NFA Storage.

[BWE Firearms]

Is it possible to get an officail ruling from ATF on storage of NFA items. If you beleive what you read on the internet your NFA items have to be locked up so no one but the person named on the Form 1 or 4 can get to them. A lot of people beleive that if their wife or kids are in the same house with their NFA items that are not locked up their wife and kids are in illegal possesion of an NFA item and ATF will come kick their door in and arest them. Every time I have asked ATF they tell me their is no regualtions for the storage of NFA items and as long as my wife and kids don't leave the property with them there is no problems. It would be nice to have a ruling from ATF to show potential customers to stop this myth.

[ExecDirector]

I'm going to respectfully disagree with the need for a "ruling." Asking for a legal review has the potential open up a Pandora's Box of issues that really aren't needed. If a person takes reasonable means to secure the weapons and the intent is to keep them secure, then there is no issue. Keep in mind the "three C's" of care, custody and control and you will be fine. The only time that an issue arises is when an illegal transfer takes place. In the NFA Handbook transfer is broadly defined to include "selling, assigning, pledging, leasing, loaning, giving away, or otherwise disposing of and NFA firearm." If a member of the family takes the gun out of the house, the registrant has lost care, custody and control.

[sillycon]

Alternatively, those individuals could setup a trust and include non-prohibited persons in the household in the trust - thus eliminating much of the issue all together.

[300LW]

In a community property state such as Texas wouldn't your spouse be co-owner of any NFA item acquired during the marraige, and therefore able to possess it?

[sillycon]

In a community property state such as Texas wouldn't your spouse be co-owner of any NFA item acquired during the marraige, and therefore able to possess it?

It's a potential legal argument, perhaps, however we're dealing with federal law which trumps state law. Unless federal law agrees with the community property situation; and even still the NFA laws may not be written in such a way to recognize it. "Community property" also doesn't mean that title rights are interchangeable between the two individuals either, which is really what NFA is about -- who has title to/responsibility for the item in question.

Were someone to argue the above, it is likely to end up being settled as case law which currently (to my knowledge) has no precedent in this area.

Personally, I wouldn't want to be a test-case. My vote is for "get a trust and don't worry about it".

[ExecDirector]

There is a distinct difference between having an interest in something and being the lawful transferee. Yes, in community property states a spouse can have a fiduciary stake in an item acquired during the marriage. But that does not mean that he/she can possess the item without following the appropriate federal registration and ownership process.

[300LW]

Not surprised. It just seems odd that a person can own something but not possess it.

Thanks for the replies, gents.