User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 8/22/2013 10:59:40 PM EST
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Making the requirement for photos and fingerprints retroactive for existing trusts would bury the ATF under an unbelievable workload that they'd never recover from. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is it retroactive for existing trusts? And do you have to submit photos and fingerprints per-item or when forming the trust? No, it wouldn't and couldn't be retroactive. Making the requirement for photos and fingerprints retroactive for existing trusts would bury the ATF under an unbelievable workload that they'd never recover from. I think he meant does this mean I don't have to do the fingerprint thing because I had my NFA Trust before this crap came to light. My guess in no and it would be from now on type of thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2013 6:17:39 AM EST
[#2]
What are they gonna do tell everyone with a trust their shit is illegal and turn it in or what? Yeah fuck you (not you guys - them).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2013 6:26:27 AM EST
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Seems to be the case...how do you print a corporation? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Little confused here. Are they eliminating NFA trusts essentially? NO! Seems to be the case...how do you print a corporation? How does a corporation buy a gun? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2013 7:03:34 AM EST
[#4]
So how about that CLEO signoff elimination?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2013 9:25:50 AM EST
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So how about that CLEO signoff elimination? for me the elimination would save me 1 step and 15 minutes in the overall time line to approval, if it stays or goes makes no difference to me but I see where it would make a big difference for some of those whos CLEO is an asshat and wont sign here in Alaska we have a shall issue law (HB319) that says CLEO must sign any BATFE/NFA forms in a timley manner, (30 days) my CLEO signs the moment I hand him the form |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2013 10:11:12 AM EST
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So how about that CLEO signoff elimination? Less than 10% of forms use CLEO signoff these days, most folks are not going to care about that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2013 10:21:09 AM EST
[#7]
I am kind of cross posting but figured this would be useful here too.
I figured out the problem after probably 100+ tries in multiple browsers trying to register on eForms. The problem the whole time was the password I was using. Despite the following rules being printed everywhere they missed an important one. There MUST be 5 characters(not #'s) in the password as well. I only had 4 in mine. Choose a password as per the following rules,
1. Must have atleast twelve (12) characters in length. 2. Must contain atleast one or more number(s) (0-9). 3. Must contain atleast one or more special character(s) (!@#$%^&*(),). 4. Must contain atleast one or more upper and lower case letter(s) (a-z, A-Z). 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2013 6:22:43 PM EST
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trusts and corps will have to designate a "responsible person" Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Little confused here. Are they eliminating NFA trusts essentially? NO! Seems to be the case...how do you print a corporation? Trusts and corps will have to designate a "responsible person" Or will the ATF designate the responsible person(s) for us? They might say all trustees are "responsible persons" which would be a disaster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/23/2013 7:36:16 PM EST
[#9]
Here is the issue.
Corporations are not going to submit cards for every employee who uses the NFA items. I.e. an FFl sends an employee to a demo. That Eee generally isn't an RP. It will be the same with trusts. We will draft an authorized person who isn't a trustee but is allowed to posses the items for purposes of trust business. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/24/2013 6:22:41 PM EST
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Less than 10% of forms use CLEO signoff these days, most folks are not going to care about that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So how about that CLEO signoff elimination? Less than 10% of forms use CLEO signoff these days, most folks are not going to care about that. Do you have any source for that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2013 4:01:43 AM EST
[#11]
if you look at nfatracker you can get a good idea about the % but then again that is also a group of people that are into the internet and have access to the way trusts work. And there are still alot of older folks who do not use the net and dont like new fangled things so may not know about trusts :)
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2013 7:50:42 AM EST
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We will draft an authorized person who isn't a trustee but is allowed to posses the items for purposes of trust business. Why not a trustee? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2013 9:30:17 AM EST
[#13]
Does the proposed rule change require fingerprints/photo for only the grantor/trustee(s), or also the beneficiary? I'm wondering how this applies to a trust with a single trustee, while the trust itself requires others to be named as the beneficiary/grantor of that transfer if my capacity to fill that role is compromised. Hmmm...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2013 11:09:53 AM EST
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So how about that CLEO signoff elimination? I think that may have been taken out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/25/2013 12:59:45 PM EST
[#15]
Sorry if its been answered, but what about trust with multiple trustees? Will they still have access if only one can submit photographs and finger prints?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2013 5:36:38 AM EST
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think that may have been taken out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So how about that CLEO signoff elimination? I think that may have been taken out. AFAIK the rule change that even the latest article linked to still had the CLEO certification elimination in it. So it hasn't been taken out yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2013 5:44:14 AM EST
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
AFAIK the rule change that even the latest article linked to still had the CLEO certification elimination in it. So it hasn't been taken out yet. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So how about that CLEO signoff elimination? I think that may have been taken out. AFAIK the rule change that even the latest article linked to still had the CLEO certification elimination in it. So it hasn't been taken out yet. Do you have a link for that? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2013 7:38:38 AM EST
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have a link for that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So how about that CLEO signoff elimination? I think that may have been taken out. AFAIK the rule change that even the latest article linked to still had the CLEO certification elimination in it. So it hasn't been taken out yet. Do you have a link for that? In the very first thing in the very first post on the first page of this topic is the link to the rule. Just shows you how convolouted the thread has become and off topic at times I also wonder how many truly read the proposed rule change. http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2013 7:56:47 AM EST
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In the very first thing in the very first post on the first page of this topic is the link to the rule. Just shows you how convolouted the thread has become and off topic at times I also wonder how many truly read the proposed rule change. http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43 Yes, but the current version doesn't say anything about CLEO notification or eliminating CLEO certification. It just says "modify the requirements regarding the certificate of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO).": http://www.reginfo.gov/public/servlet/ForwardServlet?SearchTarget=Agenda&textfield=1140-AA43 Keep in mind that it was published in Spring 2013 - when they were trying to ban 90% of our guns. Maybe they'll just change it so that now folks with trusts need to get a CLEO certification too. Does anybody know how to view the actual language of the proposed rule? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2013 8:34:49 AM EST
[#20]
Words mean things. Nowhere is that more true than in federal laws, rules and regulations.
So in 2012, the following was proposed, and went nowhere: 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. And now in 2013, this is proposed. Note the changes in wording: 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; and (3) modify the requirements regarding the certificate of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO). Again, words mean things. And federal proposals do not get rewritten without a specific purpose and a specific goal. Bottom line: What is being proposed today is not the same as when was being proposed on Page One of this thread. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2013 8:40:50 AM EST
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you have any source for that? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So how about that CLEO signoff elimination? Less than 10% of forms use CLEO signoff these days, most folks are not going to care about that. Do you have any source for that? BATFE public statements at SHOT Show. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/26/2013 6:21:46 PM EST
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Does the proposed rule change require fingerprints/photo for only the grantor/trustee(s), or also the beneficiary? I'm wondering how this applies to a trust with a single trustee, while the trust itself requires others to be named as the beneficiary/grantor of that transfer if my capacity to fill that role is compromised. Hmmm... The proposed rule hasn't been published yet, so no one knows. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2013 4:41:26 AM EST
[#23]
Once again, the nfatca has screwed everyone.
These moron have no idea re unintended consequences and blindly ignored the concept of unintended consequences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2013 5:41:11 AM EST
[#24]
What everyone forgets about the nfatca is that they misled us about this change.
They started by telling us that the Cleo signoff. Was gone When I asserted that this was bad because the obunghole/holder admin isn't going to do gun owners any favors without taking something big back I was told that I was a greedy gun trust lawyer and didn't know what I was talking about. Now we see that the nfatca was in bed with the batf and knew from the start that they were throwing corp and trusts owners under the bus, Essentially, now it is apparent that they lied to us to get support. This is what happens when our organizations are in bed with the batf. They get corrupted by the .gov org and become fanboys and a mouthpiece for the organization that we sent them to watch. This is why we should not work with the BATF nor should we let or organization s get too cozy with them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/27/2013 3:58:09 PM EST
[#25]
Keep in mind that it was published in Spring 2013 - when they were trying to ban 90% of our guns. Maybe they'll just change it so that now folks with trusts need to get a CLEO certification too. Maybe that'll make prices come down!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/28/2013 3:56:15 PM EST
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Less than 10% of forms use CLEO signoff these days, most folks are not going to care about that. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So how about that CLEO signoff elimination? Less than 10% of forms use CLEO signoff these days, most folks are not going to care about that. Some of us would much rather register items as an individual than via a business entity. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2013 6:14:04 AM EST
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Some of us would much rather register items as an individual than via a business entity. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: So how about that CLEO signoff elimination? Less than 10% of forms use CLEO signoff these days, most folks are not going to care about that. Some of us would much rather register items as an individual than via a business entity. A trust isn't necessarily a "business" entity, and most view it as a way to pass the items inside the trust onto their children or other family members. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2013 8:10:03 AM EST
[#28]
"(3) modify the requirements regarding the certificate of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO). "
I dont like that language. If it ends up meaning trusts need CLEO signoff also, I'm screwed on any future purchases, as are a lot of other people, and I know the current administration would really enjoy that. I REALLY dont like that it used to say ELIMINATE and was changed to MODIFY. Smells like something definitely worse, but we don't know what exactly. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2013 5:44:24 PM EST
[#29]
And now it becomes a political football:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/29/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence (link intentionally left cold) |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/29/2013 7:31:06 PM EST
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"(3) modify the requirements regarding the certificate of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO). " I dont like that language. If it ends up meaning trusts need CLEO signoff also, I'm screwed on any future purchases, as are a lot of other people, and I know the current administration would really enjoy that. I REALLY dont like that it used to say ELIMINATE and was changed to MODIFY. Smells like something definitely worse, but we don't know what exactly. http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_17/406342_CLEO_Certification_To_Be_Required_For_Trusts_Corps.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2013 12:19:41 AM EST
[#31]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2013 12:59:46 AM EST
[#32]
Quote HistoryInsane; invalidates any future sales and purchases. It puts all pending stamps in limbo also. I am 30-45 days out on a Form 1 and Form 4, and ATF just cashed a check a check for a Form 1. None of this makes sense, and attacks a community where except for that ass-clown Dornier, there isn't a history of abuse or violence stemming from this process. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2013 6:52:02 AM EST
[#33]
Shit went from bad to worse.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2013 7:07:05 AM EST
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think that may have been taken out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So how about that CLEO signoff elimination? I think that may have been taken out. Read the bottom of p. 13 of the document. It explicitly says that "...ATF does not propose to eliminate the CLEO certificate requirement at ths time. Rather, ATF proposes extending the CLEO certificate requirement to responsible persons of a legal entity." So not only did these asshats not get what they wanted, they got the requirement expanded to everyone. Talk about ineptitude. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2013 9:00:06 AM EST
[#35]
Lets say the WORST case happens.
Does anybody have confirmation on WHEN the rule change will be in effect? Is it immediate? Will pending stamps be grandfathered? How long do we have? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2013 10:01:32 AM EST
[#36]
This really amounts to an unconstitutional decision.
It gives a single individual (CLEO) the power to arbitrarily decide whether or not you can exercise your right to purchase specific arms, regardless of whether or not their ownership is legal in your municipality. The only way this could be remotely permissible, is it it also carried a "shall issue", requiring the CLEO to sign off under the conditions specified by law. Fucking Obama. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2013 11:12:25 AM EST
[#37]
I would love to see some states allow suppressors without federal registration.
Hell, I would pay $300 for a 2 week turn around on my State. Suppressor stamp if I didn't have to notify the Feds. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2013 11:26:32 AM EST
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... Does anybody have confirmation on WHEN the rule change will be in effect? Is it immediate? ... Page two of the draft states that it goes into effect 90 days after it's entered into the federal register. So, if/when this is approved, we have 90 days till who knows what. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2013 11:31:52 AM EST
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This really amounts to an unconstitutional decision. It gives a single individual (CLEO) the power to arbitrarily decide whether or not you can exercise your right to purchase specific arms, regardless of whether or not their ownership is legal in your municipality. The only way this could be remotely permissible, is it it also carried a "shall issue", requiring the CLEO to sign off under the conditions specified by law. Fucking Obama. +1 |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2013 1:49:02 PM EST
[#40]
As far as the effective date goes, first there has to be a review/comment period (90 days I believe). Then another 90 days after being entered it would be effective.
Thats assuming the rule isn't 'sent back' or re-studied, or re-examined. I don't know the mechanism how (smarter minds can figure this out), but one thing the government is good at doing is... SLOW. I imagine there are ways the regulations could be slowed down from being implemented. I also imagine the rule would not be retroactive. When MGs were banned 'effective' 5/19/1986, as I understand it, as long as you got your MG Form 1 in before 5/19/86, you were okay. The question is, does "in" mean "postmarked" "check cashed" or "pending". Either way,I bet my LGS will be cleaned out of suppressors this weekend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/30/2013 4:29:29 PM EST
[#41]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2013 12:48:09 PM EST
[#42]
Dammit
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/31/2013 1:38:50 PM EST
[#43]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 3:34:12 AM EST
[#44]
So there is supposed to be a 'public comment period' for proposed rules changes, correct?
If so, where does one go to comment? I would assume that the person listed as Agency Contact would most likely be inundated with calls in regards to the proposed change, and would be hard to reach, so is there another POC or even a website where public comments are to be sent? ETA: Can we get a thread title change to: Not only do you trust/corp/llc users get screwed, but so did the ones who swore the CLEO requirement was going away for individuals!!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 7:00:06 AM EST
[#45]
A full copy of the proposed changes can be found here:
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/inside-atf/2013/082913-wash-machine-guns-destructive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf Page 2 states that comments can be submitted in the following ways: ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by docket number (ATF41P), by any of the following methods-
Page 3 states: Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. In this case it is ATF 41P which MUST be included/referenced in any correspondence. Page 3 also states FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Raffath Friend [and then lists the same address as above] telephone (202) 648-7070 Page 49 states: Mail: Send written comments to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Written comments must appear in minimum of 12 point font size/ (.17 inches), include your mailing address, be signed, and may be of any length. Facsimile: You may submit comments by facsimile transmission to (202) 648-9741 Federal eRulemaking Portal: To submit to comments to the ATF via the Federal eRulemaking portal visit http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments. So to recap, faxes/letters must be a minimum of 12 point font size, reference case ATF 41P, can not exceed five pages, include a return address, and must be signed with a legible, written signature. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 9:09:13 AM EST
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
-snip- Page 3 states: In this case it is ATF 41P which MUST be included/referenced in any correspondence. Page 3 also states FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Raffath Friend [and then lists the same address as above] telephone (202) 648-7070 Page 49 states: So to recap, faxes/letters must be a minimum of 12 point font size, reference case ATF 41P, can not exceed five pages, include a return address, and must be signed with a legible, written signature. Quote HistoryQuoted:
-snip- Page 3 states: Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. In this case it is ATF 41P which MUST be included/referenced in any correspondence. Page 3 also states FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Raffath Friend [and then lists the same address as above] telephone (202) 648-7070 Page 49 states: Mail: Send written comments to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Written comments must appear in minimum of 12 point font size/ (.17 inches), include your mailing address, be signed, and may be of any length. Facsimile: You may submit comments by facsimile transmission to (202) 648-9741 Federal eRulemaking Portal: To submit to comments to the ATF via the Federal eRulemaking portal visit http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments. So to recap, faxes/letters must be a minimum of 12 point font size, reference case ATF 41P, can not exceed five pages, include a return address, and must be signed with a legible, written signature. They sure bury the important info deep. Wonder what the 46 pages in between deal with?? ETA: Just started trying to read the PDF and I must say that I don't understand how a document that was drafted on a computer could come out that hard to read, and so far off center of alignment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 4:19:29 PM EST
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So there is supposed to be a 'public comment period' for proposed rules changes, correct? If so, where does one go to comment? I would assume that the person listed as Agency Contact would most likely be inundated with calls in regards to the proposed change, and would be hard to reach, so is there another POC or even a website where public comments are to be sent? ETA: Can we get a thread title change to: Not only do you trust/corp/llc users get screwed, but so did the ones who swore the CLEO requirement was going away for individuals!!! Most likely www.regulations.gov |
|
|
|
Posted: 9/3/2013 4:38:43 PM EST
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
ETA: Just started trying to read the PDF and I must say that I don't understand how a document that was drafted on a computer could come out that hard to read, and so far off center of alignment. Government employees take pride in their work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/2/2013 1:09:37 PM EST
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lets say the WORST case happens. Does anybody have confirmation on WHEN the rule change will be in effect? Is it immediate? Will pending stamps be grandfathered? How long do we have? The link previously provided to the "Prince Law Firm" has some insights on this. Basically, all applications processed before the date the change becomes effective will be grandfathered. If I am reading this right, I am feeling a lot better at least about the suppressor that has been in the works since March 10, 2013. I am even thinking that maybe I need to go ahead and buy a few more silencers before this thing goes into effect. http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/09/02/should-i-start-a-trust-or-corporate-entity-given-atfs-proposal-atf-41p/ "The follow up question is then whether pending applications would be returned, if the regulation is enacted during the pendency of those applications. During the NSSF/FAIR’s 12th Annual Import Export Conference in Washington, D.C. on August 6-7, 2013, an individual inquired of if a new regulation was implemented, would the currently pending applications be grandfathered or would they be returned. The response was that any new regulation would only apply to applications submitted after the effective date of the regulation. Although not directly stated in Attorney Merting’s article, it appears that he too was left to believe that applications pending prior to the regulation effective date would be grandfathered. Specifically, he states, “The current regulations still stand, and if you have been waiting to purchase NFA firearms now is the time. Past transfers should not be affected by this rule change and those with firearms owned by a trust will be grandfathered in.” (emphasis in original). Accordingly, based upon the information currently available to me, it is my opinion and conclusion that if you are currently contemplating purchasing an NFA firearm using a trust or other fictitious legal entity that you submit the application with haste. If you have not yet formed your fictitious entity, it will likely be in your best interest to form that entity now and submit your application(s), as it appears that any application submitted prior to the effective date of the regulation will be grandfathered." UPDATE: Attorney Merting has responded, “Josh, During my conversation with Brenda she did acknowledge that pending applications would be processed, but she could not say what date would be pending. (i.e. deposit in the mail, receipt at ATF, or cashing of the tax check.) She suggested that “normally” final rules are announced 30 days ahead of time.” |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/3/2013 10:06:41 AM EST
[#50]
So where are all the people who supported the NFATCA sticking their nose into a process that had not had an issue?
Now not only are ALL transactions going to have to get a CLEO signature, but people who have anti-gun CLEO's are fucked as their only avenue to ownership is getting shut down!!! |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
