBAMA'S mouth are LIES. Take it from there.
So; we are to believe that "criminal organizations" are filing paperwork with BATFE, waiting for approval, and buying retail instead of rolling their own or utilizing the international arms black market.
At the end of the day, a prohibited person possessing an NFA item is already illegal. The Grantor must go through a background check. If any trustees are prohibited and access the item, it's no different than an individual giving an NFA item to a prohibited person. The new rule just makes anyone with legal ace mess go through a background check and submit photo/finger prints.
Why go through all that? Just do what the cartels and gangs do. Buy the stuff our government gives to the Mexican military right out of the back of a truck down south. Then freely come across the open border with it.
Why bother with paperwork.
Every time I buy and pick up a can via trust, the dealer subjects me to an instantaneous background check. You mean to tell me I've been the victim of discrimination?:D
So; we are to believe that "criminal organizations" are filing paperwork with BATFE, waiting for approval, and buying retail instead of rolling their own or utilizing the international arms black market.
Exactly.
Have you found a 6933 available anywhere? I've been keeping an eye out since my order from 2014 got canceled when Colt finally told DSG arms they wouldn't be getting it...
Rotorhead84
01-09-16, 14:52
The main reason lots of people went the trust route in addition to not needing the chiefs signature was because it was quicker and did not require a photo and prints be sent in.
Anything can be used by criminals.
From the few cases I have read in the media of a criminal having an NFA item the item was illegally in his possession(felon, stolen, ect.).
Even under the new rules a gun trust is still worth it to prevent your firearms from ever being effectively banned. As long as your descendants keep the trust up, your scary guns will be legal forever.
As has been posted several times, criminals and/or 'criminal organizations' don't register ANYTHING with the BATFE. They are criminals not fools and providing direct evidence of their participation in a crime is not high on their 'To Do' list. Do criminals do stupid things - like driving their own car with the license plates registered to them still clearly visible? Yes they do, but that is out of 'routine' or habit. Willfully tying themselves to a firearm that they might use in a crime? Come'on!
That said, we can thank our 'friends' at the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association (cited by name in the final rule) and fired LAPD Officer Christopher Dorner, who in Feb 2013 launched a 'vendetta' against LEOs using NFA firearms that were transferred via a trust (a SBR and a suppressor as I recall) for the new rules AND for the unending lectures from the politicians. Both provided the nexus between criminals using trusts to obtain NFA weapons/devices.
That doesn't make it a fact, however.
MikeN
Does anyone have input?
You concerns have zero to do with you getting a sign off or Trust.
Don't let Obama's lies slow your exercising of your legal rights. If he were not lying, the MSM would be plastered with stories of criminals using Trusts. Obama thinks he's a fancy lawyer pleading to a jury. He's a perverse little twit. The only thing he has accomplished in 8 years is that he can now sit through an interview without a teleprompter and his suits look as nice as Jay-Z. Which is pretty much all he ever hoped for. He just wanted to be the cool guy and never hesitates to tell everyone. "Hey I taught Constitutional Law, I know a thing or two about it." Well no Barack, just because you teach it, doesn't mean you really get it. Lot's of screwed up teachers in the USA.... "I won two elections"... Yes Barack we know... Now you are the same twit you have always been but your suits are much much nicer.
Have you ever heard the MSM reporting about all the criminals using Trusts? The crime being committed through Trusts? The NFA firearms used in crimes? Don't you think the headlines would be absolutely plastered with that info if it were true?
You simply need to determine which type legal document will best serve your legal rights. A Trust is a tool that helps you and other Trustees while you are alive as well as others after you are dead. A will, pretty much just offloads your junk after you die. It's not a vehicle for current affairs. A Trust can be a vehicle for current affairs.
IOW, all the lies and deceptions of the left have nothing to do with whether you get a sign off or Trust. You decision is a matter of legal family planning under your legal rights. The left will continue to tell lies until the cows come home. That's not a concern in your decision. That's a concern next November.
The batfe did not produce one instance of a prohibited person using a trust to obtain an NFA item when a FOIA request was submitted
Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk
Just Prince
01-09-16, 20:36
I remember reading about one case in the Midwest recently. But I can't recall the details.
Out of all of my previous FA purchases under my trust each & every one went thru a 4473 before taking delivery on stamp day.
I remember reading about one case in the Midwest recently. But I can't recall the details.
If you do, I'd love to hear any details. I'm in Northwest Indiana (NWI), and we're pretty free. However, I'd like to stay on top of the "evidence" either way.
To the individual asking about the Colt 6933, www.gandrtactical.com has them listed on their site (site sponsor here, I thought?). I have assumed that they are in stock. Hasn't mattered directly to me, as I'm a little way from moving forward with a purchase.
To everyone, thank you for your replies. It would seem that there is a severe lack of evidence to support our wonderful president's position, which seems to be an eight year trend.
I'd wager that there are more law abiding folks out there in possession of illegal SBR's due to complete ignorance of NFA laws than there are criminals going through the hassle of using trusts to aquire NFA items illegally. Frankly, if criminals were using suppressors in the commission of their crimes you can pretty much garauntee that the gun control crowd would be publicizing it in an attempt to further their agenda.
Frankly if you are interested in setting up a trust its still a great route to go. Even if the new ATF ruling goes through and you have to submit the extra paperwork for each person, they're still a great tool for estate planning when it comes to any NFA items you may collect before your death. Going the individual route makes that much harder.
Lastly, I think the only way to check and see if something is in stock with Grant is to try and add it to your shopping cart. If the item is out of stock it will give you an error message. He's been having the 6933's listed for a while but I doubt he has any stock left. Hopefully Colt will have a production run sometime this year.
gunf1ghter
01-12-16, 09:21
Out of all of my previous FA purchases under my trust each & every one went thru a 4473 before taking delivery on stamp day.
Right, that's the law. Theoretically with a trust though you could have 10 co-trustees on the trust who aren't legally permitted to use the NFA item (convicted felon, haven't passed extra FBI bg check, etc) and they could carry the trust item with paperwork and LEO/BATFE are probably never going to question it.
In reality though, the chances of criminals doing this seems quite low. They typically just carry what they want how they want, regardless of what the law is.
I would wager that it's far more likely that criminals are working for corporations who are allowed legal use of NFA type items and never getting the full vetting that ma and pa kettle's trust is the source of funneling "illegal" weapons to prohibited persons.
jerrysimons
01-12-16, 10:03
Right, that's the law. Theoretically with a trust though you could have 10 co-trustees on the trust who aren't legally permitted to use the NFA item (convicted felon, haven't passed extra FBI bg check, etc) and they could carry the trust item with paperwork and LEO/BATFE are probably never going to question it.
In reality though, the chances of criminals doing this seems quite low. They typically just carry what they want how they want, regardless of what the law is.
I would wager that it's far more likely that criminals are working for corporations who are allowed legal use of NFA type items and never getting the full vetting that ma and pa kettle's trust is the source of funneling "illegal" weapons to prohibited persons.
BS on the instance of theoretical abuse. Any decent LEO who comes across someone arousing suspicion is not going to just trust their word saying they are good to go while handing them some special price of paper. They are going to look that person up in their own system, run their background and arrest record on them and depending on the results will consider the paper work in light of their search if they even know what a trust and NFA laws are. If not they will likely call ATF and or superiors and rely on their own system even more. Either way you can surely bet that if his search comes back with felony convictions that trustee is not walking away with his SBR and paperwork in hand. The whole premise 41p is based on is contrived. Trusts do nothing legally to make an ineligible person eligible, in that instance all that has taken place is the implication of the settlor in the crime of supplying weapons to inelligable persons.
Cleo signature no longer required, just notification. Trusts will now require finger prints and pictures as well, maybe this will prevent the need for going the trust route.
The real problem with requiring backgrounds and fingerprints for the other trustees is that it will limit those who will be willing to do it. For example, my trust's beneficiary is my only heir, my daughter who is still a minor. My successor trustees are my wife, and a trusted friend who understands the process and would be able to help navigate my wife/daughter thru the process in the event of my death. In return, I am on his trust for the same purpose, and we have both already passed all the background checks. However, submitting fingerprints and backgrounds in the future for someone else's trust might create tension. Just as the CLEO's don't want to sign them (so in case something goes wrong - in their minds - it's not attributed to them) so may a trustee be more shy about being on someone else's trust (in case something goes wrong)....
I doubt any successor trustees on the trust that had the weapons Officer Dorner used were very happy about it at that moment....
Right, that's the law. Theoretically with a trust though you could have 10 co-trustees on the trust who aren't legally permitted to use the NFA item (convicted felon, haven't passed extra FBI bg check, etc) and they could carry the trust item with paperwork and LEO/BATFE are probably never going to question it.
I find it hard to believe that if a LEO/BATFE is actually talking to a person about an NFA item in their possession, that the subject of their being legal to possess such an item would not arise.
gunf1ghter
01-12-16, 10:49
BS on the instance of theoretical abuse. Any decent LEO who comes across someone arousing suspicion is not going to just trust their word saying they are good to go while handing them some special price of paper. They are going to look that person up in their own system, run their background and arrest record on them and depending on the results will consider the paper work in light of their search if they even know what a trust and NFA laws are. If not they will likely call ATF and or superiors and rely on their own system even more. Either way you can surely bet that if his search comes back with felony convictions that trustee is not walking away with his SBR and paperwork in hand. The whole premise 41p is based on is contrived. Trusts do nothing legally to make an ineligible person eligible, in that instance all that has taken place is the implication of the settlor in the crime of supplying weapons to inelligable persons.
You seem to think I'm defending 41P and I'm not. As far as I'm concerned people should be able to buy whatever they want, including full auto, and without a bg check. We lived with these types of weapons for over a century before the Fed felt that the proles could no longer be trusted and they had to be taxed and regulated.
However, I disagree with your comment regarding theoretical abuse, LEO actions, etc. I've been shooting at ranges when BATF have quietly asked to see tax stamps for suppressors or SBRs. I've never seen BATF agents do anything other than check the persons ID and the tax stamps, etc. Maybe they are using their mobile to look the person up, but I didn't get that impression.
As I said, there is the possibility of abuse, I just don't think it's a real problem because criminals would seem to have very little incentive to go through the trouble of setting up trusts, paying tax stamps, etc, for items that they can probably get illegally anyway.
Cleo signature no longer required, just notification. Trusts will now require finger prints and pictures as well, maybe this will prevent the need for going the trust route.
I've had an existing NFA trust for several years, with several weapons in the trust. Sent out a form 1 dated January 1, 2016. Included no finger prints or pictures. Am I correct that Obama's E.O's don't go into effect for 180 days? ATF NFA Branch in Atlanta cashed my $200 check today.
I haven't come across many NFA weapons in the wild, in the hands of criminals. The few that I have were short barrels. They were all shotguns. None were done well, think hacksaw job in a back shed. None were stamped. None had ever been stamped. They were all stolen firearms to begin with and none of the crooks were first timers. They got loved tenderly on a variety of charges.
In short, the POTUS is a liar and a scare monger in my opinion. Crooks do not want attention from LE. What more attention could one get, without being a crook of course, than to submit a form 1 or 4. Whether it is under a trust or not. It's attention and attention they do not want.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.