ATF Proposed New Rules for NFA Trusts

Status
Not open for further replies.
hso said:
Sambo,

Fred's correct. This isn't an Executive Order even though it is at the behest of the President...

That's an important distinction because the process for this is different from an ExecOrder and that means the battlefield is different impacting how we fight this. If we waste our efforts on the wrong process then we end up reducing out chances of winning.

This stuff isn't semantics even though it seems like playing games with words. Politics is a labyrinthian game with many a pitfall and blind alley to trap the inexperienced. It is important to know the rules to avoid loosing.
Click to expand...
And through the courtesy of Jim K in this post, here is a link to an Executive Order on executive orders.
 
At a minimum, folks with stamp-in-hand should not have to resubmit. The feds need to conduct a 15 year study on how many felons are forming Trusts or Corporations and registering NFA items, items which they are not supposed to be in possession of in the first place. I would guess its approximately 0.0000% :fire:

I'll just remove my stock and call it a pistol. Not worth the hassle.
 
Stripped AR lower manufactured (by me) into a pistol... then manufactured into a SBR when my stamp came in the mail - basically just had to slip the stock over the buffer tube.
Replacing my 10.5" upper with a 16" upper OR removing the stock... removes the firearm from the purview of the NFA. The ATF claims that if this change is permanent they would appreaciate "notification" so they can update their books. This is all legal as I did a lot of research. Even discovered that on a pistol, vertical foregrip is illegal whereas the angled foregrip is not illegal. Lots of ATF letters floating around m4carbine.net and ar15.com regarding this (as well as ATF website). A rifle can never become a pistol but a pistol can become a rifle and converted back to a pistol.

The right answer is... depends on how the lower was originally / initially registered when purchased from the FFL. My lower went on the 4473 as "Other" - Neither pistol nor rifle - and I also verified the serial number with the manufacturer (PSA) as to its status when sold to my FFL and they confirmed "Other".
 
Tom Odom at the Prince Law Blog has prepared an analysis of procedural problems with the proposed rule change: http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/08/30/procedural-issues-with-atfs-draft-proposal/

This proposed rule change has not been published in the Federal Register yet so it appears the comment period has not yet started.

Additionally, the Prince Law Blog has prepared sample letters to send to ATF for FFLs (http://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sba-1-letter.docx) and for individuals who were denied a CLEO sign off (http://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/cleo-letter.docx)

Please do not just cut and paste these letters; but instead use them as a rough template to form your own personalized letters including specific relevant details. Remember ALL information will be public record so you may need to exercise INFOSEC during submission.
 
I live in a corrupt jurisdiction. My CLEO won't sign unless its election time and you are making a campaign contribution. This is why I have a trust.

I don't yet have a .22 can. So my question is: Am I screwed? Or should I hurry up and get one? I would also like another SBR.
 
I'd say hurry but there is gonna be one hell of a rush right now.
 
Cosmoline said:
I think we need more info on this. The proposed rules here appear to be from a NFATCA petition from some years back.
Click to expand...
And the comments on the NFATCA Facebook page are most interesting. In fact there was a link by GOA which said that "National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association (NFATCA) shoots itself in foot by urging Requiring Trust officers to get background checks" Look down the GOA FaceBook page https://www.facebook.com/GunOwners?v=wall


Comments on the NFATCA Facebook Page is interesting to put it mildly. Some of the comments I cannot post here. The NFATCA is doing damage control.
https://www.facebook.com/NFATCA?directed_target_id=0

"Screw you guys for supporting this, throwing corporation and trust users under the bus to get the little pat on the head so individuals don't need CLEO signoff. I will NEVER support NFATCA."


From what I'm reading...and from the comments ....it would be like if the NRA asked for gun registration.
 
Last edited:
I submitted a form 4 for a silencer in April. If the 90 day comment period hasn't started yet then maybe I will get lucky and it will be approved before a new reg can be implemented. Otherwise I'm probably just going to ask the seller to refund because it will be practically impossible to get a CLEO sign off for one if my trust members because of where he lives.
 
The anger is understandable considering the only compromise is a slight change in wording the CLEO signs off to. They still have to sign the paper, now for everyone.
 
Yes, this is...aggravating. My CLEO won't sign, period. I was just beginning to think about getting a silencer, and looking into getting a trust to do so as the only option...and now this. :fire: :cuss:
 
Just obtain a trust and send in the application. If you don't the only person you have to blame is yourself. The proposed CFR has been around for years, only the suckers are going to keep waiting to see if it changes prior to submitting a tax stamp application. Don't be a sucker. Be an NFA firearm owner instead.

Ranb
 
Well, I've been thinking about another .22 suppressor for a while. Just ordered it today, hopefully in 7 months I'll have it without getting the trust paperwork kicked back.
 
Mot45acp said:
I don't yet have a .22 can. So my question is: Am I screwed? Or should I hurry up and get one? I would also like another SBR
Click to expand...

According to the Prince Law blog, at this time, ATF is not proposing to make the requirements retroactive. They are still silent on exactly what they are going to do about the tens of thousands of pending applications that will be in the pipeline if this regulation is implemented.

My take: If you hurry up and get one now, you may still end up being screwed - stuck with a can you can't take possession of and a much smaller, limited market to sell it into (and at the same time as 20-30,000 other people with your problem)

If you wait and this regulation is implemented, you will be screwed - although if that regulation is implemented as written, I guarantee it will spawn multiple lawsuits; but your best chance at relief probably won't come until the legislature meets in 2015.
 
Proposed changes will cost taxpayers $34.5 million annually, be a big hassle, intrude upon privacy currently respected, and not give anything worthwhile in return to the losers of the deal (that's us). Did I sum that up correctly?
 
Co-worker sent in a trust, was returned saying all trustees need prints and CLEO signoff.

So what happened to the 90 day comment period?

Most-transparent-administration-ever.

Hope my form 4 submitted in April went through.
 
Co-worker sent in a trust, was returned saying all trustees need prints and CLEO signoff.

So what happened to the 90 day comment period?

Most-transparent-administration-ever.

Hope my form 4 submitted in April went through.
Click to expand...

That is possibly related to the BG check law that CO passed.

If the ATF is applying their rules before the review process is complete they are showing exactly what a farce it is.
 
Frankly I don't know how I feel about this one. It's kind of like cops losing out on their special priveleges. Sure it sucks when anyone loses their rights, on the other hand you shouldn't need a lawyer and a fancy document to ensure your rights either.

This just makes it plain for all to see how weak personal property rights have gotten in this country.

In Colorado I can't give my kids a 16 round magazine when I die. I have been preemptively robbed. Even if a "trust" will fix it it's still extortion.
 
Co-worker sent in a trust, was returned saying all trustees need prints and CLEO signoff.
Click to expand...

If true, this is huge. It means that the ATF is jumping the gun on the "proposed" regulatory changes. It calls into question the legality of the process, which can be challenged on that basis.
 
Slowly, things are going the way of the United Kingdom here in the US. Never thought I would see the day where a president gets on national TV and claims that convicted felons were paying money to form Trust or Corporation AND mailing off forms and $200 to the ATF to "legally" register their illegal firearms and suppressors. My God! Really? Felons don't even buy their guns they steal them because they wouldn't pass the NICS check. The real question is... does Obama believe his own BS or did he know it was a flat-out lie to the American people? Either way, not good.
 
I'll ask him. It was fairly recent I believe, as I had given him the name of my NFA lawyer about a month ago

He caught me in the parking lot and said he got his Trust from my attny, but that he had his ppwork returned needing the CLEO/Prints
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

dc dalton
  • Locked
ATF Proposing Changes To NFA Gun Trusts
2
Replies
38
Views
3K
Zoogster
Z
U
  • Locked
NFA Trusts
Replies
5
Views
956
HRnightmare
H
D
  • Locked
Can I register my "stabilizing brace" equipped firearm to my trust pursuant to ATF Final Rule 2021R-
Replies
4
Views
514
Frank Ettin
Frank Ettin
Elkins45
  • Locked
December 9 deadline approaching to comment on proposed NFA rule change
Replies
13
Views
814
Elkins45
Elkins45
E
  • Locked
Post Rule Change - Must All Trustees Submit Fingerprints?
Replies
6
Views
2K
Aaron Baker
A
Back
Top