White House eyes 'gun trust' loophole

[AWick]

The thing that ticks me off is how white washed the news release and speech are to the true extent of regulations that are changing. Saying things like felons will "now" be required to have a background check and be prohibited makes it sound like that is the only thing they are changing... even though that has almost nothing to do with the changes... I've never pursued an NFA item or anything, but that might change with his deep of a FUBAR...

[66bigblock]

under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.

I would like to announce the future opening of the "66bigblock museum of historical military grade automatic weapons" opening soon in my garage!   



66bigblock

[CitizenClark]

The thing that ticks me off is how white washed the news release and speech are to the true extent of regulations that are changing. Saying things like felons will "now" be required to have a background check and be prohibited makes it sound like that is the only thing they are changing... even though that has almost nothing to do with the changes... I've never pursued an NFA item or anything, but that might change with his deep of a FUBAR...

Over at the Prince Law Blog, attorney Tom Odom posted these excellent tutorials on the proposed rule changes, the rulemaking process in general, and commenting on proposed regulations in particular:

http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/08/29/white-house-announcement-of-regulatory-gun-control-initiatives/
http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/08/29/preparing-effective-comments-on-proposed-regulations/

[CitizenClark]

It looks like NFATCA sold out trusts and corporations in some misguided attempt to make things easier for individual transferees: https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/inside-atf/2013/082913-wash-machine-guns-destructive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf

Looks like those here who were criticizing NFATCA were correct. I sent these emails to them:

I am a member of the NFATCA, and I have some questions about the organization's involvement with the development of the proposed changes to the regulations governing the making and transfer of NFA firearms by trusts, corporations, and other business entities.

Does this document accurately describe NFATCA's petition to ATF?: https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/inside-atf/2013/082913-wash-machine-guns-destructive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf

If so, could you please explain why NFATCA would have "expressed concern" about trusts and corporations and the less onerous process by which they may be transferred NFA firearms? (See page 10, second paragraph)

Thanks,
XXXXX

I see that you posted this statement on the organization's Facebook page:

"DOJ/ATF has taken one germ of our petition and created a huge expansion of paperwork with no real benefit. I absolutely can see how folks will want to blame us for this. Sadly DOJ/ATF has chosen to ignore what we were after in exchange for a political expedient. We filed the petition years ago to force ATF to begin the conversation. We knew there were areas of concern and acknowledged them. We wanted to be involved in defining who responsible parties were. We wanted to be involved with designing the infrastructure to support the process. We wanted CLEO signatures eliminated, which would have REDUCED the number of trust and corp purchases. We wanted to participate in the deliberations. Sadly DOJ/ATF has chosen to ignore what we were after in exchange for a political expedient. We will have an official statement after we have consulted with our attorney for options in addressing the current situation."

"When and if this actually does make it to the Federal Register we encourage everyone to vigorously oppose the actions."

This is what happens when people who don't understand the regulatory process talk to regulators. I am a public policy professional, and under no circumstances should you have conceded anything that the ATF could use to create more onerous restrictions on trust transfers or any other non-individual transfers, especially since there are co-ownership advantages to using a trust that make these assets far more useful to their owners. What possible explanation is there for trying to reduce the number of trust and corporation transfers? Isn't the purpose of the NFATCA to advocate for greater freedom with regard to NFA firearms?

Whoever is responsible for these concessions, now used as ammunition by those who seek to further restrict our rights, should publicly apologize, take personal responsibility, and step away from further involvement with the NFATCA. If these steps are not taken, I will not in good conscience be able to remain a member of your organization. No compromises are acceptable on matters of principle.

Sincerely,
XXXXX

[bkoenig]

What a mess.  This will kill the NFA industry.  No more new NFA in Lincoln/Lancaster Country until we get a pro-gun CLEO.

[CitizenClark]

What a mess.  This will kill the NFA industry.  No more new NFA in Lincoln/Lancaster Country until we get a pro-gun CLEO.

Well, my understanding is that the proposal will eliminate the CLEO sign-off and replace it with CLEO notification, not simply subject trusts and corps to the CLEO sign-off requirement that currently exists for individuals. However, I have not read this whole 62-page document, so I am shooting from the hip based off of the abstract and previous write-ups on the proposed rule change by other attorneys.

CORRECTION: It appears that NFATCA managed to negotiate us into a position where they didn't get the CLEO sign-off eliminated, but instead extended to trusts and corps. Great.

From the bottom of page 12:

[bkoenig]

I haven't read the whole thing, but at the top of page 14 it states that they propose "extending the CLEO certificate requirement to responsible persons of a legal entity".  I may be reading that wrong, but that sounds like the same signoff that individuals now need to do, not just notification.

I could live with notification, even though IMO it's none of the CLEO's business what I own.  If this really does mean signoff and not notification then I guess it's time to start checking into other CLEO's besides the chief of police and sheriff.  I've heard some people saying their state Attorney General will sign.  I bet Bruning would be amenable, he seems pretty pro-gun.

[CitizenClark]

Response from NFATCA:

I can appreciate your sentiment.  Our petition was constructed by a very well-respected policy and regulatory affairs lawyer.  ATF was actually on board with the elimination of CLEO signature.  We were told as much by both ATF and DOJ.  We never had a dialogue regarding the trust/corp issue, merely acknowledged that a problem might exist.  The abrupt change in position came from the Executive Branch.

Jeff Folloder

[David Hineline]

Someone in the Obama, Holder, Todd Jones regime decided to change directions of where this was headed and put a fork into the trusts.  Is anyone surprised?

6 of our Republican Senators voted for Jones.

[bullit]

Sometimes its best to sit back and remain anonymous.....I seem to recall California gun owners "castrated" themselves attempting to improve their carry laws and voila....no more legal open carry.....

[NENick]

Sometimes its best to sit back and remain anonymous.....I seem to recall California gun owners "castrated" themselves attempting to improve their carry laws and voila....no more legal open carry.....

They would have lost them either way eventually.

[Hardwood83]

Sometimes its best to sit back and remain anonymous.....I seem to recall California gun owners "castrated" themselves attempting to improve their carry laws and voila....no more legal open carry.....

That is the question, isn't it? Fight for your rights or accept the status quo. I agree you need to pick your battles to some degree, but gentle subservience to our govt over-lords isn't appealing to me.

The citizens of California (and New York, New Jersey, et al) need to exhaust their legal options and then will be left with the option to submit to tyranny or resist it.

[OnTheFly]

Speaking of California...I travel out there quite often and am always surprised how many people complain about the state government (including the anti 2A laws), yet the far left maintains control and continues to drive the state closer to bankruptcy.

Fly