Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324
Results 231 to 237 of 237

Thread: ATF to close trust "loophole."

  1. #231
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    53
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by zlc View Post
    Big Wall Street Journal article on this today.

    Dave Matheny started selling gun silencers about three years ago as a hobby and took in about $19,000 in his first month. He now sells close to $1 million of the sound-suppressing devices each month from his Austin, Texas-based Silencer Shop.

    But a recently proposed federal regulation that would close a loophole in current law could stifle sales of silencers—one of the fastest-growing segments of the gun industry—and, thereby, Mr. Matheny's business.

    The loophole involves a legal construct known as a trust, which has allowed many gun buyers to sidestep a requirement of the National Firearms Act of 1934 that local sheriffs or chiefs of police approve purchases of silencers and highly regulated firearms, such as machine guns. The trusts used to purchase many of the silencers range in sophistication and scale, but generally they allow a group of people to purchase weapons or accessories and transfer them among themselves.

    Under the new rule, proposed Sept. 9 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, people linked to the trusts also would have to obtain a sign-off from local law enforcement and undergo criminal background checks. The proposal is open to public comment until December.

    The proposed rule is galvanizing gun-control supporters, who say silencers inherently make a weapon more dangerous, and gun-rights advocates, who say the popular portrayal of silencers as the tools of criminals is off base and that silencers protect owners' hearing.

    Mr. Matheny, who said about 80% of his clients use gun trusts to buy their silencers, is worried that the sign-off requirement would crush sales of silencers, which range in price from about $200 to more than $2,000.

    "It's going to absolutely destroy this market," said Mr. Matheny, who employs eight people at his shop. "If sheriffs won't sign, they've essentially made them illegal."

    The number of such trusts jumped from 840 in 2000 to 40,700 in 2012, according to the ATF, as the trust loophole became more widely known and promoted. As of April 2013, there were 494,452 silencers in American homes, according to the ATF, a figure that is up 73% since 2011.

    The ATF's move comes as part of President Barack Obama's push to expand federal gun regulations through legislative and executive means after 20 children and six adults were shot to death at an elementary school in Newtown, Conn., last year. The rule doesn't need congressional approval.

    While federal law permits ownership of silencers, they are banned in 11 states, according to the American Silencer Association, a group of dealers and manufacturers that has focused its efforts in recent years on improving the device's image in popular culture. The group promotes silencers as a guard against hearing loss and an aid for young and inexperienced shooters who are jarred by the sound of gunfire.

    The efforts of the ASA and the National Rifle Association, which endorsed the use of silencers to prevent hearing loss in 2011, have led to a number of state legislatures easing restrictions on the devices. For instance, North Carolina and North Dakota approved silencers for hunting this year. Arizona, Texas and Oklahoma passed silencer-related bills or regulations in 2012.

    "Requiring background checks for corporations and trusts does not keep firearms out of the hands of criminals," Andrew Arulanandam, an NRA spokesman, said of the proposed regulation. ASA President Knox Williams declined to comment.

    Gun-control advocates say the proposed change would close a dangerous loophole that has been exploited thousands of times in recent years.

    Ladd Everitt, spokesman for the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, said guns' loud sound serves as a warning to stay away, a function undermined by silencers. "You want to alert someone to your presence when you are firing a weapon," he said.

    The ATF's proposal says "responsible persons" of a trust seeking to purchase a silencer or other weapons covered by the National Firearms Act would have to submit fingerprints and a photo to the federal government, pass a criminal-background check and get local law-enforcement approval. Even absent background checks and the law-enforcement sign-off, dealers say it takes the ATF from two to nine months to process the paperwork.

    Gun dealers said signatures are hard to get in many jurisdictions. The ATF acknowledged as much, disclosing in its proposal that several sheriffs and police chiefs had privately expressed their discomfort at signing off on applications for items regulated under the National Firearms Act. A spokeswoman for the ATF declined to comment.

    Sheriff David B. Shoar in St. Johns County, Fla., said last year that he would no longer sign off on the paperwork for those seeking weapons covered by the National Firearms Act, including silencers. Commander Chuck Mulligan, a spokesman for the office, said the sheriff's decision was driven by a lack of resources to conduct the necessary checks.

    Federal courts have upheld the sign-off requirement, most recently in 2002. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit rejected complaints that the rule allowed law-enforcement officials in Virginia and Alaska to arbitrarily wall off access to weapons and accessories that are otherwise legal.

    Mr. Matheny said silencers don't live up to their name or their portrayal in movies as reducing the noise of a gunshot to a deadly whisper. An AR-15, the most popular semiautomatic rifle by sales, fitted with a top-of-the-line silencer still registers 129 decibels when it is fired, he said. According to the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, that's about as loud as a jackhammer.

    Attached to some smaller-bore weapons, however, a silencer comes closer to its stereotype. A silenced .22-caliber gun loaded with special ammunition makes a noise that is "quieter than an air gun," said Mark Attanasio, owner of Virginia-based gun store Immortal Arms.

    Silencers are good for taking care of pests without scaring neighbors or livestock, or damaging hearing, he said. "If you get around a lot of old hunters, they are all deaf," said Mr. Attanasio.

  2. #232
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    311
    Feedback Score
    7 (100%)
    Here's a stupid question that just came to mind.

    Say this CLEO signature requirement is put into effect. Then say Jim has a trust, and he's the only one on it. He gets a few NFA items on it, going through proper channels with the CLEO signature and whatnot.

    Now say Jim wants to add his brother Bob onto the trust. Since the trust already has NFA stuff, does Bob now have to get CLEO signatures/etc for the items already on there, even though the transfer tax has already been paid?

  3. #233
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,826
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    If Jim is the only one on the Trust, he doesn't have a Trust. He can't be Grantor and Beneficiary. .... Unless beneficiary is not classified as "responsible person".

    But... towards your scenario, I have had the same question as it seems to me that in doing so it steps on Trust law. It effectively prevents a person from operating the trust in a timely fashion.

    For instance if there were a health issue or some other critical issue that was time sensitive, these proposed laws would be in the way of standing Trust law.

    Or at least that's how it seems to me... I'm not a lawyer though.

  4. #234
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,114
    Feedback Score
    0
    This whole thing is a bunch of crap. NFA stuff is already too much of a burden to go through. Now it's going to be that much worse. I bet the entire process could be streamlined to a couple of days without any felons getting them.
    I've sent out many emails about this with only a few replies. Kind've discouraging to say the least.

  5. #235
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    58
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by tom12.7 View Post
    This whole thing is a bunch of crap. NFA stuff is already too much of a burden to go through. Now it's going to be that much worse. I bet the entire process could be streamlined to a couple of days without any felons getting them.
    I've sent out many emails about this with only a few replies. Kind've discouraging to say the least.
    Agreed

  6. #236
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Texas (and sometimes Central Virginia)
    Posts
    113
    Feedback Score
    6 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by tom12.7 View Post
    This whole thing is a bunch of crap. NFA stuff is already too much of a burden to go through. Now it's going to be that much worse. I bet the entire process could be streamlined to a couple of days without any felons getting them.
    NFA items have been used in only a handful of crimes in the past 80 years, and trust owned weapons even fewer. I'm only aware of two, and both were former LEO which means they were able to pass background checks at some point. None of this is about keeping weapons out of the hands of felons, it's about fear and control. The ruling class have no incentive to make the process easier or faster, in fact rather the opposite.

  7. #237
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,114
    Feedback Score
    0
    I agree they have no incentive to make it easier or faster. The situation sucked bad before, now it'll be that much worse.

Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •