Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: Gun Trusts - ...Used by criminal organizations

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    55
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Tennessee
    Posts
    1,791
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    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....
    "Those who do can't explain; those who don't can't understand"...

  3. #23
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    VA
    Posts
    7,711
    Feedback Score
    10 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by gunf1ghter View Post
    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.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    238
    Feedback Score
    2 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by jerrysimons View Post
    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.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    New Mexico
    Posts
    2,788
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by pro2 View Post
    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.
    Maj. USAR (Ret) 160th SOAR, 2/17 CAV
    NRA Life Member
    Black Mesa Ranch. Raising Fine Cattle and Horses in San Miguel County since 1879

  6. #26
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    S.E. Texas
    Posts
    89
    Feedback Score
    0
    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.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

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
  •