Suppressors Suppressor transfers in the no tax stamp era

[TBK]

Before buying suppressors, I set up a gun trust but I never used it. When Form 4 Individual applications were being turned around in less than 48 hours, that is the path I took. My rationale was that it is only me, myself, and I using them. I have them bequeathed in my will with Form 5 no-tax transfers pre-filled for the beneficiaries.

Once the fee is gone, I may transfer them from my as an individual to my trust. (I refuse to pay the gubbermint twice.) I assume it will be a Form 4 transfer. I wouldn't care how long it takes to process because I already have them. It may be irrelevant if GOA succeeds with its suit. Since it is still an NFA item, the trust just makes it a little easier to share with friends and family if I ever get less selfish. ;-)

Is anyone else thinking about this? Is it worth even bothering?

 

[Maurygold]

It’s a good idea since you already have the trust and I hope (but doubt) we’ll get rid of the nfa

 

[VanJoe]

I'm leaning to the opposite, get them out of the stupid trust. The only reason I did the trust in the first place like 7 or 8 years ago for my first suppressor purchase was because all the local shops were saying that supposedly I couldn't get a local LEO signoff so the trust was the only way to go. Of course they were pushing a trust they just happened to be selling. Was a junkie generic trust so I just got one offline instead. They seemed to act like never saw an "outside" trust before when I showed up with to buy a can.

 

[Ronin_64]

I'm leaning to the opposite, get them out of the stupid trust. The only reason I did the trust in the first place like 7 or 8 years ago for my first suppressor purchase was because all the local shops were saying that supposedly I couldn't get a local LEO signoff so the trust was the only way to go. Of course they were pushing a trust they just happened to be selling. Was a junkie generic trust so I just got one offline instead. They seemed to act like never saw an "outside" trust before when I showed up with to buy a can.

Counterpoint. I was happier with having a trust when things were a bit looser and you could add trustees without all the added hassle. Having said that, I still like the ability to add/remove individuals so that multiple people can have possession/use the items in the trust, particularly so, since around the time that they recently tightened up on trusts and individual ownership of NFA items (eight years ago?) there were actual debates as to whether a non-owner could “use” an NFA item even if the owner was present. +1 on having a trust

 

[Holliday]

I actually brought this up in another thread. A lot of folks are going to be doing this. Also if there will be folks who will go the individual route because it is easier and a bit faster, then transfer to trust once can is in hand.

I am predicting the system is about to get swamped. Whoever came up with the zero tax idea to begin with should be shamed into oblivion for their utter stupidity. Whoever it was knew gun owners too well and punked us good.

 

[KnowNothing256]

I actually brought this up in another thread. A lot of folks are going to be doing this. Also if there will be folks who will go the individual route because it is easier and a bit faster, then transfer to trust once can is in hand.

I am predicting the system is about to get swamped. Whoever came up with the zero tax idea to begin with should be shamed into oblivion for their utter stupidity. Whoever it was knew gun owners too well and punked us good.

At the risk of getting pulled into a conversation for which I have zero passion: The zero tax was a way to get it done within the rules of reconciliation, so that it could pass at all.

Eliminating the NFA would have been too far removed from the scope of the budget for it to pass without a supermajority.

Be glad the chains got moved on this issue at all, is where I’m at.

 

[Tx_Aggie]

I actually brought this up in another thread. A lot of folks are going to be doing this. Also if there will be folks who will go the individual route because it is easier and a bit faster, then transfer to trust once can is in hand.

I am predicting the system is about to get swamped. Whoever came up with the zero tax idea to begin with should be shamed into oblivion for their utter stupidity. Whoever it was knew gun owners too well and punked us good.

Thank Silencer Central for that one.

 

[AznTactical]

I share my suppressors within my immediate family. 2 of my 6 suppressors were submitted as Individual. I will be transferring them to my Trust next year so my family can possess those 2 suppressors without me needing to be there. Peace of mind.
4 of my suppressors are on a Trust. I've also amended my NFA Trust to Remove/Add Trustees 3 times too (so they don't need to submit a Responsible Persons Questionnaire).

 

[supercorndogs]

At the risk of getting pulled into a conversation for which I have zero passion: The zero tax was a way to get it done within the rules of reconciliation, so that it could pass at all.

Eliminating the NFA would have been too far removed from the scope of the budget for it to pass without a supermajority.

Be glad the chains got moved on this issue at all, is where I’m at.

HPA and the short act did not eliminate the NFA and were well within the rules of reconciliation process. It's a good story for why they fucked it up though.

 

[TonyAngel]

Before buying suppressors, I set up a gun trust but I never used it. When Form 4 Individual applications were being turned around in less than 48 hours, that is the path I took. My rationale was that it is only me, myself, and I using them. I have them bequeathed in my will with Form 5 no-tax transfers pre-filled for the beneficiaries.

Once the fee is gone, I may transfer them from my as an individual to my trust. (I refuse to pay the gubbermint twice.) I assume it will be a Form 4 transfer. I wouldn't care how long it takes to process because I already have them. It may be irrelevant if GOA succeeds with its suit. Since it is still an NFA item, the trust just makes it a little easier to share with friends and family if I ever get less selfish. ;-)

Is anyone else thinking about this? Is it worth even bothering?

I did the same thing. I'm also getting ready to buy another suppressor through Silencer Shop. I'm thinking I'm gonna do this last one on a silencer shop trust and add my others to that trust down the road.

 

[Jcarpenter223]

I will be moving over my individual filed cans to my trus once Jan 1 hits. No additional 200 per can and I already have them in my possession so the wait doesn’t come in to play

 

[Capri_Man]

You may not be paying the government $200 in tax but I bet most SOT's end up charging you $75-100 for the fransfer fee.

 

[Jcarpenter223]

You may not be paying the government $200 in tax but I bet most SOT's end up charging you $75-100 for the fransfer fee.

Wouldn’t be shocked. Some places here already charge close to that for ffl transfers. Those places don’t get a lot of business in the way of items being shipped to them though lol

 

[Gasgun]

You may not be paying the government $200 in tax but I bet most SOT's end up charging you $75-100 for the fransfer fee.

If you’re referring to the people moving their suppressors from individual to trust or vice-versa, there is no need to involve a dealer.

 

[kli3309]

Everybody looking to move stuff to trusts, you are taking into account that under 41F, anybody that you add as a responsible person will have to undergo the background check, right?

 

[flogxal]

HPA and the short act did not eliminate the NFA and were well within the rules of reconciliation process. It's a good story for why they fucked it up though.

Yep.

Never negotiate from a point of weakness. "But this is a great micro-step in a million mile journey" is what they call "bargaining" in the stages of grief after loss of a loved one.

 

[Jcarpenter223]

Everybody looking to move stuff to trusts, you are taking into account that under 41F, anybody that you add as a responsible person will have to undergo the background check, right?

Yep, still $0

 

[shlouf]

Everybody looking to move stuff to trusts, you are taking into account that under 41F, anybody that you add as a responsible person will have to undergo the background check, right?

Most going that route have trusts that are easily amended to remove all but the settlor. Then just throw the amendment out after approval.

 

[Jcarpenter223]

Most going that route have trusts that are easily amended to remove all but the settlor. Then just throw the amendment out after approval.

Bingo

 

[kli3309]

Most going that route have trusts that are easily amended to remove all but the settlor. Then just throw the amendment out after approval.

So how does that help anybody adding people to a trust?

 

[shlouf]

Amend and re-notarize

 

[MO Fugga]

So how does that help anybody adding people to a trust?

Tell them to get their own shit.

 

[doubloon]

Everybody looking to move stuff to trusts, you are taking into account that under 41F, anybody that you add as a responsible person will have to undergo the background check, right?

Responsible persons actively on the trust have to undergo prints/pics/colonoscopy for approvals on new trust purchases.

Anybody not active in the trust (people removed from the trust before the new purchase) don't count.

Add them back after the approval.

You put your trustees in, you take your trustees out, you put your application in and you shake it all about.
You turn your forms around and you put your trustees back.
That's what it's all about.

 

[doubloon]

Is anyone else thinking about this? Is it worth even bothering?

Si. To me it is because of the access while I'm kicking and the elimination of any probate or other BS upon my demise. Streamlines the process. I know I won't be around to care but it's no reason to be a dick about it.

I have a bunchof items on a NFA trust and I have a couple I bought on a SS single shot trust because I rationalized I can just amend the SS trust. One flaw in the SS trust is no ability to name beneficiaries. When papers go to $0 I'll consolidate and pay a few bucks for notary.

 

[kli3309]

Responsible persons actively on the trust have to undergo prints/pics/colonoscopy for approvals on new trust purchases.

Anybody not active in the trust (people removed from the trust before the new purchase) don't count.

Add them back after the approval.

You put your trustees in, you take your trustees out, you put your application in and you shake it all about.
You turn your forms around and you put your trustees back.
That's what it's all about.

Going back to post #1, doesn't sound like he has anybody additional on his trust other than himself. He may be looking to transfer his stuff to his trust and then add additional persons to the trust. So, to the OP and others in his position, additional persons are all going to have to get background checks.

 

[doubloon]

Going back to post #1, doesn't sound like he has anybody additional on his trust other than himself. He may be looking to transfer his stuff to his trust and then add additional persons to the trust. So, to the OP and others in his position, additional persons are all going to have to get background checks.

No.

Not if he doesn't add them until after the transfers or purchases are done and the ATF forms are approved. Only the people actually in the trust at the time of application/approval need background checks.

There is no background check for people added to a trust after everything is purchased. With what might be considered a higher "quality" trust all it takes is writing an amendment and getting it notarized at the UPS store or the cat lady in the neighborhood who happens to be a notary.

The fed, the ATF, the sheriff, none of them get involved. Nobody even ever has to see the amendment except the notary and the people being added. The little book the notary keeps only shows you got something notarized with a title for the document, no content, no copy of the form goes on record with the notary.

If anybody is already on the trust then just do the 41F Hokey Pokey. Remove them, approve the forms then add them back.

 

[TBK]

Going back to post #1, doesn't sound like he has anybody additional on his trust other than himself. He may be looking to transfer his stuff to his trust and then add additional persons to the trust. So, to the OP and others in his position, additional persons are all going to have to get background checks.

The trust I have is easy to amend. I also have access to free notary services at work. I have no suppressors in it. I went the individual route for my first suppressor at a local gun shop. I filed at 3pm Monday. I was approved and picked up the suppressor at 11am Wednesday. Then I bought suppressors from CA and SS, also as an individual. CA took five weeks, SS took 3 weeks before I received them. The form4 approval, however, was still only 48 hours in both cases. Their other processes took a long time. I have been sticking to local gun shops since. I'll see how things settle next year.

Edit: My wife is on the trust as a trustee/beneficiary. I can easily do the 41F Hokey Pokey if I need to. There would be no issues with her getting a background check either. Again, at this point, the suppressors are already in hand.

 

[kli3309]

No.

Not if he doesn't add them until after the transfers or purchases are done and the ATF forms are approved. Only the people actually in the trust at the time of application/approval need background checks.

There is no background check for people added to a trust after everything is purchased. With what might be considered a higher "quality" trust all it takes is writing an amendment and getting it notarized at the UPS store or the cat lady in the neighborhood who happens to be a notary.

The fed, the ATF, the sheriff, none of them get involved. Nobody even ever has to see the amendment except the notary and the people being added. The little book the notary keeps only shows you got something notarized with a title for the document, no content, no copy of the form goes on record with the notary.

If anybody is already on the trust then just do the 41F Hokey Pokey. Remove them, approve the forms then add them back.

Yer right!

 

[TBK]

Boy, these regs sure make the LTC rules in the people's republic of Assachusetts, which I escaped, seem like a cake walk.

 

[doubloon]

Yer right!

And it's absolutely stupid, the rules. It gained absolutely nothing in visibility or regulation other than aggravating legal gun owners.

 

[VanJoe]

No.

Not if he doesn't add them until after the transfers or purchases are done and the ATF forms are approved. Only the people actually in the trust at the time of application/approval need background checks.

There is no background check for people added to a trust after everything is purchased. With what might be considered a higher "quality" trust all it takes is writing an amendment and getting it notarized at the UPS store or the cat lady in the neighborhood who happens to be a notary.

The fed, the ATF, the sheriff, none of them get involved. Nobody even ever has to see the amendment except the notary and the people being added. The little book the notary keeps only shows you got something notarized with a title for the document, no content, no copy of the form goes on record with the notary.

If anybody is already on the trust then just do the 41F Hokey Pokey. Remove them, approve the forms then add them back.

"Nobody even ever has to see the amendment except the notary and the people being added"

Why wouldn't you have to include the amendment to the trust (presumably removing the people) with the trust on the next purchase submission? The trust has been changed by the amendment.

 

[doubloon]

"Nobody even ever has to see the amendment except the notary and the people being added"

Why wouldn't you have to include the amendment to the trust (presumably removing the people) with the trust on the next purchase submission? The trust has been changed by the amendment.

In what you quoted I am specifically talking about the amendment(s) to add trustees after the forms are filed and approved and trustees are being added to give them access to things already in the trust because this is the specific case klidiggity (whatever his name is, no offense) was talking about in his post that I quoted.

If the NFA are already in the trust access can be given to people using an amendment that no legal entity other than the notary needs to see and nobody has to send in pictures or fingerprints or money or anything.

Amendments to add people to a trust for NFA items already in the trust do not need to be sent to the ATF or the sheriff or any law enforcement agency.

Removing people is a new question you added and not included in the answer to the original question klidiggity asked. BUT, removing trustees from a trust is generally the same as adding them and no legal entity needs to be notified of trustee removal.

For NEW PURCHASES.

If the trustees are active in the trust when filing then yes the trustees need to be included in the application.

If trustees are removed from the trust before filing who's to say they were ever there at all. How trustees get removed depends on how the trust is written. The way some trusts remove trustees is just by shredding the amendment(s) that added them. So no amendments exist to be sent in.

Truth is it depends on what kind of trust you have and who made it and yada yada ... but the bottom line is there are a lot of ways to skin the cat.

This was valid back in 2016, I don't know if it still is but it depends on how the trust is written. In this instance, for example, none of hte amendments adding trustees need to be shredded or sent to the ATF. Create an amendment to blankently remove all trustees then just shred that removal amdendment once the application is done to put them back in. Trustee amendments don't need to be sent, just the amendment to say there are no trustees.

Trusts are magical devices which no one can truly fully explain how all of them work without seemingly contradicting ideas because they take many forms depending on who wrote them and what's in them. Amendments can exist but not count ... it's a whole Schrödinger thing.

41F Update For All NFA Lawyers Clients - NFA Gun Trusts

Since July 13, 2016, the ATF requires fingerprints, pictures, and a law enforcement notification for all NFA applications. Only you, the creator (settlor) of the trust, must comply with these requirements if you follow the instructions below. The amendment and instructions below apply only to...

nfalawyers.com

https://nfalawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/41F-Amendment.pdf

Since July 13, 2016, the ATF requires fingerprints, pictures, and a law enforcement notification for all NFA applications. Only you, the creator (settlor) of the trust, must comply with these requirements if you follow the instructions below. The amendment and instructions below apply only to trusts drafted by NFA Lawyers, LLC.


Once you have your approved tax stamp in hand, you can shred this amendment and your co-trustees are back on your trust and may possess all NFA weapons in the trust.