Armory Sponsor
Posted: 2/18/2008 5:17:18 PM EDT
|
I seem to remember reading that there was a grey area regarding the transfer of a MG into a RLT but I can't find it. Something like the wording of the law left out the term 'machinegun' while describing the items you can transfer into the trust. Is there anything to this? |
| Although legal now, I recommend against it, simply for the fact that when ATF changes its stance on using trusts to own/transfer NFA items and refuses to approve any more transfers into/out of trusts (or makes it much more difficult), that would essentially freeze your machine guns in the trust and make them worthless (because you couldn't sell/transfer them). This is what happened to private ownership of machine guns in Canada. |
Trusts are a completely legal entity and have been; I'm not worried about that. I am talking specifically about MG's not being listed in the items that are able to be transferred into a trust. |
|
So basically you're asking if machineguns are not listed as things you can transfer into a trust? I've never heard that, also you should be able to sift through the NFA timelines and look, I'm pretty sure you'll find people transferring machineguns into RLT's. I'm in the process of putting my first MG into my RLT. I'll be sure and let you know how it went in like 90 days lol Edit luscioman & captainpooby (both approved) on page 35 www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=17&t=199906&page=35 Also more recently on page 39, policemanC1 is doing a transfer of a MG into a trust. Edit 2: I'm pretty damn positive that Title II items in Trusts will never be "frozen", thats just silly. What happens when those Trusts are revoked or the owners die or commit felonies? They'd have to transfer them then. Hell even felons that currently own Title II items are allowed to sell them, they dont just submit them for disposal. |
|
OK, I found the text that made me wonder. www.jobrelatedstuff.com/forums/topic.html?b=6&f=17&t=199942&page=4 About 2/3 down the page, willyv's post. Seems that my memory failed and I thought it was regarding the possibilities that MG's might not be allowed in a trust, when in fact it was raising the possibility that post-86 MG's MAY be allowed to be added to a trust. |
|
I put mine into a trust so that they would always be there for my kids Dont care if you cant transfer them out of a trust (dont ever see that as being an issue though) My goal was to ensure that my kids will have access to firearms long after Im dead. So barring outright consfication, they will remain in the trust for them to use and hopefully for my grandkids as well |
|
It kills me when people say "when the ATF changes their stance" as if the clause about Trusts was just added in receint times. Obviously they have never read the NFA Act of 1934 because if they had they would see that the acceptance of Trusts, Corps, LLC's and Individual transfers were written at the same time and almost in the same paragraph. The Trust, LLC or Corp is not a loophole but part of the law and has been since 1934. MadDog 
|
I'm not sure what you mean, do you not beleive the BATFE changes their stance? If you dont you need to talk to a guy named Akins. The text of the NFA is good and all, but the BATFE can in fact "change their stance" and "the law" extremely easily. All they have to do is say "denied" to your Form. I'm doing a horrible job of explaining this and Tony_k wrote a brilliant blurb about it recently, it might be hard to find but its out there  It explains how laws are laws, but its up to the BATFE to enforce them and write additional requirements to enforce them as they see fit. I.e. .003" deep appears nowhere in the actual NFA law, but its a requirement. Nowhere in the NFA law does it say anything about a "declaration of trust" but most examiners wont approve your form unless you send it, in addition to your cert and schedule A. Edit: I'm really not trying to sound like a smartass, just clarifying some things 
|
|
almega, I am not saying the BATFE can't or will never change their position on anything, but I believe, and correct me if I am wrong, but the Akins decission was that they calssified his device as Non-NFA and then changed their minds and reclassified it as a MG type device. I am specifically talking about the "Individual, Trust, LLC, Corp" approval for NFA items. The Akins decission was about a device and not the NFA approval process "which has remaind unchanged" since 1934. MadDog |
I have to agree. I think few of us really know what happened with Akins, whether it was an arbitrary reversal by ATF (which I find doubtful) or if Akins Group bungled the approval process by submitting a very cobbled-together, unreliable prototype that didn't work. ATF sent an approval letter based on their interpretation of how they thought it was supposed to work rather than it actually working. As clever as it is and as much as I would love to have one, I have to agree that it's a machine gun. Either way, there's no true comparison to be made between ATF reversals and the future of Trusts owning NFA. Trusts are bonafide legal entities built into law and by obvious intent are designed to own all real property that an individual can own (Trusts are for individual estate planning after all). I've heard the rumors as stated and they come from very underinformed individuals. Only Congress can close the "Trust loophole" by rewriting the law itself. |
|
homeinvader, I agree with everything you say but I wish people would stop calling the Trust route a "loophole". If a trust was included along with LLC's and Corps at the same time the NFA Act was written then it is not a loophole, it is just law. If it was an "amendment" added later, which it wasn't, then I can see how people would think it was a loophole. MadDog |
Oh, yeah I agree that theres no way they'd make trusts illegal and locking in title II items etc. Thats a little silly and very very far fetched. |
Armory Sponsor