Quicken Trust?

[Bulldog60]

I have searched for a Lawyer in my area that could do a NFA trust for me and am expanding my search to other cities in my state but I think my search might be futile.

I contacted the Apple Law Firm and was told that they are not familiar with my State Laws and do not have an attorney in my state that they deal with so I might be SOL. I have read a lot about using Quicken Trust as an alternative to using a lawyer and I will give that a go.

One comment I see about the Quicken Trust for NFA firearms is that you need to have gun, firearm verbiage in the trust but no body has given any example or examples of the verbiage. If anyone has the type of verbiage that is necessary can you help out and post an example? Any other information or tips would be very helpful.

[tb-av]

No one can tell you exactly what wording to use as that would be construed as practicing law.

this site has a lot of info. http://pafirearmslawyer.com/Gun_Trust_FAQ.html

As well the many threads and sticky threads here, and most recently the currently running Trust thread.

You are basically asking the same thing that's already being discussed.

[Javelin]

Yeah there is an ongoing thread. Some like Quicken some like knowing they spent $1K on a lawyer to do it. And in the end I guess it really boils down to your comfort level.

[TehLlama]

It's comfort level along with how much in assets you're talking about if you 'oops' it.

[markm]

It's comfort level along with how much in assets you're talking about if you 'oops' it.

Exactly. For me, it's an NFA vehicle. The assets are negligible.

If I was rolling "REAL" assets into it for life planning, I'd use the scum bag Lawyer.

[Quiet Riot]

Lacking the "special NFA language" that I've seen gives you no more exposure to the law than if you just did the transfer as an individual. A trust is a vehicle for distributing property upon your death. The mechanics of how it is distributed does not need to be in the trust itself. In other words, if you die with a trust without any "special NFA language," it is no different than if you die having individual ownership of the NFA items. This happens probably every day, and the ATF has a process for your beneficiaries so that nobody is afoul of the law.

Quicken has been proven time and time again to adequately meet the needs of the ATF as well as probate courts. No one... not a single person... has ever been arrested, fined, admonished, or even spoken to in a firm tone by the ATF because of an NFA trust, regardless of its origin (Quicken, internet boilerplate, lawyer).

You do what is comfortable for you, but know what you're paying for. If it sounds like voodoo and scary stuff you don't understand, it is because they want it to sound that way so you don't realize there is nothing special about the pages and pages they add to a basic trust. If they can provide a concrete example for how their wording will keep you and our kin out of trouble, then it might be worth the money.

I went with Quicken.

[Bulldog60]

I am aware of the on going threads on the subject of NFA Trusts and using Quicken but none that I have found covered examples of the proper gun type language need in the trust. I really don't see how giving an example of the type of language needed is practicing law.

I understand what the consequences could be when using Quicken and am still debating what is best for me. If there is not a lawyer that I can find doing a reasonable search in my state that will do a trust I just might do a NFA trust using computer software. That is if I can get it figured out what I should add to be more gun related. I will make more calls today and see if I will have any luck.

[Bulldog60]

Lacking the "special NFA language" that I've seen gives you no more exposure to the law than if you just did the transfer as an individual. A trust is a vehicle for distributing property upon your death. The mechanics of how it is distributed does not need to be in the trust itself. In other words, if you die with a trust without any "special NFA language," it is no different than if you die having individual ownership of the NFA items. This happens probably every day, and the ATF has a process for your beneficiaries so that nobody is afoul of the law.

Quicken has been proven time and time again to adequately meet the needs of the ATF as well as probate courts. No one... not a single person... has ever been arrested, fined, admonished, or even spoken to in a firm tone by the ATF because of an NFA trust, regardless of its origin (Quicken, internet boilerplate, lawyer).

You do what is comfortable for you, but know what you're paying for. If it sounds like voodoo and scary stuff you don't understand, it is because they want it to sound that way so you don't realize there is nothing special about the pages and pages they add to a basic trust. If they can provide a concrete example for how their wording will keep you and our kin out of trouble, then it might be worth the money.

I went with Quicken.

Thanks. I am comfortable doing this on my own and I will see what happens. I will make some calls today and If I get no results I will pick up Quicken Will maker and Trust.

[SC-Texas]

If you have a quesiton about your trust that you did with quicken or legal zoom, who are you going to call?

And if something goes wrong, whatever that may or may not be, who are you going to call first? That Scumbag lawyer? Jesus?

If you are comfortable doing it yourself. Do it.

When I do trusts, I am available if my clients have questions.

Try that with Quicken or Legal Zoom.

[SteveL]

Although rare, situations like the one I've linked to below are scary to me. (Both links regard the same occurrence.)

http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2009/05/batfe-seeks-to-seize-nfa-firea.html

http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2009/05/batfe-and-seizure-from-invalid.html

As I recall he was in possession of two title II items when the ATF decided his trust was invalid. It turned out well enough for this individual in the end, but I bet he was sweating it.

I can't remember all the specifics of this situation. I'm trying to find more on Google and will edit this post if I do.

[DeltaSierra]

Oh, but didn't you know that Goldman is a scaremongering scumbag lawyer that is just making stuff up to scare them into doing business with him.....:rolleyes:



Although rare, situations like the one I've linked to below are scary to me. (Both links regard the same occurrence.)

http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2009/05/batfe-seeks-to-seize-nfa-firea.html

http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2009/05/batfe-and-seizure-from-invalid.html

As I recall he was in possession of two title II items when the ATF decided his trust was invalid. It turned out well enough for this individual in the end, but I bet he was sweating it.

I can't remember all the specifics of this situation. I'm trying to find more on Google and will edit this post if I do.


Of course, I agree with you on this, but some people simply can't get it through their heads that it might actually be a good idea to protect themselves from unnecessary legal exposure.....

[SteveL]

Oh, but didn't you know that Goldman is a scaremongering scumbag lawyer that is just making stuff up to scare them into doing business with him.....:rolleyes:

Actually I don't know anything about the guy at all.

The last time I read anything about that situation was a couple of years ago and at that time I was able to find they guy's name which helped get better results from Google. Now it looks like a lot of the blog posts, etc. have been pulled so I wasn't able to find anything more specific.


Of course, I agree with you on this, but some people simply can't get it through their heads that it might actually be a good idea to protect themselves from unnecessary legal exposure.....

Again, I know it's rare and 99% + of the people out there will never have any issues with their trusts. But you can't says issues don't happen at all or that they've never happened to anyone.

[SC-Texas]

I don't try to scare people into paying me to prepare their trust.

There have been a few times that I have fixed a trust that the BATF found lacking.

It is a free country. If you see value in having access to my expertise and having me prepare a trust, great. If not, there is quicken.

It is a free country.

[DeltaSierra]

I don't try to scare people into paying me to prepare their trust.

There have been a few times that I have fixed a trust that the BATF found lacking.

It is a free country. If you see value in having access to my expertise and having me prepare a trust, great. If not, there is quicken.

It is a free country.

The whole issue here is that some people can't seem to understand that all lawyers aren't out to fleece them, and that you might like to have a lawyer that is already familiar with your particular situation before ATF would step in and say that your trust is invalid.

It drives me up the wall that the very same people that are concerned about the quality of their firearms won't show the most remote interest in making sure that their legal documents that allow them to hold these self same firearms will withstand ATF scrutiny....


Perhaps I should have been even more clear in my other post, as I don't have anything negative to say about Goldman.

If you were following the other thread on this issue, what I posted above was almost a direct quote of what others said about Goldman....

[SC-Texas]

No worries.

[Quiet Riot]

Although rare, situations like the one I've linked to below are scary to me. (Both links regard the same occurrence.)

http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2009/05/batfe-seeks-to-seize-nfa-firea.html

http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2009/05/batfe-and-seizure-from-invalid.html

As I recall he was in possession of two title II items when the ATF decided his trust was invalid. It turned out well enough for this individual in the end, but I bet he was sweating it.

I can't remember all the specifics of this situation. I'm trying to find more on Google and will edit this post if I do.
Where does it say that the ATF allowed him to correct his trust without penalties, and now he legally enjoys both his MAC-11 and silencer? I think they forgot to mention that.

And to SC-Texas' point, seems he was able to get the help he needed from a "Gun Trust Lawyer®" anyway.

Again, do what you feel comfortable doing, but a two-year-old story about the possibility (even the link says there are those that doubt the validity of the story given) of one guy who could've gotten in trouble BUT DIDN'T because he called a "Gun Trust Lawyer®" is not something that worries me.

[Quiet Riot]

It drives me up the wall that the very same people that are concerned about the quality of their firearms won't show the most remote interest in making sure that their legal documents that allow them to hold these self same firearms will withstand ATF scrutiny....

Using a Quicken trust is not the same thing as not showing interest in "making sure that their legal documents..."

On the contrary. The evidence overwhelming supports the standard Quicken trust without "special NFA language" as a document that will withstand ATF scrutiny if completed properly. If you are concerned about not being able to follow Quicken's instructions, which clearly some people have trouble with (I'm not being sarcastic here), then please get a lawyer.

Again, the purpose of a trust is to hold assets until their distribution. The laws of your state determine what makes a trust valid or not, so if you make an invalid trust, it is because you failed to follow state law rather than failed to include voodoo NFA words.

As far as the ATF is concerned, owning items in a trust is no different than if you owned the NFA items as an individual. In both cases, you want clear instructions for your beneficiaries to follow in order to legally take ownership of your NFA items. None of these instructions need to be in the trust for the trust to be valid.