Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 61

Thread: Small Arms Review and NFA Trusts

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    453
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by dbrowne1 View Post
    Or more likely, any bankruptcy trustee is going to look at you like you are a 3 headed dog when you go to your 341 meeting and try to explain what "NFA devices and firearms" are and how they have to be handled and transferred
    True. I just talked to one of our bankruptcy guys about this. If you have an LLC or corp that owns the item and it gets liquidated under Chapter 7, it gets wound up and you (or rather the trustee) would have to transfer the NFA item to someone, whether by gift, sale or abandoning it to the ATF. As you said, the trustee would probably not know anything about the laws or how to transfer NFA items, so you would have to educate them and probably run the traps yourself unless you wanted to be stuck with the item in violation of federal and state law.

    Having gone through this discussion I am starting to agree with Mk18Pilot that using a preexisting business to own an NFA item is a poor idea simply because the hassles of dealing with potential bankruptcy issues.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Barre, VT
    Posts
    7,148
    Feedback Score
    94 (100%)
    I just had a call from my local class III dealer my form four just came in. I used a trust. Question for you guys. If I decide to have the trust looked at by an attorney and change someting do I just send Uncle ATF a copy of the updated trust? The trust was established just for my SBR's.
    "Real men have always needed to know what time it is so they are at the airfield on time, pumping rounds into savages at the right time, etc. Being able to see such in the dark while light weights were comfy in bed without using a light required luminous material." -Originally Posted by ramairthree

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    487
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by usmcvet View Post
    I just had a call from my local class III dealer my form four just came in. I used a trust. Question for you guys. If I decide to have the trust looked at by an attorney and change someting do I just send Uncle ATF a copy of the updated trust? The trust was established just for my SBR's.
    Yes, if you update your trust send a revised copy of your trust to the ATF. That should be all that is required to keep everything on the up-and-up.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Barre, VT
    Posts
    7,148
    Feedback Score
    94 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by stifled View Post
    Yes, if you update your trust send a revised copy of your trust to the ATF. That should be all that is required to keep everything on the up-and-up.
    Thank You!
    "Real men have always needed to know what time it is so they are at the airfield on time, pumping rounds into savages at the right time, etc. Being able to see such in the dark while light weights were comfy in bed without using a light required luminous material." -Originally Posted by ramairthree

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    N AL
    Posts
    27
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by mike_556 View Post
    A felon would have to have someone pick up the NFA item and do the NICS check--I can't see how a trust would help a felon??
    NICS check is not required when picking up an NFA item. I picked up my SBR, on a trust, today, filled out the 4473 and the dealer checked a box on the last page that says "NFA Item, NICS not required" (not an exact quote of the verbiage).
    Last edited by smith934; 11-30-10 at 22:19.
    All God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.
    --Fran Lebowitz

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Barre, VT
    Posts
    7,148
    Feedback Score
    94 (100%)
    I have two SBR's on a trust and the dealer ran both transactions through the ncis check too. He also tried to charge tax on too of the transfer fee both times for guns purcased out of state. I paid tax the first time but not the second time.
    "Real men have always needed to know what time it is so they are at the airfield on time, pumping rounds into savages at the right time, etc. Being able to see such in the dark while light weights were comfy in bed without using a light required luminous material." -Originally Posted by ramairthree

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    30
    Feedback Score
    0
    Interesting. You don't pay tax on NFA items during transfer (because the tax stamp is the Fed. tax?).

    For the record, I was looking at the LLC route several years ago and Mr. Barnes responded to an email with about thirty minutes of his time, gratis, via telephone. In summary, he dissuaded me from using an LLC solely for the purpose of NFA ownership. I found him to be a helpful and friendly individual.

    I haven't yet read the SAR article. What month/issue was it in? I would like to read/order it.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    352
    Feedback Score
    16 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by Coleslaw View Post
    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.
    There's a simple solution, change the applicable regulations so that a CLEO signoff isn't required for transfers to a real person. It would only take rewriting part of the CFR, which the ATF is capable of doing by themselves without Congress rewriting the law. It wouldn't eliminate the ability to transfer firearms to a corp, LLC or trust, but since the reason the vast majority of people use a corp, LLC or trust is because they can't get a CLEO signoff it would go a long way to eliminating this "problem". I have no sympathy for the ATF when this "problem" is totally a result of their own policies.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,827
    Feedback Score
    1 (100%)
    Quote Originally Posted by CleverNickname View Post
    There's a simple solution, change the applicable regulations so that a CLEO signoff isn't required for transfers to a real person. It would only take rewriting part of the CFR, which the ATF is capable of doing by themselves without Congress rewriting the law. It wouldn't eliminate the ability to transfer firearms to a corp, LLC or trust, but since the reason the vast majority of people use a corp, LLC or trust is because they can't get a CLEO signoff it would go a long way to eliminating this "problem". I have no sympathy for the ATF when this "problem" is totally a result of their own policies.
    I am really surprised they haven't done this. It is not 1934 anymore. The reasons for the CLEO signoff no longer apply.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    287
    Feedback Score
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by CleverNickname View Post
    There's a simple solution, change the applicable regulations so that a CLEO signoff isn't required for transfers to a real person. It would only take rewriting part of the CFR, which the ATF is capable of doing by themselves without Congress rewriting the law. It wouldn't eliminate the ability to transfer firearms to a corp, LLC or trust, but since the reason the vast majority of people use a corp, LLC or trust is because they can't get a CLEO signoff it would go a long way to eliminating this "problem". I have no sympathy for the ATF when this "problem" is totally a result of their own policies.
    I don't know of anything that is a simple solution to the gov't. Take a look at a good percentage of the emplyees, and you will find your answer as to why it is a goat ****.

    Removing the LE sign off was thought of decades ago. I know two long time fellow C3 dealers that initiated legal action against a county sheriff that wouldn't sign. It ended up going nowhere in part because of the expense to litigate such a suit with not too much in the way of a return. At the time from a financial standpoint, it was difficult to justify the expense.

    To say it would have been a moral victory had they won is an understatement. It also would have set precendent requiring the chief LE to perform his/her duty, which included fulfilling their obligation to sign the form 4 - the basis for the suit by the way.

Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst ... 34567 LastLast

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
  •