NFOA MEMBERS FORUM
General Categories => The NFA Corner => Topic started by: CitizenClark on August 22, 2013, 04:18:04 PM
-
http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pending-regs/318133-white-house-reviewing-draft-gun-control-rule (http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pending-regs/318133-white-house-reviewing-draft-gun-control-rule)
White House eyes 'gun trust' loophole
The Obama administration is working to close a loophole in the nation’s gun laws that allows for some machine guns and sawed-off shotguns to be sold without the buyer submitting fingerprints or photographs.
The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is working on a new regulation that would require more background information when the weapons are sold to someone through a corporation or legal trust.
That would eliminate a discrepancy between sales to individuals and those to legal entities, including so-called “gun trusts,” which firearms enthusiasts have used to acquire the weapons without going through normal channels.
On Tuesday, the ATF sent the proposed regulation to the White House for a 90-day review, a final step before the draft rule is unveiled to the public.
Normally, when an individual buys a machine gun or short-barreled shotgun, they have to submit their fingerprints and picture to the ATF, and the local chief law enforcement officer has to assert that there is no reason to believe it would be illegal for the buyer to own the gun.
However, those same requirements don’t apply when the gun is bought in the name of a corporation or legal trust instead of an individual person.
It is illegal in the United States for civilians to purchase machine guns made after 1986.
The trusts can be formed relatively easily by a lawyer and cost a few hundred dollars. Aside from the ease of securing restricted weapons, they also assure that gun owners’ firearms will be transferred to their loved ones when they die without going through bureaucratic channels.
A spokesman with the ATF declined to detail the measures of the new proposal, since it is still in draft form.
However, an online notice said that it will require “responsible persons” designated by the legal trusts to submit forms, photographs and fingerprints to the ATF and forwarded to the local chief police officer. The rule will also define the term “responsible person.”
The new rule will only apply to sale of machine guns, silencers and similar firearms for which the AFT has special restrictions.
According to reports, the number of applications to transfer restricted guns to trusts has skyrocketed in the recent years, to more than 39,000 last year.
In the wake of Republican opposition to gun control measures in Congress, the Obama administration has had little recourse but to target guns through executive action.
Obama had pushed congressional action in response to December’s shooting at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., but Senate Republicans halted a measure to expand background checks, effectively killing chances of new legislation.
-
And they need to change this why!? When was the last time a legal NFA was used in a crime? Any crime? Oh... never!? ... perfect, we need to change it just because then...
-
I wonder how this will affect existing trusts.
-
no criminal will pay the money, pass a background check or wait several months for an approval. complete garbage.
-
FBHO
-
I got two Form 4's in the system. I'll be beyond irate if they get kicked back to me due to the use of a Trust.
Rick is right. FBHO.
-
This is not new, this has been in the work for years, BATFE has never liked trusts because a firearm transfers with no background check of a person, they worked with a group called NFATCA which is the NFA firearms industry lobby, http://www.nfatca.org/ (http://www.nfatca.org/)
and this is what was come up with.
I posted this info in Feb.
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,7093.0.html (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,7093.0.html)
-
Um, they wouldn't need one republican vote to get it through the senate, but republicans killed it. Hmmm-mmm.
-
This is not new, this has been in the work for years, BATFE has never liked trusts because a firearm transfers with no background check of a person, they worked with a group called NFATCA which is the NFA firearms industry lobby, http://www.nfatca.org/ (http://www.nfatca.org/)
and this is what was come up with.
I posted this info in Feb.
http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,7093.0.html (http://nebraskafirearms.org/forum/index.php/topic,7093.0.html)
Yes, we discussed the notice of proposed rulemaking before. This article is new, however, as is the tidbit about the NPRM advancing to the 60-day review stage of the rulemaking process as of Tuesday. Another new tidbit that we didn't have before is the information about a notice going to CLEOs on all NFA transfers (presumably once the CLEO sign-off is done away with).
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by the assertion that there is no background check on a trust transfer. There is, just not a fingerprint-based check. See 9.12.1 of the NFA Handbook:
"9.12.1 NFA Transfers to other than individuals. Subsequent to the approval of an application requesting to transfer an NFA firearm to, or on behalf of, a partnership, company, association, trust, estate, or corporation, the authorized person picking up the firearm on behalf of, a partnership, company, association, trust, estate, or corporation from the FFL must complete the Form 4473 with his/her personal information and undergo a NICS check. See also, question P60 in the ATF FAQs."
Finally, the fact that the eForms changes that just rolled out make it advantageous to use a trust (since individual transfers requiring fingerprints and photographs can't go through the electronic system, presumably because ATF wants original copies of fingerprint cards) seems to run counter to the idea that ATF "has never liked trusts." Why shave two months (the current time to go pending on a paper application) off the process for trust transfers and transfers to business entities if they are interested in actively discouraging the use of trusts?
-
I wonder how this will affect existing trusts.
It is impossible to say for sure without seeing the actual wording of the proposed rule changes.
-
no criminal will pay the money, pass a background check or wait several months for an approval. complete garbage.
Yep, this is just for show. "We're cracking down on guns (that no one ever uses in crimes)!"
-
I wonder how this will affect existing trusts.
I would expect it to go into effect for new applications starting at some point in the future.
Oh that and FBHO.
-
It has been clearly worded in the link I posted and no new surprises were added.
Title: Background Checks for Principal Officers of Corporations, Trusts, and Other Legal Entities With Respect to the Making or Transferring of a National Firearms Act Firearm
Abstract: The Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. The proposed regulations would (1) add a definition for the term "responsible person"; (2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints; (3) require that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the locality in which the maker or transferee is located; and (4) eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by the CLEO.
-
The CLEO certification will be gone, so it will not be up to the whim of local LE whether or not you get to possess NFA items.
-
The CLEO certification will be gone, so it will not be up to the whim of local LE whether or not you get to possess NFA items.
That would be a great development. A related, but not-so-great development is the proposed automatic notice to law enforcement on all NFA transfers. Currently, using a trust, corporation, or other business entity affords more privacy in this regard.
I personally know of a public official who chose to use a trust specifically to avoid the political ramifications of other officials in his small town finding out that he has NFA items.
-
Headline on Drudge Report this morning...
Obama offers new gun control steps
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-obama-offers-new-gun-control-steps (http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-obama-offers-new-gun-control-steps)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Striving to take action where Congress would not, the Obama administration announced new steps Thursday on gun control, curbing the import of military surplus weapons and proposing to close a little-known loophole that lets felons and others circumvent background checks by registering guns to corporations.
Four months after a gun control drive collapsed spectacularly in the Senate, President Barack Obama added two more executive actions to a list of 23 steps the White House determined Obama could take on his own to reduce gun violence. With the political world focused on Mideast tensions and looming fiscal battles, the move signaled Obama's intent to show he hasn't lost sight of the cause he took up after 20 first graders and six adults were gunned down last year in an elementary school in Newtown, Conn.
One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities, where some may end up on the streets. The White House said the U.S. has approved 250,000 of those guns to be reimported since 2005; under the new policy, only museums and a few other entities like the government will be eligible to reimport military-grade firearms.
The Obama administration is also proposing a federal rule to stop those who would be ineligible to pass a background check from skirting the law by registering a gun to a corporation or trust. The new rule would require people associated with those entities, like beneficiaries and trustees, to undergo the same type of fingerprint-based background checks as individuals if they want to register guns.
~~~ See more at link ~~~
-
And that's the end of CMP Garands. I hate him so very much.
-
:angry:
-
FBHO!
looks like i'm going 30cal suppressor shopping right meow! there's no way i'm getting myself and my wife fingerprinted.
on a side note, the article just mentions corps. will the same happen to trusts as well? and when does the 90 day comment start?
-
FBHO!
looks like i'm going 30cal suppressor shopping right meow! there's no way i'm getting myself and my wife fingerprinted.
on a side note, the article just mentions corps. will the same happen to trusts as well? and when does the 90 day comment start?
Yep, I've been holding off on another Form 1 but I think I'm going to have to put one in now.
This is going to send NFA wait times through the roof. Everyone who's been on the fence is going to be sending in forms.
-
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...
-
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! ;D
66bigblock
-
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/white-house-announcement-of-regulatory-gun-control-initiatives/)
http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/08/29/preparing-effective-comments-on-proposed-regulations/ (http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/08/29/preparing-effective-comments-on-proposed-regulations/)
-
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 (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 (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
-
What a mess. This will kill the NFA industry. No more new NFA in Lincoln/Lancaster Country until we get a pro-gun CLEO.
-
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:
(http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/BATFE/CLEO_zps16716384.png)
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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