Suppressors ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

[tctlrld]

Don't know how many people are using trusts or corporations for their Title 2 / NFA items, but I wanted to make everyone aware of some proposed changes to the process.

I'm sure most of you have heard of the CLEO sign off for individuals going away potentially. Well, that's good news, but what I didn't realize until today is that the main purpose (title) of the proposed change is to require <span style="font-weight: bold">each</span> responsible member of a trust of corporation to submit fingerprint cards and photographs. This new regulation hasn't been adopted yet, but supposedly it's in the stage of "proposed rule making" so it may only be a matter of time.

<span style="font-style: italic">he 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) <span style="font-weight: bold">require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints</span>;</span>

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43

This should be a huge strike against the trust/corporate route and would add time and complexity. I would imagine processing times going up as the rate of paperwork errors should increase when everyone has to submit additional documentation.

Does anyone have more information? This seems to be sneaking under the radar compared to all the AWB talk. I've had some items I've been meaning to Form 1, and I'm going to do so within the next few weeks so I don't have to deal with these new potential requirements.

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

first I've heard of it...well, I heard there would be changes to the trust requirements, but these are the first details...

I personally don't see why it wasn't always this way, FFLs owned by corporations or other legal entities are required to have every "responsible person" submit fingerprints, photos, and basic info for background checks.

The trust's lack of this info, for NFA forms, was always a "loophole" under our current laws.

Under our current laws, this is just closing the loophole, not creating a new, more restrictive law, and they're "giving away" the CLEO signature in exchange.

I don't see why anyone should have a problem w/ this rule change, other than it will potentially increase wait times.

 

[Charger442]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

I am against any further gathering of information being imposed for firearms ownership, Class III or not. Period.

 

[Cornholeo]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">first I've heard of it...well, I heard there would be changes to the trust requirements, but these are the first details...

I personally don't see why it wasn't always this way, FFLs owned by corporations or other legal entities are required to have every "responsible person" submit fingerprints, photos, and basic info for background checks.

The trust's lack of this info, for NFA forms, was always a "loophole" under our current laws.

Under our current laws, this is just closing the loophole, not creating a new, more restrictive law, and they're "giving away" the CLEO signature in exchange.

<span style="font-weight: bold">I don't see why anyone should have a problem w/ this rule change, other than it will potentially increase wait times.</span> </div></div>

If they are already able to do the checks without fingerprints and photos, why change it? I say no more info, they are doing it just fine with what they have in place.

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Cornholeo</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">first I've heard of it...well, I heard there would be changes to the trust requirements, but these are the first details...

I personally don't see why it wasn't always this way, FFLs owned by corporations or other legal entities are required to have every "responsible person" submit fingerprints, photos, and basic info for background checks.

The trust's lack of this info, for NFA forms, was always a "loophole" under our current laws.

Under our current laws, this is just closing the loophole, not creating a new, more restrictive law, and they're "giving away" the CLEO signature in exchange.

<span style="font-weight: bold">I don't see why anyone should have a problem w/ this rule change, other than it will potentially increase wait times.</span> </div></div>

If they are already able to do the checks without fingerprints and photos, why change it? I say no more info, they are doing it just fine with what they have in place.</div></div>

the point is that they can't do a background check w/ a trust, or other legal entity, that's what they are proposing to change... they are also proposing eliminating the CLEO signature.

they are doing their job, clearing up a loophole in an existing law... not making new ones

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Charger442</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am against any further gathering of information being imposed for firearms ownership, Class III or not. Period. </div></div>


totally different debate Charger...

I personally think the NFA, and the GCA 68, and the ban on MG from 86 are all unconstitutional... but... AS LONG as they stand, I don't think a felon should be able to purchase an NFA item on a trust.... and that's literally how it is right now

as it is right now, when I sell a NFA item on a trust... the trust and a form 4 is filled out, no fingerprints, photo, CLEO signature... then it's all sent to the ATF w/ a $200 check and a certificate of compliance stating that the person signing the forms is a US citizen... no way to really even check the person filling out the forms, much less any trustees...

then when it's approved, a trustee comes to pick it up.. a 4473 is filled out, but no NICS check is done... again, no background check on any trustee is ever done...

then at any time another trustee can be added... again w/ no background check...

 

[tctlrld]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Charger442</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am against any further gathering of information being imposed for firearms ownership, Class III or not. Period. </div></div>


totally different debate Charger...

I personally think the NFA, and the GCA 68, and the ban on MG from 86 are all unconstitutional... but... AS LONG as they stand, I don't think a felon should be able to purchase an NFA item on a trust.... and that's literally how it is right now

as it is right now, when I sell a NFA item on a trust... the trust and a form 4 is filled out, no fingerprints, photo, CLEO signature... then it's all sent to the ATF w/ a $200 check and a certificate of compliance stating that the person signing the forms is a US citizen... no way to really even check the person filling out the forms, much less any trustees...

then when it's approved, a trustee comes to pick it up.. a 4473 is filled out, but no NICS check is done... again, no background check on any trustee is ever done...

then at any time another trustee can be added... again w/ no background check...

</div></div>

You're right, there is a Trust/Corp loophole right now. Unfortunately it's starting to look like the game plan is:

1. Close trust/corp loophole.
2. Per Feinstein's plans, add all "assault weapons" to the NFA registry. Force all grandfathered AW to register their items.

Assuming they don't bring the registry up to 21st century standards with online submission, payment via credit card and instant (or near) approvals, can you imagine what this will do for processing times?

There will be applications for 2Million title 1 AR15s, god knows how many AK and various other "assualt weapons".
Paperwork errors galore... Processing times of 24+ months?


http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/i...72-ac8ca4359119

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms
Act, to include:
o Background check of owner and any transferee;
o Type and serial number of the firearm;
o Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
o Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
possession would not violate State or local law; and
o Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

 

[Force_Multiplier]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: tctlrld</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Charger442</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am against any further gathering of information being imposed for firearms ownership, Class III or not. Period. </div></div>


totally different debate Charger...

I personally think the NFA, and the GCA 68, and the ban on MG from 86 are all unconstitutional... but... AS LONG as they stand, I don't think a felon should be able to purchase an NFA item on a trust.... and that's literally how it is right now

as it is right now, when I sell a NFA item on a trust... the trust and a form 4 is filled out, no fingerprints, photo, CLEO signature... then it's all sent to the ATF w/ a $200 check and a certificate of compliance stating that the person signing the forms is a US citizen... no way to really even check the person filling out the forms, much less any trustees...

then when it's approved, a trustee comes to pick it up.. a 4473 is filled out, but no NICS check is done... again, no background check on any trustee is ever done...

then at any time another trustee can be added... again w/ no background check...

</div></div>

You're right, there is a Trust/Corp loophole right now. Unfortunately it's starting to look like the game plan is:

1. Close trust/corp loophole.
2. Per Feinstein's plans, add all "assault weapons" to the NFA registry. Force all grandfathered AW to register their items.

Assuming they don't bring the registry up to 21st century standards with online submission, payment via credit card and instant (or near) approvals, can you imagine what this will do for processing times?

There will be applications for 2Million title 1 AR15s, god knows how many AK and various other "assualt weapons".
Paperwork errors galore... Processing times of 24+ months?


http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/i...72-ac8ca4359119

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms
Act, to include:
o Background check of owner and any transferee;
o Type and serial number of the firearm;
o Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
o Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
possession would not violate State or local law; and
o Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration</div></div>

on that note... I personally don't think we'll even have to wait for DiFi's bill... Clinton added models to the NFA process w/o Congress...

but again... simply closing the "trust loophole".. which is what this thread is about... in and of itself isn't a bad thing

 

[Bonjourjr]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

Will this proposed change make it so just the grantor/trustee submits finger prints and photos or will it be that everyone on the needs to submit prints and photos?

I have four family members on my trust and that would be a hassle to get all four peoples prints and photos to include my own each time I wanted to purchase a nfa item.

 

[corey4]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 7.62DAV</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Will this proposed change make it so just the grantor/trustee submits finger prints and photos or will it be that everyone on the needs to submit prints and photos?

I have four family members on my trust and that would be a hassle to get all four peoples prints and photos to include my own each time I wanted to purchase a nfa item. </div></div>

that's the point bro.

 

[346ci]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

Hell, ain't like they can't acess that info anyway.

I do like the idea of the CLEO sig. going away, that always seemed dumb to me.

 

[netranger6]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

More importantly, how are they gonna print my 3 year old, who is the beneficiery on my trust. Granted, he can't possess till he meets age/legal requirements, but he's still on the trust.

 

[rmfield]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

While I oppose this, the Feds already have my fingerprints and several photos from various CCW requirements in the past. It is the CLEO sign-off requirement for individuals that I have the biggest problem with.

For me, there are a lot of reasons to use a trust for NFA items, but avoiding fingerprints and photos doesn't rank very high at this point.

 

[ddavis]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

I agree with another poster. It was difficult enough getting a couple of the people in my family together just to sign the trust. Getting them to submit fingerprints probably isn't going to happen. May just have to remove them from the trust. That's really unfortunate.

 

[Andrevski762]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

I'm fine with closing the loophole. Will not enjoy having to do/collect fingerprints and photo of the people on my trust every time one of us wants to purchase. If it was a one time deal that would be ideal. If only they would do that, rather than this current system of "Oh we've approved you a dozen times in the past and you haven't committed any crimes? Get in line behind these few thousand people." I know the feds aren't concerned with our convenience, but why not make this more efficient if we're still going to pay them their tax? More money in their pocket, or whomever they want to give it to.

 

[2ndamendfan]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

Well I guess no one but myself has read the whole rule change. The CLEO signature would be eliminated but a copy of ALL applications would be forwarded to the CLEO automatically.

(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.

So the CLEO could harass the shit out of you if he/she is totally against NFA items.

They made the rules and thought no one would go through the trouble of jumping through the hoops. Now that it is obvious that people will, time for a rule change.

 

[sail2468]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

I like loopholes. I don't like laws, especially ones not made by congress. Laws only serve to criminalize good people, bad people will be bad with or without the law. In my short 40 something year life I am noticing that I am having to ask permission to be free more and more. Contact your Congressman and Senators and give them your feelings on the subject, It's all we can do for the time being.

 

[Explorer]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

If I trusted them, I could go along with this. But given the history of politicans and government agencies in this country, which is NOT getting any better, I will not support this.

The whole gun control discussion is about my-way-or-the-highway by those in office without regard for the real impacts, benefits, or any limitations on their powers.

I once lived in a may issue state in which a single person prevented me from getting a concealed carry permit for 4 years simply because he had an AD and would not man up to the criticism.

They work for us, we are not their serfs. When they come out with creditable ideas which will work, not penalize thos trying to follow the regulatins, and can not be abused by those in positions of power, then I will start agreeing more. But I realize I am dreaming of an American which has passed...

 

[Charger442]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

i cant agree with someones assertion that a background check is not being made on those listed on the trust paperwork. they have a name, an address, ... thats all they need to run your information through a database.


they don't need photo ID and fingerprints to do that. the trust route was not a way to get around the fingerprints and photo (though it was a nice by-product), the real issue was always the CLEO signoff in Citys and counties with non-NFA friendly CLEOs.

its all just a boondoggle to get you to jump through more hoops, make a difficult process more prohibitive, and discourage you from owning any firearm/can/SBR etc.

The left screams about voter intimidation and discouragement, this is 2nd amendment intimidation.

 

[Ring]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

soooo..... baby photos of newborns and tiny little fingerprint cards?...

every time u add someone to the trust, you need to re-submit?

 

[2ndamendfan]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

Even in a trust or corporation it is still against the law for someone that is not eligible to use a NFA items. Says so right in the law. Also trusts have to be set up that way. So sure you might not get denied or caught right away, but when the day comes you will be in deep shit. My brother is set up to take over my trust if I do something stupid in my life (until my daughter turns 21). This just keeps them from being taken from me, if I became ineligible my brother (with my guidance) could sell them so at least I could get something back on my investment vs ATF just confiscating them.

 

[biffj]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

All the guys who don't use trusts to do form 1's and other transfers file their fingerprints, do background checks and have been getting signoffs from their CLEO's. Trusts, LLC's and Corps have been avoiding that for all but one member who has to fill out the 4473 when the gun is picked up. If there is only NFA than not even a NICs check is done. It is possible to sell a trust, corp or LLC or change members with no paperwork to NFA or ATF so its easily possible for someone who cannot legally possess a firearm to do so. This is what they are trying to stop. Your collectors corporation buys a bunch of guns, you get tired of them and sell the whole corp to some guy who just got out of the slammer...or worse yet the mental hospital. He goes out and knocks off a bunch of folks, or starts a war or who knows what. In any case its possible to do that now but if the do the checks on trust, corp and LLC members than its less likely. ATF doesn't want egg on their face if someone does that and knows that John Q Public will ask " how could this happen?" Closing the so called loophole is a way to cover their butts and in reality its not a bad idea. If the guys who can get signoffs can handle the paperwork, why should the trust guys not be good enough to do it?

I don't like the idea of sending the CLEO a notification either. I have to do that everytime I renew my FFL but I don't like it. They have no reason to know about individuals ownership of any of this and for that reason I will make a comment to the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. If you don't like any part of it than you should comment as well. Thats what the NPRM is for. It gives a comment period. On the other hand don't think they will every give you something without asking for something in return. If they get rid of the CLEO signoff than they will want something and the notification is just that.


Frank

 

[Stalking_Rhino]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

The only people this will negatively affect are the people that are going against the grain and doing stuff they shouldn't be from the first place like forming NFA "clubs" that people buy in on.

I am surprised it took that long for the ATF to close up the loophole.

 

[temecula]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

I don't like the way they do gun control anyway

 

[bhart89]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

Please someone remind me again how this is remotely constitutional when requiring a photo ID to vote is not?

 

[Stalking_Rhino]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bhart89</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please someone remind me again how this is remotely constitutional when requiring a photo ID to vote is not? </div></div>

I had to provide a .gov issued photo ID to vote.

 

[biffj]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bhart89</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please someone remind me again how this is remotely constitutional when requiring a photo ID to vote is not? </div></div>

not sure what constitutional has to do with any politician or the things they do. No sense in getting too wound up about it as it won't do anything but ruin your blood pressure.


Frank

 

[nso123]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

I don't know what kind of checks they were even doing on the trusts anyway. A III (Triple I) background check is based off of fingerprint information, so with the lack of that, they could not have been certain anyway. Makes you wonder what kind of background gets done on an individual transfer. Like Force Multiplier said, it is all unconstitutional in my opinion, not that my opinion matters.

 

[callen3615]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: StalkingRhino</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bhart89</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please someone remind me again how this is remotely constitutional when requiring a photo ID to vote is not? </div></div>

I had to provide a .gov issued photo ID to vote.


</div></div>

Really? Where? I know for a fact that the election workers in NC are specifically told not to even look at an ID if it is presented to them, much less ask for one.

 

[Bonjourjr]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cpt. obvious</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: StalkingRhino</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bhart89</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please someone remind me again how this is remotely constitutional when requiring a photo ID to vote is not? </div></div>

I had to provide a .gov issued photo ID to vote.


</div></div>

Really? Where? I know for a fact that the election workers in NC are specifically told not to even look at an ID if it is presented to them, much less ask for one. </div></div>

In MO I had to show a picture ID. At first they wouldn't accept my military ID to vote but after I complained they let me vote. In MO the polls places wont let you vote without a valid picture ID. I think that marginalizes those that either do not have an ID or those that have let theirs expire. I believe that they have a public program that provides valid ID's to those that can prove that they cannot afford one or don't have the ability to go get one which allows MO to enforce photo ID's for voting.

 

[Nukes]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">....I don't think a felon should be able to purchase an NFA item on a trust.... </div></div>

As if felons buy NFA items through legal channels??? What about "our" government's very own Fast and Furious "loophole"?

The last time I sought data on the supposed "problem" of NFA-registered weapons crimes was during the run up to the Clinton AWB. Between 1934-1994, 60 years!, I found one. The perpetrator—a cop.

'nuff said.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: StalkingRhino</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The only people this will negatively affect are the people that are going against the grain and doing stuff they shouldn't be from the first place like forming NFA "clubs" that people buy in on.

I am surprised it took that long for the ATF to close up the loophole. </div></div>

The "only" people???

No, it will also affect plenty of people who live in jurisdictions where a single anti-gun cop has tied up signature authority in himself.

 

[Stalking_Rhino]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cpt. obvious</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: StalkingRhino</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: bhart89</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Please someone remind me again how this is remotely constitutional when requiring a photo ID to vote is not? </div></div>

I had to provide a .gov issued photo ID to vote.


</div></div>

Really? Where? I know for a fact that the election workers in NC are specifically told not to even look at an ID if it is presented to them, much less ask for one. </div></div>

They wouldn't give me the ballot to vote without presenting a valid .gov issued ID to prove who I am.

Lillington(me)
Spout Springs(wife)
Fayetteville(parents)
Hope Mills(brother in law)

Was it a mere fluke or coincidence that all these locations wouldn't give ballots without .gov issued ID?

 

[Nukes]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

Was it "mere fluke or coincidence" that there were numerous precincts in Ohio that had 100% Obama votes and even more that were 99+% Obama votes?

 

[biffj]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

I have to say that in Indiana we were required to show govt issued ID to vote. I think its a great idea. I need to show it to my bank to cash a check, show it to the cops when stopped etc. why not to vote. How can you not afford a state ID? Most states offer them for a pretty low price....if you can afford ripple or mad dog 20/20 than an ID should be easy.....you need it to buy the liquor anyway.


Frank

 

[1time]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

Not only was ID not needed in Maryland, they flipped out when my wife presented hers. You would have thought she showed them child porn by their reaction.

 

[John_in_WYO]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: netranger6</div><div class="ubbcode-body">More importantly, how are they gonna print my 3 year old, who is the beneficiery on my trust. Granted, he can't possess till he meets age/legal requirements, but he's still on the trust. </div></div>

Wouldn't you just shit if he didn't pass the background check?
"So, you were caught dunking your cookies in the milk again? Government says NO NFA weapons for you!"

 

[pyplynr]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

In my town of less than 500 people where you know everyone on a first name basis, we had to show photo id. I believe it should be that way everywhere.

 

[Arbiter]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Charger442</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am against any further gathering of information being imposed for firearms ownership, Class III or not. Period. </div></div>


totally different debate Charger...

I personally think the NFA, and the GCA 68, and the ban on MG from 86 are all unconstitutional... but... AS LONG as they stand, I don't think a felon should be able to purchase an NFA item on a trust.... and that's literally how it is right now

as it is right now, when I sell a NFA item on a trust... the trust and a form 4 is filled out, no fingerprints, photo, CLEO signature... then it's all sent to the ATF w/ a $200 check and a certificate of compliance stating that the person signing the forms is a US citizen... no way to really even check the person filling out the forms, much less any trustees...

then when it's approved, a trustee comes to pick it up.. a 4473 is filled out, but no NICS check is done... again, no background check on any trustee is ever done...

then at any time another trustee can be added... again w/ no background check...

</div></div>

If they wanted to close the "loophole" and keep things simple, all they needed to do is adopt Florida's policy of mandating 4473s for NFA sales to trusts and corporations.

It's simple, it doesn't add any further complexity at the Federal level, and it doesn't give the government any more data than they already have from the last time your wallet got sucked into the local gun store.

When a completed Form 4 comes back from ATF, I have the buyer complete a 4473 and I run their background check. It comes back, they take the NFA item, all is well. Their legal status is verified, NFA Branch has no direct involvement, and everyone is happy.

This proposal, on the other hand, is just ATF's way of forcibly dissuading anyone from using trusts to purchase NFA items. As a dealer, I'll see a significant drop in sales if trust holders must get fingerprints and photos from every trustee for every purchase.

 

[Graham]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

How do you fingerprint a trust?

 

[Stalking_Rhino]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do you fingerprint a trust? </div></div>

Persons of the Trust/LLC/Corp will be required to all be fingerprinted and photographed and submitted with each application submitted.

 

[Graham]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: StalkingRhino</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do you fingerprint a trust? </div></div>Persons of the Trust/LLC/Corp will be required to all be fingerprinted and photographed and submitted with each application submitted. </div></div>I don't get it: And then what if you change the trustee(s)?

 

[Stalking_Rhino]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: StalkingRhino</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">How do you fingerprint a trust? </div></div>Persons of the Trust/LLC/Corp will be required to all be fingerprinted and photographed and submitted with each application submitted. </div></div>I don't get it: And then what if you change the trustee(s)? </div></div>

That is being dealt with as well. There are last time I heard 3 different options they are considering for that. Will see what they decide on.

 

[0311@LAR]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

Could you elaborate on the three different options?

 

[Stalking_Rhino]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: 0311@lar</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Could you elaborate on the three different options? </div></div>

Unfortunately not at this time, I was given the information in confidence.

Can put this much out though, they are very aware of the guys that buy stuff and swap trustees like baseball cards and know the other schemes owners use to evade taxes, these would all be eliminated. No more NFA clubs in the future.

 

[0311@LAR]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

The only reason I went with a trust was because my Sheriff will not sign the forms. Even if they change it to where people in the trust have to be vetted, I will probably continue to use my trust because it is just my wife and I, in the trust. So it should not cause to much trouble for us.

I read in another forum that the ATF basically had it out for trusts for the reasons described here. They can not vett people in the trust, and there is nothing from stopping you from adding 50 trustees who would have access to your NFA stuff. More or less, they do not know who has access to what. Especially afte the stamp is approved.

If this does happen ,the thing that bugs me most is the forwarding of info to the Sheriff. My sheriff has pretty much said normal people don't need this stuff. Now he will know who has what. Although removal of the CLEO sign off will open it up to a lot of people who did not want to bother with NFA due to all the hoops you had to jump through.

 

[poison123]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Arbiter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Charger442</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am against any further gathering of information being imposed for firearms ownership, Class III or not. Period. </div></div>


totally different debate Charger...

I personally think the NFA, and the GCA 68, and the ban on MG from 86 are all unconstitutional... but... AS LONG as they stand, I don't think a felon should be able to purchase an NFA item on a trust.... and that's literally how it is right now

as it is right now, when I sell a NFA item on a trust... the trust and a form 4 is filled out, no fingerprints, photo, CLEO signature... then it's all sent to the ATF w/ a $200 check and a certificate of compliance stating that the person signing the forms is a US citizen... no way to really even check the person filling out the forms, much less any trustees...

then when it's approved, a trustee comes to pick it up.. a 4473 is filled out, but no NICS check is done... again, no background check on any trustee is ever done...

then at any time another trustee can be added... again w/ no background check...

</div></div>

If they wanted to close the "loophole" and keep things simple, all they needed to do is adopt Florida's policy of mandating 4473s for NFA sales to trusts and corporations.

It's simple, it doesn't add any further complexity at the Federal level, and it doesn't give the government any more data than they already have from the last time your wallet got sucked into the local gun store.

When a completed Form 4 comes back from ATF, I have the buyer complete a 4473 and I run their background check. It comes back, they take the NFA item, all is well. Their legal status is verified, NFA Branch has no direct involvement, and everyone is happy.

This proposal, on the other hand, is just ATF's way of forcibly dissuading anyone from using trusts to purchase NFA items. As a dealer, I'll see a significant drop in sales if trust holders must get fingerprints and photos from every trustee for every purchase. </div></div>


Funny I thought filling out a 4473 at time of pickup was a requirement. I've always had to do it when I've picked up my stamp toys.

 

[0311@LAR]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

Stalking Rhino, it just hit me. You are SRI on silencertalk. I knew I had seen this info somewhere else. Yea, I am a little slow on the uptake at times, lol.

 

[Stalking_Rhino]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Poison123</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Arbiter</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Charger442</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am against any further gathering of information being imposed for firearms ownership, Class III or not. Period. </div></div>


totally different debate Charger...

I personally think the NFA, and the GCA 68, and the ban on MG from 86 are all unconstitutional... but... AS LONG as they stand, I don't think a felon should be able to purchase an NFA item on a trust.... and that's literally how it is right now

as it is right now, when I sell a NFA item on a trust... the trust and a form 4 is filled out, no fingerprints, photo, CLEO signature... then it's all sent to the ATF w/ a $200 check and a certificate of compliance stating that the person signing the forms is a US citizen... no way to really even check the person filling out the forms, much less any trustees...

then when it's approved, a trustee comes to pick it up.. a 4473 is filled out, but no NICS check is done... again, no background check on any trustee is ever done...

then at any time another trustee can be added... again w/ no background check...

</div></div>

If they wanted to close the "loophole" and keep things simple, all they needed to do is adopt Florida's policy of mandating 4473s for NFA sales to trusts and corporations.

It's simple, it doesn't add any further complexity at the Federal level, and it doesn't give the government any more data than they already have from the last time your wallet got sucked into the local gun store.

When a completed Form 4 comes back from ATF, I have the buyer complete a 4473 and I run their background check. It comes back, they take the NFA item, all is well. Their legal status is verified, NFA Branch has no direct involvement, and everyone is happy.

This proposal, on the other hand, is just ATF's way of forcibly dissuading anyone from using trusts to purchase NFA items. As a dealer, I'll see a significant drop in sales if trust holders must get fingerprints and photos from every trustee for every purchase. </div></div>


Funny I thought filling out a 4473 at time of pickup was a requirement. I've always had to do it when I've picked up my stamp toys. </div></div>

Filling out the 4473 IS a requirement, it is how the SOT gets the item off their books!

 

[mavrick10_2000]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: rmfield</div><div class="ubbcode-body">While I oppose this, the Feds already have my fingerprints and several photos from various CCW requirements in the past. It is the CLEO sign-off requirement for individuals that I have the biggest problem with.

For me, there are a lot of reasons to use a trust for NFA items, but avoiding fingerprints and photos doesn't rank very high at this point. </div></div>

They have your prints and all biometric data every year you renew your drivers license any time they want it.

So providing a legible copy of state issued drivers license with a notary seal should be sufficient.

 

[Swift]

Re: ALERT: Fingerprint / photo reqs for trusts/corps!

I don't necessarily mind that they're closing loopholes but it's just another example of law abiding gun owners being asked to give more. Give give give. Are THEY ever gonna give? Digitize the NFA process? Of course not, cuz that's in the people's best interest. They pick and choose the loopholes they want to close, and they exploit loopholes that serve their benefit. Sidestepping Congress to pass legislation, most would call that a loophole, yet how often is it used for OUR benefit? How often are criminals put back on the streets because of loopholes in the laws?

Our government isn't stupid, they know they can piggyback the AWB into the NFA and intertwine all this legislation.
It's just another domino in the seemingly endless fight to preserve our basic rights.