Trust Changes Ahead...

[ExecDirector]

As we noted awhile back... The White House and DOJ/ATF are moving toward a requirement that any entity such as a corporation or trust designate one or more responsible persons, with fingerprint/photo requirements, in order to transfer NFA weapons. This is a work in progress but is getting closer to reality. More information can be found in this article (http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pending-regs/318133-white-house-reviewing-draft-gun-control-rule).

[RenegadeConservative]

...It is illegal in the United States for civilians to purchase machine guns made after 1986.

The trusts can be formed relatively easily by a lawyer and cost a few hundred dollars. Aside from the ease of securing restricted weapons, they also assure that gun owners’ firearms will be transferred to their loved ones when they die without going through bureaucratic channels...

Gee. I didn't know Corporations and Trusts could possess post-86 machine guns.

[Shermanator]

That article had a lot of bad information on it and also didn't say anything about the removal of the CLEO sign off requirement. So maybe that's a good thing it was written poorly. For entertainment purposes read all the comments to the article LOL

[sillycon]

As we noted awhile back... The White House and DOJ/ATF are moving toward a requirement that any entity such as a corporation or trust designate one or more responsible persons, with fingerprint/photo requirements, in order to transfer NFA weapons. This is a work in progress but is getting closer to reality. More information can be found in this article (http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pending-regs/318133-white-house-reviewing-draft-gun-control-rule).

Very unfortunate. What do you think the chances are of us getting lucky and having this change get hung up in red tape and dying as it should?

[jason8844]

Very interesting. This is why when I started buying and making NFA weapons I did all my Form 1s and 4s as an individual. I am just hoping to get all my supressors and SBR's registered before they try and pull another Hughes Amendment deal and shut the registry down on those too.

[ExecDirector]

The article was worded poorly and a lot of the Internet blog comments on various sites are equally disjointed. Whether any of this will actually happen is still anyone's guess. This issue, the CLEO signature elimination and a few other items were announced last year in a preliminary announcement (that we reported) of a possibility of an NPRM. This stuff has to be published, at some point, in the Federal Register and opened for public commentary. Eliminating the CLEO thing for everyone is a good thing, but it is NOT necessarily tied to this trust/corp effort.

Prohibited persons have absolutely gained possession of NFA items via trusts and corps. ATF/DOJ are trying to figure out a way to shore up that possibility.

[RenegadeConservative]

Prohibited persons have absolutely gained possession of NFA items via trusts and corps. ATF/DOJ are trying to figure out a way to shore up that possibility.

The government has failed to stop criminals from obtaining Title I firearms. What makes them think they can stop them from obtaining NFA items?

Instead of harassing those of us who are law abiding, perhaps they should start punishing the criminals in earnest. How many times has the government pursued charges on prohibited persons who attempt to purchase firearms via a Form 4473? Not very many, that's for sure.

[jason8844]

The government has failed to stop criminals from obtaining Title I firearms. What makes them think they can stop them from obtaining NFA items?

Instead of harassing those of us who are law abiding, perhaps they should start punishing the criminals in earnest. How many times has the government pursued charges on prohibited persons who attempt to purchase firearms via a Form 4473? Not very many, that's for sure.

Well said! A criminal can steal a shotgun, go to the hardware store, buy a hacksaw and there you go... they have a SBS. No law will stop a criminal from doing this. Only us law abiding citizens are willing to pay a tax to modify our already legally owned private property.

This article was written to make it sound like a "sawed-off" shot gun was some kind of mystical device that no one can make themselves in their garage. It also kind of made it sound like we can walk into a gun show and walk out with a civilian transferable machine gun the same day, without a background check. LOL

[jason8844]

Sorry guys and gals with trusts...

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-obama-offers-new-gun-control-steps

[ExecDirector]

NO! It is not done...

There are a lot of folks running around doing the Chicken Little dance. The sky is not falling today! There is a bill that has been proposed that would dramatically increase excise taxes on guns and ammo and increase NFA fees. IT IS JUST A BILL AND IS NOT THE LAW OF THE LAND. The bill is not expected to gain traction.

There is also a lot of consternation over today's Presidential executive action item regarding trusts and corps. We have been keeping you up to date on this. It STILL must go through the official rule making process in order to become real. As soon as it hits the Federal Register, everyone MUST voice their opposition. Otherwise, fingerprints and photos will be required for responsible persons, however that gets defined.

These are Executive ACTIONS, not orders. It is the President saying "hey, I wanna get this done." It is not circumventing the rule making process.

[pnhurst]

Well according to the proposed Rule Making issued by Eric Holder yesterday, it sure looks like NFATCA screwed NFA owners pretty bad (The Rule Making Doc states NFATCA petitioned for the changes). CLEO certification required for all legal entities, prints/photos for all responsible persons, etc.

This is going to reduce a lot of NFA sales and probably put a lot of small NFA MFGs out of business.

I am really in shock right now by what I read. This is awful.

[ExecDirector]

That's one take. We started the petition to get the discussion started. They chose to not include us in the discussion. Yes, it makes us look bad. We knew that they were concerned about trusts and corps and suggested a mechanism for principals of those entities. They chose to expand it to all responsible persons and then ignore the CLEO elimination. We are investigating our options right now.

[pnhurst]

I think the worst part is it is very tough to derail a Rule Change. These things are almost always done deals. Comment periods are usually just formalities.

[ExecDirector]

Not necessarily. We are exploring legal expedients. It sucks that ATF yanked the rug out without even talking to us.

[Shermanator]

So from reading some of the backround information to the proposed rule cchange here: https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/inside-atf/2013/082913-wash-machine-guns-destructive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf

To me it seems like the ATF is not going to request the removal of the CLEO signature, they are only going to have the language of it modified to remove this from the CLEO statement "I have no information indicating that the ... will use the firearm or device described.... for other than lawful purposes"

The ATF is thinking that is why most CLEO will not sign off. However reality is CLEO mostly refuse to sign for political reasons or personal reasons.

Futhermore that document says that NFATCA is the one that requested the re-evaluation of those using Trust and Corporations.

[ExecDirector]

The last statement is a bending of the truth. We will have an official statement coming out soon. Suffice to say, the Executive Branch appears to have derailed the CLEO signature process.

[Shermanator]

Could you post a the petition that was filed by NFATCA to the ATF?

[RenegadeConservative]

If you deal with the Devil, you're going to get burned. I don't understand why that concept is lost on some people.

[jason8844]

Amen brother. Do not think this was an oversight. Now is the time to talk to your Reps and Senators.

We also need to take the battle to the states. I believe in Alaska that Sheriffs are required by law to sign NFA forms if the applicant is not a prohibited person.

[jason8844]

Here is a link to another story about this...
http://www.examiner.com/article/nfa-firearms-collectors-group-initiated-atf-gun-trust-rule-change

I do not blame the NFATCA for this. They petitioned in good faith a proposed trade-off. This is like most compromises in Washington these days. Compromise is defined by Conservatives giving up everything and Liberals getting everything they wanted. Either way, we always get shafted.

I predict two things as this becomes closer to reality...

1. A huge rush on NFA items in the short term creating an even bigger backlog.
2. The creation of many non-registered, illegal NFA weapons in the long term.

Both are undesired.

[philcam]

The last statement is a bending of the truth. We will have an official statement coming out soon. Suffice to say, the Executive Branch appears to have derailed the CLEO signature process.

While I do not doubt the NFATCA had only good intentions when petitioning the BATF, I've got to ask, what did you really think was going to happen?

Do you think an agency controlled by this Administration would make any sensible changes? Now DOJ/ATF can point to the petition NFATCA and say "See! Look! Even the gun owners think the rules needed to be changed."

[RenegadeConservative]

While I do not doubt the NFATCA had only good intentions when petitioning the BATF, I've got to ask, what did you really think was going to happen?

Do you think an agency controlled by this Administration would make any sensible changes? Now DOJ/ATF can point to the petition NFATCA and say "See! Look! Even the gun owners think the rules needed to be changed."

Somebody once said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm not trying to needlessly antagonize anybody here but you don't deal with the Devil and come out on top. There may be unintended consequences for the actions of the NFATCA. I am already seeing people that aren't happy with NFATCA. Hopefully, the organization can make their case and mend fences before we are divided into two groups. If that happens, we may as well surrender.

If the DOJ, ATF, or Administration want to do something meaningful to address gun violence, why don't they start cracking down on the people who lie on Form 4473? That is more of an issue than a felon obtaining a machine gun via a trust. Of course, I'd be lying if I said that I had any hope in this present administration doing something reasonable and logical for a change.

[jason8844]

Somebody once said that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions.

I'm not trying to needlessly antagonize anybody here but you don't deal with the Devil and come out on top. There may be unintended consequences for the actions of the NFATCA. I am already seeing people that aren't happy with NFATCA. Hopefully, the organization can make their case and mend fences before we are divided into two groups. If that happens, we may as well surrender.

If the DOJ, ATF, or Administration want to do something meaningful to address gun violence, why don't they start cracking down on the people who lie on Form 4473? That is more of an issue than a felon obtaining a machine gun via a trust. Of course, I'd be lying if I said that I had any hope in this present administration doing something reasonable and logical for a change.


We did this before in 86' when Reagan gave up machine guns for the FOPA. What did that get us? Well, no more machine guns for starters and you will still get arrested in NY for a lawfully possessed gun even if you are travelling through state without stopping and going to a jurisdiction where the firearm is legal. Compromise never gets us anything.

I also agree with you Renegade that they are not addressing gun violence at all. The NFA crime statistics bare that out. Why pay money to create a trust, pay a federal tax, fill out forms, pay $25,000 for a machine gun and wait 9 months to use it in a crime? The criminals will just use J.B. Weld to alter a Glock back plate with a piece of metal to make it full auto or use a zip tie and hold the sear down on an semi-auto AK47. The same can be said for a SBS. You really think a criminal is going to fill out a Form 1 and wait 8 months just to saw off the barrel of their shotgun? Hell no, they are going to take a hacksaw to it today and be done with it. This B.S. only hurts us law abiding citizens who are willing to comply with the law and pay taxes.

This is not about stopping crime. This is nothing more than punishing citizens they know are not political supporters of their policies and would never vote for them.

[RenegadeConservative]

This is not about stopping crime. This is nothing more than punishing citizens they know are not political supporters of their policies and would never vote for them.

I wholeheartedly agree.

[jason8844]

Well, it looks like the NRA is riding in on the white horse to help us out at least.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/8/obama-to-nix-imports,-require-fbi-checks-for-firearms-trusts-new-director-of-batfe-sworn-in.aspx

From the article -
"Along with moving against firearm importation, Obama intends to require FBI fingerprint-based background checks on the trustees and beneficiaries of corporations and trusts that have firearms. NRA is reviewing the proposed rule on this matter and will withhold comment until the review is complete."

[bluefalcon]

"BOOM! I'm sorry, did I break your concentration? I didn't mean to do that. Please, continue, you were saying something about best intentions. What's the matter? Oh, you were finished! Well, allow me to retort. What does Marsellus Wallace look like?"

The ATF and Federal Govt does not negotiate with terrorists (Democratic party views you as one because you have a gun). You were trying to negotiate with an organization that can make you buy broccoli if they got a wild hair up their anus, commerce clause you know. You're going to force a dialog? With friends like this...

[domestique]

Well, it looks like the NRA is riding in on the white horse to help us out at least.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/8/obama-to-nix-imports,-require-fbi-checks-for-firearms-trusts-new-director-of-batfe-sworn-in.aspx

From the article -
"Along with moving against firearm importation, Obama intends to require FBI fingerprint-based background checks on the trustees and beneficiaries of corporations and trusts that have firearms. NRA is reviewing the proposed rule on this matter and will withhold comment until the review is complete."


"NRA is reviewing the proposed rule on this matter and will withhold comment until the review is complete."

To me that means (like they always have) they do not care for the NFA crowd and mainly interested in the larger market of sporting hunters, and only more recently the tactical AR crowd. The NFA community will always be very small in their eyes.

Thanks NFATCA for all the hard work! Can't wait for CLEO signatures to go away..... o wait.

[jason8844]

Domestique,
I agree with your assessment that the NRA has not been compassionate about the plight of NFA collectors, however I think in this political climate they will fight for us. They will do it for nothing else than not letting liberals advance the gun control ball down the field.

[ExecDirector]

The NRA will fight with us.

[ExecDirector]

A message from NFATCA, President, John Brown:

The NFATCA began a long, arduous journey almost nine years ago. For those of you who can remember, that was when the Bush administration and ATF were working very closely with anyone in the firearms industry. We made good progress, though the wheels of government churned ever so slowly - but it was progress. Two things happened that neither the NFATCA nor I will be held accountable for. First and foremost, the majority of this country voted for Barack Obama. Second, a couple of felons figured "Wow, no background check, I am buying my NFA stuff through a trust".
Now if you want to hold the NFATCA accountable for that, then you obviously must have been a part of that majority. When faced with the second issue and the fact that ATF was contemplating no longer honoring trust transfers because of the abuse, no one at the NFATCA came up with the alternatives. We don't make government policy and we don't write legislation coming out of this administration. I can't say this any clearer. This change in policy came directly from the Executive Branch.


We simply stand up in front for your rights. I didn't joint this fight for fun, nor did I start the NFATCA for myself. Every issue, every battle, has been crafted around the fact that my five sons should have the same opportunities that I have had. I did because I believe that every American should have those same rights, regardless of what the current government says. With every uphill fight, I get hundreds of grandstanders that call me personally, block their caller ID and tell me I should be shot. I have people telling me they are dropping their membership, only to find out they never have been a member. I have people questioning my commitment or motives. Let me assure you that having been a licensed dealer for over thirty years, this effects my livelihood - not just my collection of firearms.

We will continue to battle this issue and the White House. We know that many inside ATF do not and have not agreed with this change in stance. NFATCA counsel is prepared to fight, but unlike myself, he does not work free of charge for the NFATCA. Simply stated, if you choose not to support the NFATCA, then you weaken our chances of winning the battle. If you choose not to support the cause, don't complain about the outcome. Contribute your funds or your time and voice. A few have said they have a stronger voice in the NFA community than the NFATCA. I challenge you to put your words into actions and join us to make a difference rather than work against us.

[ddnc]

A message from NFATCA, President, John Brown:

The NFATCA began a long, arduous journey almost nine years ago. For those of you who can remember, that was when the Bush administration and ATF were working very closely with anyone in the firearms industry. We made good progress, though the wheels of government churned ever so slowly - but it was progress. Two things happened that neither the NFATCA nor I will be held accountable for. First and foremost, the majority of this country voted for Barack Obama. Second, a couple of felons figured "Wow, no background check, I am buying my NFA stuff through a trust".
Now if you want to hold the NFATCA accountable for that, then you obviously must have been a part of that majority. When faced with the second issue and the fact that ATF was contemplating no longer honoring trust transfers because of the abuse, no one at the NFATCA came up with the alternatives. We don't make government policy and we don't write legislation coming out of this administration. I can't say this any clearer. This change in policy came directly from the Executive Branch.


We simply stand up in front for your rights. I didn't joint this fight for fun, nor did I start the NFATCA for myself. Every issue, every battle, has been crafted around the fact that my five sons should have the same opportunities that I have had. I did because I believe that every American should have those same rights, regardless of what the current government says. With every uphill fight, I get hundreds of grandstanders that call me personally, block their caller ID and tell me I should be shot. I have people telling me they are dropping their membership, only to find out they never have been a member. I have people questioning my commitment or motives. Let me assure you that having been a licensed dealer for over thirty years, this effects my livelihood - not just my collection of firearms.

We will continue to battle this issue and the White House. We know that many inside ATF do not and have not agreed with this change in stance. NFATCA counsel is prepared to fight, but unlike myself, he does not work free of charge for the NFATCA. Simply stated, if you choose not to support the NFATCA, then you weaken our chances of winning the battle. If you choose not to support the cause, don't complain about the outcome. Contribute your funds or your time and voice. A few have said they have a stronger voice in the NFA community than the NFATCA. I challenge you to put your words into actions and join us to make a difference rather than work against us.
Your point is taken and the death threat business is BS but be that as it may regardless of intention and who did what, NFATCA is going to get the lions share of blame for this. It is already evident all over the boards. NFATCA was thrown under the bus and hung out to dry by this current administration.
This should not be surprising though, they are very well adept at finding a scapegoat or someone to blame for anything they do. Owing up to responsibility is not the current despot's forte.

[ExecDirector]

You are correct, sir.

[mbogo]

Sirs,

Can you respond to the following article? http://www.examiner.com/article/nfa-firearms-collectors-group-initiated-atf-gun-trust-rule-change

What exactly did you petition the BATFE for regarding NFA trusts?

mbogo

[jason8844]

The NRA has come out with more. They seem to be taking a more proactive role in helping out the NFA community.

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/9/obama-misses-the-mark-with-overbroad-nfa-background-check-proposal.aspx

[ExecDirector]

Please review the official statement on our main website. Mr. Codrea is a talented writer but has a penchant for not consulting us on articles he writes concerning us.

[ExecDirector]

NFATCA has retained counsel to aggressively fight the White House actions. We will keep you informed. And yes, the NRA is helping fight the good fight!

[philcam]

A message from NFATCA, President, John Brown:

The NFATCA began a long, arduous journey almost nine years ago. For those of you who can remember, that was when the Bush administration and ATF were working very closely with anyone in the firearms industry.

Yes, John, we know just how closely you worked with the ATF. In fact, you were in bed with them working as a confidential informant.

My question is, when will the NFATCA release an original, unedited copy of the petition it sent to the ATF, or should we just submit a FOIA request?

[ExecDirector]

Actually, you know nothing of the sort, save for what you have read on the Internet (so it must be true, right?). I challenge you to provide factual evidence that John is "in bed with them working as a confidential informant." The text of the petition is ALREADY released in ATF's publication that everyone is citing, but does not appear to be reading. Just like they miss the details about prohibited persons receiving weapons without background checks via legal entities. Here, I'll save you some time on that one:

In Texas, ATF became aware of a situation in which the member of an LLC was illegal alien, living in the United States under an assumed name, and had a felony warrant outstanding. At that time, the LLC had 19 firearms registered to it and ATF lacked the necessary information to conduct any background checks to determine whether the member was a prohibited person. In Tennessee, as a result of information provided by a Federal Firearms Licensee, ATF became aware of applications submitted to transfer two NFA firearms to a trust in which one of the trustees was a convicted felon.

[jason8844]

In Texas, ATF became aware of a situation in which the member of an LLC was illegal alien, living in the United States under an assumed name, and had a felony warrant outstanding. At that time, the LLC had 19 firearms registered to it and ATF lacked the necessary information to conduct any background checks to determine whether the member was a prohibited person. In Tennessee, as a result of information provided by a Federal Firearms Licensee, ATF became aware of applications submitted to transfer two NFA firearms to a trust in which one of the trustees was a convicted felon.

This is funny. I thought this administration was all about extending rights to illegal aliens and convicted felons? After all, they vote Democrat. I am going to throw it back at them and say this administration is "racist" for not letting illegals have Title II weapons. Hell, we give them instate tuition for college, welfare, food stamps, driver's licences, Social Security, disability, cash for every kid they pop out, free K-12 education for those kids, the right to vote, the right to serve on juries, and pretty much every other right citizens get, then give them more through "privileges". Why stop at firearms? Or even better.... Title II weapons? Hell, they should be able to get their stamps back in 7 days, or not need stamps at all!!

Does anyone else see how screwed up our nation is? We have given so much to illegals that they can make their way on to gun trusts and the ATF can not properly investigate because of all this pandering. Yet, people like me have to follow the rules, pay taxes, submit fingerprints, get CLEO sign off just to take 3 inches off my shotgun or rifle barrel and then wait 9 freaking months to get the paperwork back.

[ExecDirector]

Agreed... It is penultimately silly. Currently trying to pull all of the adjudicated cases involving a 922(g) charge (prohibited person in possession) for the past few years. 922(g) does not have a separate "specifying" charge for "by way of a legal entity," so this is going to require a lot of manual work. I know that it has, in fact, happened on may occasions. And yes, it is already illegal. But the current trust/corp set up allows principals in these entities to easily skirt a background check. Additionally:



Although the NFA Handbook has had language added to it by ATF that directs FFL's to run a NICS check on NFA pick ups by trusts/corps
That handbook is NOT a regulation book
There is no current supporting regulation for this directive
The 4473 form at line 22 STILL clearly states "No NICS check was required because the transfer involved only National Firearms Act firearms(s)."
No official notice of this directive has been sent out to current FFL's.
No consistent notice of this directive has been sent out to IOI's to advise FFL's during inspections


People are up in arms screaming that the situation is "already illegal." That is absolutely true. But ATF is in the awkward position of facilitating the illegal activity because they have no way to perform even a basic check under current law. We acknowledged this situation back in the Bush era and offered that eliminating CLEO would substantially reduce the incidence of this situation by removing a majority of the need for using legal entities in first place. We then went on to suggest designating a responsible person(s) with a background check would give them the ability to validate that each transfer had at least one background check. We also advocated for using the NICS system to perform the check. The current White House went crazy with it as a political expedient. We have now engaged counsel to fight this.

Until the NFA is eliminated (again, something that we DO support), there are going to be road blocks on the path to NFA ownership. We will try to minimize and reduce the impact of those road blocks as long as they exist. We will not just throw our hands up and wait for the NFA to be repealed.

[jason8844]

Until the NFA is eliminated (again, something that we DO support), there are going to be road blocks on the path to NFA ownership. We will try to minimize and reduce the impact of those road blocks as long as they exist. We will not just throw our hands up and wait for the NFA to be repealed.

I appreciate your optimism and wish I could share it. I am only 33 and would love to live to see the day when the NFA is eliminated or gutted, but as Reagan once said..."No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!"

With the momentum of the pro-gun movement right now (i.e. Recalls in Colorado, repeal of the Chicago gun registry, the Heller case, McDonald case, many states allowing hunting with silencers etc...), now is the time to chip away at the NFA. The first thing that needs to go is Silencers and SBRs. Machine guns will always be a hard sell and an over tuning of the Hughes Amendment would be near impossible without a Supreme Court ruling. However with negligible crime rates with silencers, showing the safety benefits of them, dispelling the myths and showing that even a few European nations sell them over the counter, may turn the tide to get them taken off the NFA list. SBRs are only there because the original draft of the NFA included handguns and they did not want people chopping down rifles into pistols. The handgun portion was removed before final passage, but the SBR stayed in for whatever reason. All we would need is one victory (even a small one) to start the ball rolling. SBSs on the other hand would be a harder sell than SBRs due to the "sawed-off" pejorative and public perception.

However, just like the original intent of the NFA was to reduce the number of these weapons with a tax, now they are deliberately doing it with unreasonable wait times. It only takes the FBI 30 days to fully vet a potential new recruit to get security clearances. In many states you can register to vote the same day as an election. You can get food stamps within a week of filing for them. There is no reason the NFA process should take so long. Most of my friends who would love to get into NFA stuff just do not want to deal with the wait. That alone is keeping NFA paperwork down to a large degree.

[philcam]

Actually, you know nothing of the sort, save for what you have read on the Internet (so it must be true, right?). I challenge you to provide factual evidence that John is "in bed with them working as a confidential informant." The text of the petition is ALREADY released in ATF's publication that everyone is citing, but does not appear to be reading. Just like they miss the details about prohibited persons receiving weapons without background checks via legal entities. Here, I'll save you some time on that one:

In Texas, ATF became aware of a situation in which the member of an LLC was illegal alien, living in the United States under an assumed name, and had a felony warrant outstanding. At that time, the LLC had 19 firearms registered to it and ATF lacked the necessary information to conduct any background checks to determine whether the member was a prohibited person. In Tennessee, as a result of information provided by a Federal Firearms Licensee, ATF became aware of applications submitted to transfer two NFA firearms to a trust in which one of the trustees was a convicted felon.


Jeff,

You claim TWO people had access to NFA items thru a trust. TWO out of over 39,000 applicants this year alone. Do you propose fingerprints and photos for a simple 4473 purchase also? Hundreds of people lie on the 4473 every year. Unfortunately they are seldom prosecuted.

I have read the ATF's 16 page proposal published in the Federal Register on September 9, 2013. It DOES NOT CONTAIN the entire NFATCA petition. Section II does reference the NFATCA's proposal.

The ATF claims, among other things, that the NFATCA submitted it's proposal on December 3, 2009. Earlier you claimed the NFATCA had been working with the ATF for "over nine years." Which one is it and why would you ever think submitting ANY proposal during this administration would be beneficial to law abiding gun owners?

The ATF's proposal also stated the NFATCA is concerned that "the photograph, fingerprint card, and chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) certificate requirements of §§ 479.63 and 479.85 do not apply if the applicant or transferee is a partnership, company, association, trust, or corporation. As such, persons who possess, directly or indirectly, the power or authority to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of the entity are not subject to these requirements, and ATF does not conduct a background check of those individuals."

Furthermore, "The NFATCA expressed concern that persons who are prohibited by law from possessing or receiving firearms may acquire NFA firearms through the establishment of a legal entity such as a corporation, trust, or partnership. It contends that the number of applications to acquire NFA firearms via a corporation, partnership, trust, or other legal entity has increased significantly over the years."

Additionally, The ATF claims the NFATCA "expressed concern that an NFA firearm could be acquired by a prohibited person and used in a violent crime. Therefore, for applications for a corporation, trust, partnership, or other legal entity to make or receive an NFA firearm, the petitioner has requested amendments to §§ 479.63 and 479.85 to require photographs and fingerprint cards for persons who are responsible for directing the management and policies of the entity, so that a background check of the individual may be conducted."

Finally the ATF quotes the NFATCA petition saying the NFATCA "requests that the law enforcement certificate requirement be eliminated and that ATF ‘‘adopt a CLEO [chief law enforcement officer] process that will include a full NICS [National Instant Criminal Background Check System] check for principal officers of a trust or corporation receiving such firearms for the trust or corporation.’’ The petitioner articulates several reasons in support of its request. For example, it states that the lack of cooperation on the part of many CLEOs in recent years has forced larger numbers of individuals to acquire NFA firearms via a trust or corporate entity, so as to avoid the need for a law enforcement certificate. The petitioner also asserts that ATF no longer accepts the CLEO certificate as prima facie verification of compliance with state and local law, and that the certificate therefore does not alleviate the burden on ATF to verify that receipt or possession of a NFA firearm would not place the applicant or transferee in violation of state or local law. Although ATF agrees in principle with some of petitioner’s assertions (for example, with the fact that ATF independently verifies whether receipt or possession of a NFA firearm would place the applicant or transferee in violation of state or local law), ATF does not propose to eliminate the CLEO certificate requirement at this time. Rather, ATF proposes extending the CLEO certificate requirement to responsible persons of a legal entity. ATF also proposes amending the language of the certificate to omit the requirement that the certifying official state that he has no information that the applicant or transferee will use the firearm for other than lawful purposes."

So, again, who is telling the truth here, Jeff? Did the NFATCA basically throw trust holders under the bus by saying "bad guys are getting NFA guns with trusts. You should do backgrounds on the guys with trusts, but do away with the CLEO?"

OR, is the ATF lying and if it is, when will the NFATCA publish an unedited version of it's petition or are we going to have to FOIA the ATF for a copy of the NFATCA's petition? (If NFATCA has published it, please accept my apologies because I haven't found it.)

You see, it certainly looks to us like the NFATCA went to dance with the devil and lost, big time. It looks like the NFATCA said, "lets compromise, add backgrounds to trusts but do away with the CLEO for individuals" The only thing is, the NFATCA failed to realize this administration does not compromise with lawful gun owners. They will take and take and take and take.

[ExecDirector]

No Phil...
ATF offered the two examples. And those two examples were not just involving trusts. We are aware of those and many others. But as I have mentioned previously in this thread, 922(g) does not have a separate break out for prohibited person in possession by way of legal entity, so we are having to manually comb through each and every filed charge that has been adjudicated. And ATF will not make ANY comment on cases currently being prosecuted. It's going to take some time to satisfy your curiosity. Why don't you try reading the entire background on the ATF's website??? You know, the original publication that started this mess? The one that is 62 pages long?

NFATCA has been working on eliminating the CLEO signature requirement for over nine years. I stand by that statement. The petition absolutely was filed 12/3/2009. A petition does not represent the first effort in attempting to eliminate the CLEO signature requirement. Our contention has always been that the CLEO signature is antiquated, ineffective and also serves as de facto gun control in some jurisdictions. We had also been made aware of the fact that there absolutely were prohibited persons obtaining weapons (not just machine guns) via legal entities, that these prohibited persons were avoiding background checks of any type in so doing and that because of this ATF was absolutely set on freezing legal entity access to weapons until they could sort out a way to prevent this specific activity.

Yes, we know that prohibited person in possession is already illegal. But what has been described is ATF giving tacit permission for the maneuver. That was not going to stand. ATF was headed straight for freezing the process until they could heavily restrict or eliminate it. We sought to keep legal entity access with a minimal amount of background checks to appease ATF's concern. We also sought to eliminate the CLEO signature requirement which would have the effect of actually reducing the number of trusts needed in the cases of those seeking to deal with an intractable CLEO. We were set to achieve those goals right up and until several very public tragedies emboldened the White House to derail things for political expediency.

To repeat: until the NFA is eliminated (again, something that we DO support), there are going to be road blocks on the path to NFA ownership. Those road blocks include some combination of NICS, fingerprints, photographs and more thorough background checks. We will try to minimize and reduce the impact of those road blocks as long as they exist. We will not just throw our hands up and wait for the NFA to be repealed.

And for the record, the only posts that have been eliminated on social media or this forum have been exactly two expletive filled rants. We made it clear that we would not censor comments, pro or con, as long as they remained civil.

[RenegadeConservative]

We had also been made aware of the fact that there absolutely were prohibited persons obtaining weapons (not just machine guns) via legal entities, that these prohibited persons were avoiding background checks of any type in so doing and that because of this ATF was absolutely set on freezing legal entity access to weapons until they could sort out a way to prevent this specific activity.

Yes, we know that prohibited person in possession is already illegal. But what has been described is ATF giving tacit permission for the maneuver. That was not going to stand. ATF was headed straight for freezing the process until they could heavily restrict or eliminate it. We sought to keep legal entity access with a minimal amount of background checks to appease ATF's concern. We also sought to eliminate the CLEO signature requirement which would have the effect of actually reducing the number of trusts needed in the cases of those seeking to deal with an intractable CLEO. We were set to achieve those goals right up and until several very public tragedies emboldened the White House to derail things for political expediency.


18 USC § 921 - Definitions
(a) As used in this chapter—
(1) The term “person” and the term “whoever” include any individual, corporation, company, association, firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company.

It sounds to me like BATFE is trying to do whatever the hell they want, regardless of its legality.

Congress needs to come in and slap these guys down.

[ExecDirector]

Renegade... Agreed! Congress does need to get involved. But will they? Look at how long it took them just to approve a boss for the bureau. And while your citation of the definition of person is 100% correct, a process or implementing regulation can absolutely be frozen if a deficiency is discovered until such deficiency is remedied. This is exactly where ATF's Counsel's Office was headed because ATF was facilitating prohibited persons in possession. Again, it was already a crime for a prohibited person to be in possession... ATF was facilitating the process via legal entities.

Folks are up in arms regarding the extent of the problem. I have tried to explain the difficulties inherent in breaking out natural persons from legal entities under the 922(g) umbrella charge. I can assure you that there are a significant number of cases beyond the few that have already been referenced. But in order to provide that "proof" a lot of manual work has to be done.

Under the Chevron Doctrine, agencies and bureaus have extremely wide latitude in interpreting the regulations used to implement legislation. SCOTUS has sided with the government almost universally in matters such as this because of Chevron. It doesn't make the actions any more palatable.

We should not even be having to fight *any* battle over NFA. But until it goes away, if it goes away, we are going to have to figure out ways to minimize the impact of ATF's regulatory efforts. We would be excoriated for doing nothing. Since we are getting excoriated anyway, we will continue to fight.

[RenegadeConservative]

Renegade... Agreed! Congress does need to get involved. But will they? Look at how long it took them just to approve a boss for the bureau. And while your citation of the definition of person is 100% correct, a process or implementing regulation can absolutely be frozen if a deficiency is discovered until such deficiency is remedied. This is exactly where ATF's Counsel's Office was headed because ATF was facilitating prohibited persons in possession. Again, it was already a crime for a prohibited person to be in possession... ATF was facilitating the process via legal entities.

Folks are up in arms regarding the extent of the problem. I have tried to explain the difficulties inherent in breaking out natural persons from legal entities under the 922(g) umbrella charge. I can assure you that there are a significant number of cases beyond the few that have already been referenced. But in order to provide that "proof" a lot of manual work has to be done.

Under the Chevron Doctrine, agencies and bureaus have extremely wide latitude in interpreting the regulations used to implement legislation. SCOTUS has sided with the government almost universally in matters such as this because of Chevron. It doesn't make the actions any more palatable.

We should not even be having to fight *any* battle over NFA. But until it goes away, if it goes away, we are going to have to figure out ways to minimize the impact of ATF's regulatory efforts. We would be excoriated for doing nothing. Since we are getting excoriated anyway, we will continue to fight.

I was afraid of that.

Seems like the government can get away with almost anything these days: tax scandals, security scandals, gun running operations, etc.

The thing that gets me the most is that I've got a STEN Mk. II that has been in limbo since all this garbage started. I'm hoping to get it approved before I have to walk down to my local Chief of Police and beg for his blessing.

[ExecDirector]

I am cautiously optimistic that our retained counsel and a grass roots effort will head this off at the pass. And I am not certain how they would pull off a retroactive process. This is far from the law of the land.

[RenegadeConservative]

I just finished reading John Brown's report on Small Arms of the World. Good writeup.

[jason8844]

I am cautiously optimistic that our retained counsel and a grass roots effort will head this off at the pass. And I am not certain how they would pull off a retroactive process. This is far from the law of the land.

I unfortunately do not share in your optimism. I believe this nation has passed the point of no return. With so many low information voters wanting more and more stuff for free and a political party building a base on promising more and more to those people, the road to decline and decay are inevitable. I believe freedom is lost for 4 or 5 generations until the next enlightenment or enough people clamor for freedom and stand up and fight for it.

With the Senate in full Democrat control, even if the House passed a bill to reverse this executive action, it will not pass the full Congress. Also, with the NFA community being so small compared to the overwhelming gun owning community, the risk/reward is not worth it for many politicians to step up to the plate. They know the media will throw out the pejoratives about "sawed-off" this and "assault" weapon that. The Hollywood myths about silencers will also be beamed into every home in this nation.

Sorry for being a Debbie-Downer, but I am not optimistic about much with our nation's future. :(

[philcam]

Jeff,

The NFATCA claims "ATF was headed straight for freezing the process." So you broker a shady backroom deal to add background check, fingerprints and now CLEO to the trust.

Do you realize how much cannon fodder you've provided the ATF? ANY Congressman who questions this proposed rule change, will be give the excuse "their own association asked for this! We are only giving them what they asked for."

The NFATCA continually refuses to publish it's own unedited petition to the ATF. Why? If the NFATCA was making such strides in working with the ATF, what is to be ashamed of? How can anyone write well thought arguments against these proposed changes if they don't have the "rule book" the NFATCA asked for?

Sleep well, my friend. The NFATCA and it's games will likely cost hundreds of jobs. Many manufactures and dealers will lose a significant portion of their businesses if the CLEO signoff becomes a requirement.

I am dead serious by saying this. The best thing the NFATCA could do is disband itself and donate 100% of any monies left to the NRA and let them try and clean up your mess.

[ExecDirector]

Phil,
It's pointless to argue with you. We advocated a minimal check at weapon pick up (NICS) and the designation of one or more responsible parties along the lines of the FFL process. Not fingerprints/photos and BGs for everyone. This was offered instead of legal/business entities until ATF could whip up something similar to what the White House went ahead and did anyway and this was in addition to elimination of CLEO to reduce the need for entities in the first place. Go read the 60+ page document. This is not what we asked for. But that is what the Internet pundits have decreed happened so it must be true.

We are working with the NRA and other organizations to fight this. You seem intent to stick with an uncoordinated petulant fit. That is absolutely your choice.

[RenegadeConservative]

Phil,

I wasn't particularly happy upon hearing the news either. But.....

Regardless of what happened or how it plays out, this is the way it is. Assigning blame isn't going to do a damn thing for us. Now is not the time to be divided - that is when we are weakest.

On a positive note, living in a small state (population wise) has its advantages. My US Representative, Steve Daines, is pretty active in this state and he campaigned on a small government platform. I think he'll ally with us if we bend his ear.

[philcam]

Phil,
It's pointless to argue with you. We advocated a minimal check at weapon pick up (NICS) and the designation of one or more responsible parties along the lines of the FFL process. Not fingerprints/photos and BGs for everyone. This was offered instead of legal/business entities until ATF could whip up something similar to what the White House went ahead and did anyway and this was in addition to elimination of CLEO to reduce the need for entities in the first place. Go read the 60+ page document. This is not what we asked for. But that is what the Internet pundits have decreed happened so it must be true.

We are working with the NRA and other organizations to fight this. You seem intent to stick with an uncoordinated petulant fit. That is absolutely your choice.

I'd love to believe what you are saying, but the NFATCA's refusal to release their unedited petition to the ATF is unacceptable. IF the NFATCA truly believes it was/is acting in good fair of all NFA owners and future owners, why are not release the petition?

[RenegadeConservative]

I'd love to believe what you are saying, but the NFATCA's refusal to release their unedited petition to the ATF is unacceptable. IF the NFATCA truly believes it was/is acting in good fair of all NFA owners and future owners, why are not release the petition?

What will that accomplish, exactly?

[ExecDirector]

Especially since it is quoted directly in the original 60+ page White House missive.

[ExecDirector]

Part of the effort in trying to defeat the NPRM that the White House is trying to steam roll us with is to make sure that they hear all of us loud and clear in the official comments required by law. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU MUST CLICK THE COMMENT BUTTON ON THIS LINK AND CLEARLY COMMUNICATE YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS NPRM. And when you are done submitting your comment, make sure that your family, your friends, your employees... have all done the same. I am not really surprised to see only a few 100 comments thus far.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=ATF-2013-0001 (http://www.regulations.gov/#%21docketDetail;D=ATF-2013-0001)

Here is the simple, brief text I have used in my opposition:

I support the elimination, entirely, of the unnecessary CLEO signature requirements . I do not support ANY of the initiatives proposed in this NPRM and believe that they will burden an already overloaded ATF bureau and not do anything to serve the public interest or safety. This entire proposal should be scrapped.

[RenegadeConservative]

Part of the effort in trying to defeat the NPRM that the White House is trying to steam roll us with is to make sure that they hear all of us loud and clear in the official comments required by law. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU MUST CLICK THE COMMENT BUTTON ON THIS LINK AND CLEARLY COMMUNICATE YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS NPRM. And when you are done submitting your comment, make sure that your family, your friends, your employees... have all done the same. I am not really surprised to see only a few 100 comments thus far.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=ATF-2013-0001 (http://www.regulations.gov/#%21docketDetail;D=ATF-2013-0001)

Here is the simple, brief text I have used in my opposition:

I support the elimination, entirely, of the unnecessary CLEO signature requirements . I do not support ANY of the initiatives proposed in this NPRM and believe that they will burden an already overloaded ATF bureau and not do anything to serve the public interest or safety. This entire proposal should be scrapped.

Done deal.

Hopefully, fortune will smile on us and this proposal will be scrapped in its entirety.

[jason8844]

Part of the effort in trying to defeat the NPRM that the White House is trying to steam roll us with is to make sure that they hear all of us loud and clear in the official comments required by law. EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU MUST CLICK THE COMMENT BUTTON ON THIS LINK AND CLEARLY COMMUNICATE YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS NPRM. And when you are done submitting your comment, make sure that your family, your friends, your employees... have all done the same. I am not really surprised to see only a few 100 comments thus far.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=ATF-2013-0001 (http://www.regulations.gov/#%21docketDetail;D=ATF-2013-0001)

Here is the simple, brief text I have used in my opposition:

I support the elimination, entirely, of the unnecessary CLEO signature requirements . I do not support ANY of the initiatives proposed in this NPRM and believe that they will burden an already overloaded ATF bureau and not do anything to serve the public interest or safety. This entire proposal should be scrapped.

I submitted my comments.

[ExecDirector]

Thank you!

[sillycon]

My comment:

The complete and total elimination of the CLEO signature requirement is a positive step in the right direction for all citizens and legal residents of the United States. Regardless of if an individual tax payer partakes in the ownership of property which currently requires a CLEO signature or is a uninterested party, each and every one of them contributes to the financial burden imposed by this antiquated and unnecessary requirement.

In addition, I cannot and will not support *ANY* initiative in this proposed NPRM as they will add unnecessary additional burdens to an already over-burdened and under-staffed ATF bureau, while at the same time having absolutely NO contribution to the public interest, safety, welfare, or security.

This entire proposal MUST be scrapped unless the real goal of this proposal is nothing more than to waste money, add additional burden over-worked government employees, and to further the already wide-spread public opinion that our government long ago ceased to be a government of the people, by the people, for the people.

[ExecDirector]

Thanks for making the effort!

[ExecDirector]

My apologies for the delay in publishing this... There were a variety of reasons why we were advised to keep it close until a few issues could be verified. Recently, a summit meeting was held in DC on what the White House has done with the original petition. Best I can tell, the majority of folks involved with trying to head off 41P are in agreement that the original petition is *still* the direction we should go in: 1) Eliminate CLEO across the board, 2) Designate a primary responsible party for legal entities that will require a background check, 3) NICS check on physical delivery of the NFA item.

The original petition, complete with cover letter, is linked below. The document represents exactly what was filed. You will notice that the petition has numerous syntactical and grammar errors. We apologize for this but want to emphasize that this is exactly what was filed.

http://www.nfatca.org/pubs/NFATCA_petition1209.pdf

[ExecDirector]

Have you submitted your comment opposing the White House's assault on NFA ownership? The link to do so is below. If you have a lengthy submission, you can also mail it in or fax it in. Attorney David Goldman is submitting a lengthy and well-researched comment, along with exhibits. Please review his submission documents when formulating your own comments.

http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/41p.html

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=ATF-2013-0001

[jason8844]

Have you submitted your comment opposing the White House's assault on NFA ownership? The link to do so is below. If you have a lengthy submission, you can also mail it in or fax it in. Attorney David Goldman is submitting a lengthy and well-researched comment, along with exhibits. Please review his submission documents when formulating your own comments.

http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/41p.html


All I can say is "WOW". He did a great job! I read all of his comments. I especially like how he uses Feinstein's proposed legislation and turns it into a pro-NFA argument.

As mentioned before, I added my comments to the website already.