Originally Posted by
Coleslaw
Everything can be an issue to the ATF, hence my position in our conversation about SBR's.
Years ago it was a boon for some of us that lived in an area that couldn't get sign offs. The solution was corporations. Once word spread, there were corporate transfers everywhere. Guys were creating corps for the sole purpose of purchasing NFA items. It was and still is a thorn in the side of the ATF. They don't like it.
One thing you must understand though, only the officers of the corp. can possess the NFA item, therefore, none of the officers can be prohibited persons.
Employees other than officers are allowed temporary possession say for LE demo's and such, but can't take them home with them after the demo. These employees can not be prohibited persons either.
The new kid on the block is trusts. It is also a thorn in the side of the ATF. I have never done a transfer to a trust so I am a bit behind the curve on that one.
I would say most within the ATF consider both a loophole and would like to see them eliminated because they sidestep the LE endorsement requirement. The other side, the NFA community, would like to see the LE endorsement removed from the form 4.
Initially as I understand it, the original purpose of the LE endorsement is to remove the onus from ATF of having to look up every state and local ordinance regarding NFA ownership. Surely the $200 tax would cover the required time to do so. Now, possibly unintentionally it gives the local authorities a invalid reason to prohibit the ownership of NFA items. There has been a few lawsuits trying to force sheriffs or police chiefs to sign as part of their duty, but most have gone nowhere.
Also, and I don't remember the exact case, but an LE chief was sued by the family of a dead drug dealer shot by a MAC 10 IIRC, because he signed off on the from 4 for the shooter. I guess they thought the chief was in some way responsible for the death of their drug dealing son. The family lost. That should have set precedence that the requirement is ludicrous and by signing the form 4, that the city or whatever absorbs the liability. That is the common excuse the LE chief uses as contrived by the city attorney – potential liability.
The part that asks if the NFA item is going to be used for 'legal purposes' is just retarded.