Can the OPs person in question get a LEO sign off in Texas?
The trust thing is too much of a fad to get around fingerprinting and LEO signature, when they would be better served by individual ownership.
Printable View
Can the OPs person in question get a LEO sign off in Texas?
The trust thing is too much of a fad to get around fingerprinting and LEO signature, when they would be better served by individual ownership.
Can the OPs person in question get a LEO sign off in Texas?
The trust thing is too much of a fad to get around fingerprinting and LEO signature, when they would be better served by individual ownership.
The trust/LLC is not "less work" in the long run.
I've been figuring that out recently. My reasoning for my trust is legal possession while I am deployed. That way my weapons are legally cared for, as well as if something happens to me, the weapons aren't in limbo and I don't have to worry about my family being on the receiving end of some bs litigation from the ATF.
No, it doesn't, but in the short term, it's a safeguard for my investment in my NFA firearms, just in case something happens and I get blown up tomorrow or something. Granted, there are other ways around this. I'm not arguing that. I'm just saying that by personal preference, this is the path I chose to protect my investment and my family from a potential mess of paperwork and legal process.
I disagree. I've known more than a couple of people who practice what I'm saying, including a good friend that operates under a reputable security contracting company. If you look at it from a business standpoint, rather than a legal document, that essentially what a trust is. When an entrepreneur starts a business, they may have to spend money out of their personal checking account to provide the overhead required to start up their small business. When you start a small business, you don't take out a loan under "XXX Gun shop", you take it out in your name, with the intention of expenditure toward the business that you are creating.
The same principle applies to the trust. You as an individual are a trustee, granted power over said trust to provide material assets as well as financial control. Saying that the trust is only legally able to spend money for itself is asinine, because if you trace that money back far enough, it's going to trace back to you anyway. I'm not saying do or don't create a separate bank account for your trust. All I'm saying is that it's not entirely necessary for all funds to come exclusively from a bank account that is designated as the "trust's" business account. As primary trustee and grantor, you are essencially the CEO of your trust, and take action for the trust on it's behalf, because a legal document can't make it's own decisions and/or decrees. Also, as I stated before, if you do your research, you will find that it is technically supposed to be the seller that pays the tax stamp, not the buyer, which is where it seems most peoples' fears come from, is paying for the tax stamp personally, when the trust is going to own the firearm. The trust that YOU own, owns the firearm.
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nati...sfer-procedure
3rd paragraph: "A check or money order for $200 ($5 for transfer of “any other weapon”) shall be made payable to ATF by the transferor"
My whole problem with this is what is considered the NFA item?
If its a suppressor, I can see where it would be easy to see "who" or "what" bought the item since it is all just one "unit".
But in the case of an SBR, the lower is the "firearm" and is in essence the NFA item (correct?). Now what happens when you buy a lower, shoot it with a 16" upper, and then a year later decide to create a trust, SBR the original non-NFA lower, and buy a sub-16" barrel/upper receiver group? Does that "paper trail" now lead back to the individual instead of the trust because the lower (the "firearm") was originally bought by him and not the trust? Even if the "trust" bought the short barrel/upper receiver group, the lower was still bought by the individual. What happens then?
I think its all semantics, and you can't have it both ways, so which one is it?