View Full Version : Get mad: Obama's EO closes "loophole" in registering firearms to trusts, bans import of some guns
DeusExMachina
08-29-2013, 08:23
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-obama-offers-new-gun-control-steps
Anyone have more info? I'm on my phone, the article is bullshit.
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/ap-exclusive-obama-offers-new-gun-control-steps
Anyone have more info? I'm on my phone, the current administration is bullshit.
FIFY.
This is the first I've heard of it...
"One new policy will end a government practice that lets military weapons, sold or donated by the U.S. to allies, be reimported into the U.S. by private entities"
I don't know anything about this, but if you always wanted an M1 Garand or Carbine through any importer, it may be time to get 'er done.
BPTactical
08-29-2013, 08:34
Meh, nothing else for them to worry about so why not?
Kiss the Korean Garands bye bye, curious if "parts kits" are history, C&R??
Zundfolge
08-29-2013, 08:52
So does this end NFA trusts? Or were there actually felons that set up trusts so they could buy guns (not sure how that would exempt them from the laws against mere possession, not just purchase).
Son of a bitch.
This is beyond ridiculous. Do they really think that criminals are using trusts to purchase suppressors and short barreled rifles legally?
The checked cashed on my first suppressor on my trust just a few weeks ago. Are they going to make me submit finger print cards for pending transfers I wonder? What I figured was going to take a year is going to be multiple years now!
Mick-Boy
08-29-2013, 09:41
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/29/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence
The big question I have is what (if any) impact this will have on NFA items already in a trust. Do people have to get retroactive fingerprints and fill out 4473s?
Aloha_Shooter
08-29-2013, 09:45
I don't for a moment think they actually believe the shit they say to the press but they're getting their false story of criminals using trusts out into the public. The larger issue is that they want to control access to guns and they saw the spike in NFA trusts so law-abiding citizens could legally pass their firearms on to who they want with a minimum of government interference. It shouldn't be any surprise to anyone on this board that Obama and his minions lie repetitively and automatically.
I think it sure sounds like a bad tactical move on his part. Sure it "sounds good" to some in the press that he's "doing something." But on this side, it just pisses off people with money. Your new younger and less well off gun owner isn't investing to M1 Garands, setting up trusts to buy a AOW, SBR, SBS, MG, or suppressor. Only men and women with some cash are doing that. If they are stopped from exercising that right it will just make them more politically active.
Seems like The One is acting like a kid poking a bee hive and doesn't know what bees might do.
sellersm
08-29-2013, 09:52
Seems like The One is acting like a kid poking a bee hive and doesn't know what bees might do.
Don't deceive yourself, they know exactly what will happen, and are probably planning on it happening! Nothing they do is on accident, nor is it inconsequential, no matter how 'harmless' it may appear...
DeusExMachina
08-29-2013, 10:02
Last I checked, I got background checks every time I took possession of my NFA trust items.
Last I checked, I got background checks every time I took possession of my NFA trust items.
It is the fingerprints that worry so much for some reason [pileoshit].
I am interested to hear about the surplus ban, i can only find the AP article on it.
DeusExMachina
08-29-2013, 11:14
I don't know why a bunch of junk Garands from Korea are that important to Obama, but it has been a focal point for awhile.
BPTactical
08-29-2013, 11:42
I don't know why a bunch of junk Garands from Korea are that important to Obama, but it has been a focal point for awhile.
ANYTHING that undermines the 2cnd Amendment Rights of the American citizen is of prime importance to this administration.......
The fingerprints/BCG for Trust members has been an ongoing discussion between the ATF and the American Silencer Association, and it was first getting press coverage last year (we had a thread on it before the crash).
The tit-for-tat is that in exchange for not requiring LEO sign-off for NFA toys, that trust/corp members would be subject to background checks. The rationale was that people were making trusts/corps to get around LEO sign-off -- so take away the LEO sign-off requirement and there is 'no reason' to have a Trust anymore.
8VTZO3pVsAA
I don't know why a bunch of junk Garands from Korea are that important
Do away with all the innocuous stuff that won't create undo outrage. Once all the off-the-radar guns are taken away, it whittles the pile down to the "evil" guns that public sentiment is easier to sway on after some future mass shooting. When you think about it, it's an absolutely brilliant move when you consider the long-term goals of those opposed to all guns.
Great-Kazoo
08-29-2013, 13:21
So does this end NFA trusts? Or were there actually felons that set up trusts so they could buy guns (not sure how that would exempt them from the laws against mere possession, not just purchase).
Not at all. You just need to include a fingerprint card (x2)
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/08/29/fact-sheet-new-executive-actions-reduce-gun-violence
The big question I have is what (if any) impact this will have on NFA items already in a trust. Do people have to get retroactive fingerprints and fill out 4473s?
No 4473, just add the card to your Form 1 of 4.
I'd tell them to look up my past NFA stamps for fingerprint card. Nothing changes on that form. UNLESS i go Yakuza and need to atone for something.
The truth about Obama's new executive orders targeting guns
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/29/truth-about-obama-new-executive-orders-targeting-guns/
By John Lott (http://www.foxnews.com/archive/author/John-Lott/index.html)
Published August 29, 2013
| FoxNews.com
It sure sounds scary. "Military weapons" being reimported back into the United States. Or people getting guns without background checks. But the reception being given President Obama's two new executive orders on guns (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/09/fact-vs-fiction-on-background-checks-and-gun-control-debate/) largely relies on ignorance of how the current rules work.
The president's executive order banning the reimportation of "military weapons" really only affects old M-1 Garand 30-06 rifles. These rifles have been used in the Civilian Marksmanship Program program and are mainly purchased by collectors. At one time they were "military weapons," but they were used in World War II and the Korean War.
No other US-made military rifles are being imported. And, more importantly, this semi-automatic rifle is functionally no different than any semi-automatic deer hunting. They fire the same bullets at the same rapidity and do the same damage as other deer hunting rifles.
The only difference is that these old Garands tend to be relatively heavy -- in the past 60 years, manufacturers have learned how to make lighter versions of these guns.
Despite the scary rhetoric, the White House is leaving out one important point: it isn't pointing to any cases where imported U.S.-made military weapons have been used in a crime. And the reason is obvious: there probably aren't any.
Regarding the second executive order, the only "corporate" registration is for Class III (machine guns) weapons. Again, the Obama administration doesn't provide examples of people using a corporation to register handguns or semi-automatic rifles as a way to bypass criminal background checks.
More importantly, it fails to point to any cases where such guns have been used in crimes. Corporations are used (primarily) to obtain fully-automatic machine guns, as they are usually out of the price range of most citizens (running at least about $20,000 each).
Yes, when registered to a corporation any officer is allowed to posses the machine gun, but the point that the transfer occurs still requires a NICS check for the person actually picking up the gun.
What happens under current law is that if a gun is registered to a corporation, then anyone who is an officer in the corporation would be allowed to use the gun.
As with many actions these days by the Obama administration, the president doesn't have the authority to rewrite the current rules. Changing these rules for corporations requires congressional action.
Of course, all this is typical for our president, with Obama in the past making such completely false claims as “as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases take place without a background check." (http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/04/09/fact-vs-fiction-on-background-checks-and-gun-control-debate/)
But how many times can the president cry wolf without losing all credibility?
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2013/08/29/truth-about-obama-new-executive-orders-targeting-guns/print#ixzz2dONMXiUe
Jeffrey Lebowski
08-29-2013, 15:09
But how many times can the president cry wolf without losing all credibility?
Many, many more by my math.
If he cries wolf, the press will search high and low insisting there is one out there. They'll parade dogs, fox, and coyotes out in front of the masses and call them wolves.
They'll accept as fact that there are wolves and that YOU are the dumb one for doubting this truth that all reasonable folks have long since accepted. And they'll demonize you for it.
spqrzilla
08-29-2013, 15:09
A lot of rhetoric for essentially meaningless "action". We were not getting the Korean surplus M1 Garands anyway.
I'm confused about when this takes effect. Is anything actually being done at the moment or will there be discussions around it?
I found this on whitehouse.gov.
"Today, ATF is issuing a new proposed regulation to close this loophole. The proposed rule requires individuals associated with trusts or corporations that acquire these types of weapons to undergo background checks, just as these individuals would if the weapons were registered to them individually. By closing this loophole, the regulation will ensure that machine guns and other particularly dangerous weapons do not end up in the wrong hands."
The other one is pretty clear.
"Today, the Administration is announcing a new policy of denying requests to bring military-grade firearms back into the United States to private entities, with only a few exceptions such as for museums. This new policy will help keep military-grade firearms off our streets. "
Edit: Found this - http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43 I think this is part of what asmo was talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ6pIvMMF2Q
Starting to look more and more like it each time he opens his mouth....
Mr Spooky
08-29-2013, 16:58
Once more for me please, I am a little slow sometimes. I got a trust through NFA Guy and my suppressor finally arrived at the class 3 dealer from Liberty. Still have to send in the form 4 and the check. Are these EO's now in effect or will be by time they get around to approving my stamp and I am screwed?
Once more for me please, I am a little slow sometimes. I got a trust through NFA Guy and my suppressor finally arrived at the class 3 dealer from Liberty. Still have to send in the form 4 and the check. Are these EO's now in effect or will be by time they get around to approving my stamp and I am screwed?
No.. there is still a while before anything is made into policy.. Minimum of 90 days.
Mr Spooky
08-29-2013, 17:10
No.. there is still a while before anything is made into policy.. Minimum of 90 days.
Sorry for the barage of questions but I finally saved up enough $ to do this NFA stuff and now this. So is there a chance that nothing will come of this or is it "for sure" and just awaiting the final writing? Will my form 4 get rejected since the wait time for a stamp is almost a year and this will be made into policy by then?
Thanks for all the help,
Mike
Great-Kazoo
08-29-2013, 18:55
Sorry for the barage of questions but I finally saved up enough $ to do this NFA stuff and now this. So is there a chance that nothing will come of this or is it "for sure" and just awaiting the final writing? Will my form 4 get rejected since the wait time for a stamp is almost a year and this will be made into policy by then?
Thanks for all the help,
Mike
When you call, make sure you get name, date, time you called. This way you have a reference point, IF you need to call again, OR they contact you.
How to Contact Us:
You may contact us at:
244 Needy Road
Martinsburg, WV 25405
Phone: 304 616-4500
Fax: 304 616-4501
Hours: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday (except federal holidays)
Last I checked, I got background checks every time I took possession of my NFA trust items.
They want a background check on every trustee and beneficiary every time property is added to the trust or a new trustee/beneficiary is added -- just like the new CO law.
The fingerprints/BCG for Trust members has been an ongoing discussion between the ATF and the American Silencer Association, and it was first getting press coverage last year (we had a thread on it before the crash).
The tit-for-tat is that in exchange for not requiring LEO sign-off for NFA toys, that trust/corp members would be subject to background checks. The rationale was that people were making trusts/corps to get around LEO sign-off -- so take away the LEO sign-off requirement and there is 'no reason' to have a Trust anymore.
8VTZO3pVsAA
Hit the nail on the head. The board members at the American Silencer Association have been discussing this with the BATFE for quite some time and they believed it would hit at some point this year. From everything they have told me it does not change anything for any transfers or making forms in process before the regulation goes into effect. The BATFE will have to issue new forms which in itself takes a good deal of time. This is coming but I expect it is down the road a little ways.
They want a background check on every trustee and beneficiary every time property is added to the trust or a new trustee/beneficiary is added -- just like the new CO law.
I am not sure they have laid that part out yet. If they handle it like an FFL application and have you designate responsible persons which is what the proposed rules says then they may have you background check each responsible person for the first item but not subsequent items unless there is a change in responsible persons but like I said they have not really laid that out yet that I know of.
heres the thing, i wouldn't use the "loophole" if the damned police chiefs would freaking sign off on me having an sbr and suppressor. in fact, id prefer to have it in my name. gives me some flexibility. but most won't even consider it or discuss it. as such, loopholes are created. force the chief to sign off if i pass a background check and i will happily do it that way.
hghclsswhitetrsh
08-29-2013, 23:12
^^^ yup
heres the thing, i wouldn't use the "loophole" if the damned police chiefs would freaking sign off on me having an sbr and suppressor. in fact, id prefer to have it in my name. gives me some flexibility. but most won't even consider it or discuss it. as such, loopholes are created. force the chief to sign off if i pass a background check and i will happily do it that way.
Agreed. Since the person taking possession of the item for the entity (trust, corp, etc..) must have a background check and 4473 completed anyway I think this is the government solving another problem that does not exist. Of course I think the best solution is just to do away with the NFA and handle these items just like any other firearm.
Skullworks
08-31-2013, 02:00
The fingerprints/BCG for Trust members has been an ongoing discussion between the ATF and the American Silencer Association, and it was first getting press coverage last year (we had a thread on it before the crash).
The tit-for-tat is that in exchange for not requiring LEO sign-off for NFA toys, that trust/corp members would be subject to background checks. The rationale was that people were making trusts/corps to get around LEO sign-off -- so take away the LEO sign-off requirement and there is 'no reason' to have a Trust anymore.
8VTZO3pVsAA
Sorry to burst your bubble - but the CLEO signoff IS NOT GOING AWAY. They do propose changing the wording but it will still be there.
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/inside-atf/2013/082913-wash-machine-guns-destructive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf
Start at the top of page 14
BPTactical
08-31-2013, 05:48
Now, consider if the Feds use this:
1. Those that talk about “individual liberties”
2. Those that advocate for states’ rights
3. Those that want “to make the world a better place”
4. “The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
5. Those that are interested in “defeating the Communists”
6. Those that believe “that the interests of one’s own nation are separate from the interests of other nations or the common interest of all nations”
7. Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”
8. Anyone that possesses an “intolerance toward other religions”
9. Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
10. “Anti-Gay”
11. “Anti-Immigrant”
12. “Anti-Muslim”
13. “The Patriot Movement”
14. “Opposition to equal rights for gays and lesbians”
15. Members of the Family Research Council
16. Members of the American Family Association
17. Those that believe that Mexico, Canada and the United States “are secretly planning to merge into a European Union-like entity that will be known as the ‘North American Union’”
18. Members of the American Border Patrol/American Patrol
19. Members of the Federation for American Immigration Reform
20. Members of the Tennessee Freedom Coalition
21. Members of the Christian Action Network
22. Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order”
23. Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”
24. Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
25. Anyone that is concerned about FEMA camps
26. Anyone that “fears impending gun control or weapons confiscations”
27. The militia movement
28. The sovereign citizen movement
29. Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
30. Anyone that “complains about bias”
31. Anyone that “believes in government conspiracies to the point of paranoia”
32. Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
33. Anyone that “visits extremist websites/blogs”
34. Anyone that “establishes website/blog to display extremist views”
35. Anyone that “attends rallies for extremist causes”
36. Anyone that “exhibits extreme religious intolerance”
37. Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”
38. Anyone that “suddenly acquires weapons”
39. Anyone that “organizes protests inspired by extremist ideology”
40. “Militia or unorganized militia”
41. “General right-wing extremist”
42. Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
43. Those that refer to an “Army of God”
44. Those that are “fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
45. Those that are “anti-global”
46. Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”
47. Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
48. Those that “believe in conspiracy theories”
49. Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
50. Those that possess “a belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in paramilitary preparations and training or survivalism”
51. Those that would “impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
52. Those that would “insert religion into the political sphere”
53. Anyone that would “seek to politicize religion”
54. Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy”
55. Anyone that is “anti-abortion”
56. Anyone that is “anti-Catholic”
57. Anyone that is “anti-nuclear”
58. “Rightwing extremists”
59. “Returning veterans”
60. Those concerned about “illegal immigration”
61. Those that “believe in the right to bear arms”
62. Anyone that is engaged in “ammunition stockpiling”
63. Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes”
64. “Anti-abortion activists”
65. Those that are against illegal immigration
66. Those that talk about “the New World Order” in a “derogatory” manner
67. Those that have a negative view of the United Nations
68. Those that are opposed “to the collection of federal income taxes”
69. Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr
70. Those that display the Gadsden Flag (“Don’t Tread On Me”)
71. Those that believe in “end times” prophecies
72. Evangelical Christians
As criterea for "Background Checks"
Also don't forget
Those that pay taxes
Those that have to follow 'Bammacare
The libs are going to chip away on guns a little at a time until they get total gun control by going in the back door.
muddywings
09-03-2013, 10:20
Any recommendations on moving forward at this point?
I just got my trust set up last month and was planning on doing my Form1 for an SBR build soon (possibly a Form4 for a suppressor too).
I just moved so I just put in for a new DL so I can go to an FFL transfer the lower from my ownership to my Trust. (was planning on including that documentation when I send in the Form 1.
Ordered fingerprint cards over the weekend (thinking it might be best just to have these done anyway, yes/no?)
Should I get Sheriff Maketa to do the CLEO sign off, just in case?
I figure if this was a 2-3 week process I would just push it through but since this is a 10-12 month process, who knows what the rules will be by the time they look at my paperwork.
Any thoughts??
ETA: my bad...followed this link through the one in the NFA section. I'll repost the same questions in there.
http://soldiersystems.net/2013/09/01/what-last-weeks-executive-action-nfa-trust-corporate-transfers-means-to-you/#more-66136
I found this article the other day and thought I should pass it on
james_bond_007
09-11-2013, 15:14
... Do they really think that criminals are using trusts to purchase suppressors and short barreled rifles legally? ...!
It appears that under the "guise" of protecting citizens from criminals, the administration is actually set on controlling the citizens' access to firearms, of whatever nature.
Don't let this fool you. It is fully intended to continue to limit citizen's 2nd Amendment rights as the administration works towards disarmament of the citizens.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2026 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.