Suppressors denials using a quicken trust

#51
Re: denials using a quicken trust

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: doc awesome</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'd imagine that if it was true, the ATF examiner didn't catch the mistake on the trust the first time but caught it the second go around and had to go back. If it was an invalid trust when the stamp was first approved the owner would be breaking the law because the trust is invalid and can't own the can.

Either way, you have more insight into the ATF NFA process so everyone should take your word over mine. I was just posting that I've only maybe heard it happen once, and that's a big maybe. </div></div>

Examiners DO NOT review Trusts. Lawyers do, and then signoff on the Trust as valid or not.
 
#53
Re: denials using a quicken trust

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: S&J Refinishing</div><div class="ubbcode-body">www.nfaguntrustkit.com
Should be up and running in about 30days..
Check it out..
Has and continues to be approved! </div></div>

$239?
eek.gif
 
#54
300zero said:
Quicken works! I can get a signature. Instead I use my Quicken trust to get my NFA items approved. I have not been denied. I think you should stop reading what people put on the internet and do things for yourself.
Click to expand...

It's not about denials. It's about the broad language involved in Quicken Trust. Why leave the issue behind when your family tries to inhereit the items in the trust? The NFA can deny them transfer at that point, deeming the trust invalid. Quicken is not firearms specific, eventually the NFA will deem them invalid as they are getting more strict with trusts now. That is a fact as they put out a notification on it.
 
#55
Stalking_Rhino said:
Originally Posted By: doc awesome
I'd imagine that if it was true, the ATF examiner didn't catch the mistake on the trust the first time but caught it the second go around and had to go back. If it was an invalid trust when the stamp was first approved the owner would be breaking the law because the trust is invalid and can't own the can.

Either way, you have more insight into the ATF NFA process so everyone should take your word over mine. I was just posting that I've only maybe heard it happen once, and that's a big maybe.



Examiners DO NOT review Trusts. Lawyers do, and then signoff on the Trust as valid or not.
Click to expand...

Actually that is not true. The examiners check to see if the paperwork is in order and they have the option of turning the trust over to their law department for further inspection. From there they can say if the trust passes their requirement federally and with your state laws.
 
#56
Just an FYI there is no "NFA" class in law school, just trusts and estates. Anything any lawyer knows about NFA is stuff they learned by researching, which believe it or not anyone can do without voodoo magic. I get sick to my stomach when I see people charging $300+ for something as simple as a trust which takes about 15 minutes to make. And also no lawyer is going to go to court for you because you paid $300 for a trust, you are going to pay exponentially more than that irregardless of whether or not they did your trust.
 
#59
I'd heard enough of this eternal argument so I took my Quicken trust to my cousin, a lawyer who specializes in such instruments, he said it was rock solid.

He deals in trusts, estates and such things the go into the millions of dollars, so his word is good enough for me. (State of Georgia)
 
#60
KY I've had an examiner at the ATF even tell me flat out that there's no need for ATF specific language nor are they going to abolish the use of one anytime soon. And why is it man that no one has come forward with a specific instance where someone has been denied an inherited can/gun based upon a Quicken Trust other than random stories published by Attorneys selling trusts with little to no details in order to verify the authenticity? It's great if you have the cash and want the piece of mind, but frankly dude there's no evidence to support that ATF language is needed within the trust. All the ATF can do is create policy regarding required language or remove the trust option all together. Either route will be easily researchable by any Attorney.
 
#61
cheshier2 said:
www.nfaguntrustkit.com
Should be up and running in about 30days..
Check it out..
Has and continues to be approved!
Click to expand...

Since we're rehashing this...

Show me an actual and verifiable instance of a properly executed Quicken Trust being denied. And don't feed me some bullshit about you being an FFL/SOT and seeing it all the time blah blah blah since you're repping a service which says "Faster ATF approval time" which I'll call bullshit on right now.
 
#62
This is first hand experience, me. The third suppressor going on my quicken trust was delayed because "the trust is weak", no more elaboration was givin. I had a trust drawn up by a lawyer that cost me $250 and that made BATFE happy. There was no indication they even considered doing anything about the cans on the original trust. My dealer told me that BATFE is looking at trusts a lot closer and even small errors were kicking them back for correction. This suppressor was a problem from the get go, took several months to get it in to the dealer, letter back about trust, second letter about signature matching trust name, and finally third letter because no length was givin on form which as it turns out isn't required. It took 15 months from order to delivery for this one.
 
#63
Bronco said:
This is first hand experience, me. The third suppressor going on my quicken trust was delayed because "the trust is weak", no more elaboration was givin. I had a trust drawn up by a lawyer that cost me $250 and that made BATFE happy. There was no indication they even considered doing anything about the cans on the original trust. My dealer told me that BATFE is looking at trusts a lot closer and even small errors were kicking them back for correction. This suppressor was a problem from the get go, took several months to get it in to the dealer, letter back about trust, second letter about signature matching trust name, and finally third letter because no length was givin on form which as it turns out isn't required. It took 15 months from order to delivery for this one.
Click to expand...
When was this?
 
#64
Bronco said:
This is first hand experience, me. The third suppressor going on my quicken trust was delayed because "the trust is weak", no more elaboration was givin. I had a trust drawn up by a lawyer that cost me $250 and that made BATFE happy. There was no indication they even considered doing anything about the cans on the original trust. My dealer told me that BATFE is looking at trusts a lot closer and even small errors were kicking them back for correction. This suppressor was a problem from the get go, took several months to get it in to the dealer, letter back about trust, second letter about signature matching trust name, and finally third letter because no length was givin on form which as it turns out isn't required. It took 15 months from order to delivery for this one.
Click to expand...

springer01 said:
When was this?
Click to expand...


I would like to know this as well,. The stamp came back for my 45 suppressor right before I left for this deployment (this last winter) and like the rest of my stuff was done via trust. If you don't mind please tell us what you changed to make the Alphabet boys (and girls) happy?


The only time I was ever given any static over a NFA item was by a Game Warden at a state game lands range where I was zeroing a SBR. (AK-105 clone) Everything was fine until he noticed what I was shooting, I suppose he figured it was a machine gun and was a bit unnerved by the idea of being on a mountain all alone facing that. long story short he left with a better understanding of NFA items,. and a smile.


All of my NFA stuff is in trust and I've never had any issues because of who or what software made the trust, HOWEVER I did get delayed once because I forgot to include the one certification form with my packet.
 
#66
Bronco said:
Ordered suppressor Dec. of 2011, suppressor came in and form 4 sent off July 2012, 1st. problem letter feb. 2013, 2nd. problem letter 3 weeks later, 3rd. letter 2 weeks later, then the stamp in march of 2013.
Click to expand...
Crazy, I've had two NFA items come through in that same time frame on a Quicken Trust and have 3 going through now should be approved in June. Only issues I have ever had is my own stupid mistake on an SBR form 1 that I was actually called by the Examiners assistant and told what/how to correct. I corrected it and a week later had my stamp.
 
#67
_Nick_ said:
KY I've had an examiner at the ATF even tell me flat out that there's no need for ATF specific language nor are they going to abolish the use of one anytime soon. And why is it man that no one has come forward with a specific instance where someone has been denied an inherited can/gun based upon a Quicken Trust other than random stories published by Attorneys selling trusts with little to no details in order to verify the authenticity? It's great if you have the cash and want the piece of mind, but frankly dude there's no evidence to support that ATF language is needed within the trust. All the ATF can do is create policy regarding required language or remove the trust option all together. Either route will be easily researchable by any Attorney.
Click to expand...

I call bullshit on that. You can talk to 3 different examiners at the NFA and get 4 different answers. Do not take their word for gospel. What you all do with your trusts is your preference. But I will not jeopardize my items on a "well it will get you by" type trust. I want comfort in knowing a commited law office took the time and did the research on the subject. If I need to pay 300-600 dollars now, it sure as hell beats the alternative of issues down the road when Im dead and gone. I dont want my kids dealing with the ATF/NFA on all my class 3 items that I left behind.
 
#68
KYS338 said:
I call bullshit on that. You can talk to 3 different examiners at the NFA and get 4 different answers. Do not take their word for gospel. What you all do with your trusts is your preference. But I will not jeopardize my items on a "well it will get you by" type trust. I want comfort in knowing a commited law office took the time and did the research on the subject. If I need to pay 300-600 dollars now, it sure as hell beats the alternative of issues down the road when Im dead and gone. I dont want my kids dealing with the ATF/NFA on all my class 3 items that I left behind.
Click to expand...

Why would I lie about that dude? I already understand your feelings about it and as I've said before if we're dealing with a trust that will involve minors I agree with you 100%, but if it's just a spouse I still think a Quicken works just fine. And the Quicken docs are reviewed by an entire team of Attorneys in each State prior to being made accessible to consumers.
 
#69
_Nick_ said:
Why would I lie about that dude? I already understand your feelings about it and as I've said before if we're dealing with a trust that will involve minors I agree with you 100%, but if it's just a spouse I still think a Quicken works just fine. And the Quicken docs are reviewed by an entire team of Attorneys in each State prior to being made accessible to consumers.
Click to expand...

My trust includes both my boys and they are minors now and Quicken handled it just fine. Not sure how much more detailed a lawyer could get vs what my Quicken trust states about my boys and how they will receive the items in my trust, but it can't be much different I would suppose. Anything can be nit picked apart and be made to look wrong especially when a government agency is involved, hell they can make anything that's right now wrong down the road if they choose to.
 
#70
mine was $325. for me, it was $325 of piece-of-mind, spread over 5 items. the quicken one is 5 pages when i checked it out. my fully executed one is 25 + schedule A for items. you dont have to get one, but if you want to, the option is there. its really 100% up to you. an attorney prepared one will be sure to satisfy the requirements of your specific state.

thats really about it.
 
#71
I have had to fix several quicken trusts that were invalid. Some the nfa branch caught on the first time and some had multiple transfers when the atf decided they were invalid.

I have friends who have used quicken trusts with success.

The atf only requires the trust be valid. Having the nfa language serves a purpose. But does not make the trust "valid" in the legal sense.

I would like to know which Texas lawyer the op was referring to.

Guys . . You pays your money and makes your choice.
 
Last edited:
#72
springer01 said:
My trust includes both my boys and they are minors now and Quicken handled it just fine. Not sure how much more detailed a lawyer could get vs what my Quicken trust states about my boys and how they will receive the items in my trust, but it can't be much different I would suppose. Anything can be nit picked apart and be made to look wrong especially when a government agency is involved, hell they can make anything that's right now wrong down the road if they choose to.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way. Where was that Quicken trust wrote? Was it in your state? Did you supply all of your state requirements to Quicken and then print it out?
Quicken is written very broadly and you fill in your basic information. There is nothing basic about this process, you are in possession of federally regulated items.
I would rather be specific and pay the money now then be found with an invalid trust that will certainly cause you a lot more issues then $600.00 spent earlier.
 
#74
TexasGunTrustLawyer said:
I have had to fix several quicken trusts that were invalid. Some the nfa branch caught on the first time and some had multiple transfers when the atf decided they were invalid.

I have friends who have used quicken trusts with success.

The atf only requires the trust be valid. Having the nfa language serves a purpose. But does not make the trust "valid" in the legal sense.

I would like to know which Texas lawyer the op was referring to.

Guys . . You pays your money and makes your choice.
Click to expand...

You'll have to forgive my cynicism being that you're an Attorney trying to sell a product. Quicken loans are not a generic 1 trust fits all 50 states. Depending on the State you designate will determine the Trust they provide. They also have a team of Attorneys that review them frequently to ensure they're within State compliance for each State. You can add all the NFA language you want, but in the end unless you're dealing with an NFA item passing to a minor the extra language being thrown in is often IMO nothing more than a placebo for your client.

You Attorneys selling NFA Trusts throw out stories all the times of how you've had to save the day and fix things but you never cite specifics. So... Tell us exactly what the ATF determined was making a trust invalid on a Quicken trust since I don't believe for a second there's a Legal Dept reviewing every single Trust as insinuated earlier? You should be able to detail it without breaking client attorney privilege. And you can also spare us the usual line I hear from many of you "If I told you I'd be giving away my services blah blah blah" because that's an avoidance technique.
 
#75
KYS338 said:
Think of it this way. Where was that Quicken trust wrote? Was it in your state? Did you supply all of your state requirements to Quicken and then print it out?
Quicken is written very broadly and you fill in your basic information. There is nothing basic about this process, you are in possession of federally regulated items.
I would rather be specific and pay the money now then be found with an invalid trust that will certainly cause you a lot more issues then $600.00 spent earlier.
Click to expand...

That's not correct KY. Quicken hires Attorneys in each State which yearly review the documents to determine if they are valid and should legislation arise that would invalidate they update Quicken. I know you see a fill in the blank section, but the resulting document given is based upon your location given.
 
#76
_Nick_ said:
That's not correct KY. Quicken hires Attorneys in each State which yearly review the documents to determine if they are valid and should legislation arise that would invalidate they update Quicken. I know you see a fill in the blank section, but the resulting document given is based upon your location given.
Click to expand...

Cite your information then please. I want to read where Quicken claims they tailer each trust per each state. The one I used back in early 2004 wasnt even close to state regs and NEVER asked what state I lived in when I purchased the program.
 
#77
KYS338 said:
Cite your information then please. I want to read where Quicken claims they tailer each trust per each state. The one I used back in early 2004 wasnt even close to state regs and NEVER asked what state I lived in when I purchased the program.
Click to expand...

From one of the Attorneys here in Washington that reviews for Quicken. It's also illegal to draft a legal document in a State for someone unless you're licensed in that State. The legal liability would be astronomical if they didn't. I don't have an actual written citation to provide you or I would.
 
#78
_Nick_ said:
You'll have to forgive my cynicism being that you're an Attorney trying to sell a product.
Click to expand...

Your cycnicism does not change the facts

Quicken loans are not a generic 1 trust fits all 50 states. Depending on the State you designate will determine the Trust they provide. They also have a team of Attorneys that review them frequently to ensure they're within State compliance for each State. You can add all the NFA language you want, but in the end unless you're dealing with an NFA item passing to a minor the extra language being thrown in is often IMO nothing more than a placebo for your client.
Click to expand...

I'm just dealing with Texas


You Attorneys selling NFA Trusts throw out stories all the times of how you've had to save the day and fix things but you never cite specifics.
Click to expand...

Again, facts are facts. I cited the numbers.

So... Tell us exactly what the ATF determined was making a trust invalid on a Quicken trust since I don't believe for a second there's a Legal Dept reviewing every single Trust as insinuated earlier? You should be able to detail it without breaking client attorney privilege. And you can also spare us the usual line I hear from many of you "If I told you I'd be giving away my services blah blah blah" because that's an avoidance technique.
Click to expand...

As I said, the trusts I fixed were invalid. They were done by the client and wre invalid as formed. Your smart, you figure out what was wrong.
 
#80
TexasGunTrustLawyer said:
Your cycnicism does not change the facts



I'm just dealing with Texas




Again, facts are facts. I cited the numbers.



As I said, the trusts I fixed were invalid. They were done by the client and wre invalid as formed. Your smart, you figure out what was wrong.
Click to expand...

Lol... You cited nothing except your story that you've allegedly had to fix Quicken trusts that were allegedly invalid and it just so happens you sell NFA trusts. Like always you guys never have anything solid to point out. Just a sales pitch. It's a good thing you're not a trial lawyer because you're not very convincing.
 
#81
_Nick_ said:
Lol... You cited nothing except your story that you've allegedly had to fix Quicken trusts that were allegedly invalid and it just so happens you sell NFA trusts. Like always you guys never have anything solid to point out. Just a sales pitch. It's a good thing you're not a trial lawyer because you're not very convincing.
Click to expand...

Figure it out yourself. You sound like your pretty smart.

Like I said. I have friends that have used them successfully and I obviously don't use scare tactics to get people to hire me to prepare a trust for them.

I am not going to argue with you. You pays your money and makes your choice.

My clients have my cell phone if they have a question or emergency. Who are you going to call at quicken?
 
#83
Bronco said:
This is first hand experience, me. The third suppressor going on my quicken trust was delayed because "the trust is weak", no more elaboration was givin. I had a trust drawn up by a lawyer that cost me $250 and that made BATFE happy. .
Click to expand...

Did you see the rejection/error letter?

I have people call me about issues and its important to see the rejection letter as that often clarifies things.

This doesn't not sound like normal language from an atf rejection letter.

A trust is either valid or not. The rejection letter should state that the trust is "invalid" or is missing pages or one thing along those lines.
 
#84
TexasGunTrustLawyer said:
Figure it out yourself. You sound like your pretty smart.

Like I said. I have friends that have used them successfully and I obviously don't use scare tactics to get people to hire me to prepare a trust for them.

I am not going to argue with you. You pays your money and makes your choice.

My clients have my cell phone if they have a question or emergency. Who are you going to call at quicken?
Click to expand...

You'd think with being an Attorney your grammar would be better. Please tell me you're typing responses from a smart phone or tablet... lol

And in an emergency I call either my former boss and friend who's an Attorney, his wife who's also an Attorney, another friend who's an Attorney, or any one of the dozen clients I've had that are all successful Attorneys. Then there's the 1/2 dozen or more I know through other acquaintances. I will give you this, I haven't seen you throw out as much of the scare tactic bullshit as some other "NFA" Attorneys who pop up. I'd still like some clarification from someone someday as to these alleged incidents and exactly how the trust was invalid.
 
#86
_Nick_ said:
You'd think with being an Attorney your grammar would be better. Please tell me you're typing responses from a smart phone or tablet... lol

And in an emergency I call either my former boss and friend who's an Attorney, his wife who's also an Attorney, another friend who's an Attorney, or any one of the dozen clients I've had that are all successful Attorneys. Then there's the 1/2 dozen or more I know through other acquaintances.
Click to expand...

So mr. DIY lawyer wanabe has 20 attorneys on call.

My point.

And again, where have I ever used scare tactics?
 
#88
TexasGunTrustLawyer said:
Did you see the rejection/error letter?

I have people call me about issues and its important to see the rejection letter as that often clarifies things.

This doesn't not sound like normal language from an atf rejection letter.

A trust is either valid or not. The rejection letter should state that the trust is "invalid" or is missing pages or one thing along those lines.
Click to expand...


Yes I did see the letter, and the quote is accurate as best I can recall, I'm sure my dealer kept it so I'll get a copy and site from it directly. It will be next week before I can get it. I agree that the language is vague and I thought at the time, what the hell does that mean? ATF did tell my dealer they were sorry for the third rejection letter as in fact length is not required. Blamed it on the new help, didn't like having an empty answer box.
 
Last edited:
#89
Thanks. I am always interested in trust rejection letters especially when they are odd like that.

Went to a shop to review several rejections on llcs and trusts. All where form 4 issues and had nothing to do with trusts. Even though these appeared to be quicken or legal zoom.

The point is, a trust is either valid or it isn't. Whether it's one of mine or a quicken trust.
 
#91
TexasGunTrustLawyer said:
So mr. DIY lawyer wanabe has 20 attorneys on call.

My point.

And again, where have I ever used scare tactics?
Click to expand...

Your Ipad must be omitting statements which is affecting your reading comprehension... let me finish the entirety of the quote you cited and perhaps is will answer your question regarding scare tactics...

_Nick_ said:
I will give you this, I haven't seen you throw out as much of the scare tactic bullshit as some other "NFA" Attorneys who pop up. I'd still like some clarification from someone someday as to these alleged incidents and exactly how the trust was invalid.
Click to expand...

"haven't" i.e. the contraction of "have NOT" ergo I was agreeing with you in that regard.

Add: I never professed to being an Attorney, so before you start commenting as to my alleged insults you might reflect on your own comments first.
 
Last edited:
#93
_Nick_ said:
Don't blame me that your Ipad doesn't know the difference between "your" and "you're" lol... And you can relax cause not that you've noticed but when I want to insult someone it's much more... blunt. ;)
Click to expand...

Now, now Nick........ if we are going to start calling out poor grammar and such, let us reflect on the fact that "lol" is not in the dictionary.
 
#94
_Nick_ said:
But fact is in all these discussions on multiple boards not one single person can cite an event where someone's Quicken trust was called into question and the ATF seized the item and/or had the person imprisoned.
Click to expand...
I hear this repeated a lot. Even if it was true, then so what? Whether enforcement action has been taken against someone else is not relevant to the validity of your trust. I find it ironic that so many people here who preach not to trust law enforcement are the vey same ones who post and re-post the opinion that thinking things through doesn't matter because the authorities don't care.

Killer Spade 13 said:
Guys, consider this . . .

Do you REALLY think that Quicken would put something on the market for which they could be held legally responsible if it was defective in any way.

There is money involved. Big companies don't like to lose money. Do you SERIOUSLY think they'd just willy-nilly put some form out for public use which does not hold up to legal scrutiny?
Click to expand...
Danger, danger Wil Robinson... Quicken has no on-going responsibility.

Either a trust is valid; or it isn't. The trust must also be valid according State law.

...And the amateur Constitutional lawyers posting on this Thread have no clue how or even whether the Equal Protection Clause applies.
 
Last edited:
#96
Graham said:
I hear this repeated a lot. Even if it was true, then so what? Whether enforcement action has been taken against someone else is not relevant to the validity of your trust. I find it ironic that so many people here who preach not to trust law enforcement are the vey same ones who post and re-post the opinion that thinking things through doesn't matter because the authorities don't care.
Click to expand...

I was basing it upon the dramatizations on-line with some "NFA" Attorneys Graham. I'm simply calling out what I think is bullshit used to try and scare people into getting some specialized trust when a basic will do (And I'm not referring to you TexasGunTrustLawyer).

I'm assuming the ironic part has to do with someone else because I've never said anything in regards to not trusting LE or assuming they don't care. As a matter of fact I stand up for LEO and Attorneys quite a bit around here which if anything doesn't win me any friends, not that I've ever been worried about that :D
 
#97
Nick, I wasn't talking about you, specifically.

I've never known trust attorneys to have to 'scare' people into giving them their business. People who accuse NFA attorneys of trying to scare people are overestimating how much the attorneys care whether their potential clients are scared, or simply prudent. Trust attorneys are paid to think ahead and to anticipate problems. They are in the risk management business. The plethora of fools in the world is not their concern.
 
#98
Graham said:
Nick, I wasn't talking about you, specifically.

I've never known good trust attorneys to have to 'scare' people into giving them their business. People who accuse NFA attorneys of trying to scare people are overestimating how much the good attorneys care whether their potential clients are scared, or simply prudent. Good Trust attorneys are paid to think ahead and to anticipate problems. They are in the risk management business. The plethora of fools in the world is not their concern.
Click to expand...

Fixed for you...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

E
My redneck SPR story
Replies
26
Views
714
ut755ln
ut755ln
T
Private party NFA transfers
Replies
24
Views
2K
sgtsmmiii
sgtsmmiii
F
Ragnarok Sniper Challenge AAR
Replies
1
Views
291
FatBoy
F
F
2024 TENET Midnight Madness Night Run and Gun. My Journey to The Finish Line.
Replies
17
Views
793
Burdy
Burdy
catalyst81
Suppressors Trust question
Replies
13
Views
777
cmoore806
cmoore806
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts