"New Law" Certificate of Trust???

[NFATrustGuy]

I received a call about an hour ago from my very first NFA Trust client. He went to a Denver area gun shop to pick up another suppressor for his Trust and was told by the gun shop that there's a new law on the books that REQUIRES a Certificate of Trust (a/k/a Affidavit of Trust) before the Trustee can take possession of the suppressor--the ATF Form 4 has already been approved.

I was embarrassed to discover that I've missed a "New Law" so I started researching things and can't find any reference to any such law.

I'm hoping all the fantastic gun shop owners on this forum who've been sending me business for the past few years can help educate me… Have you guys heard of any such "New Law?" Or do we have a case of a gun shop commando making shit up and playing lawyer?

It's hard for me to prove (to myself or anyone else) that something DOESN'T exist, so I'm asking for help from anyone out there who knows and can quote chapter and verse of where any such "New Law" DOES exist.

FYI… and because somebody will ask anyway… A Certificate of Trust is basically just a Cliff's Notes version of the full Trust document. It tells who's in charge and what powers that person has to make agreements or enter into contracts on behalf of the Trust. It does all this without disclosing the private details of the Trust like what assets the Trust holds or who the beneficiaries might be. The most common use of such a document is when someone might want to open a bank account for a Trust (also NOT required, btw) and you don't want to tell the banker any more than you have to. The logical disconnect with a gun shop or the ATF requiring a Certificate of Trust is that they already have the FULL copy of the Trust that has ALL the information about the Trust.

I already include 1 form that isn't legally required by the actual law, but some gun shops insist on having, so I guess I can always just tack on another page or two to pacify the next guy if that's what's really going on here.

Thanks in advance for any enlightenment!

Rod

[Jeff350]

I did a form 4 using one of your trusts last week, and my FFL/SOT didn't mention a certificate of trust at all. I would bet we have someone playing lawyer in this case, but I will be interested to see the results of your research.

[To Bear Arms]

Why would the " gun shop" need a certificate of Trust if it has been approved by the BATF already? Are you sure it was not a certificate of compliance?

[JFQuest]

I was standing there last night when that discussion was going on. Small world!

[NFATrustGuy]

@ TBA: I'm sure it was an Affidavit of Trust. They gave my client a sample form and he faxed it to me for my review. The Certificate of Compliance is the form I was referring to when I said I already include one form that's not legally required.

@ JFQuest: Small world, indeed, but I don't think you witnessed this particular conversation with my client. I just spoke with him again and he said it occurred today (Thursday) during the day.

After further discussions with my client, it seems that this is simply a business decision on the part of the dealer and the dealer is passing it off as a government requirement. As I told my client, the dealer could make him hop on one foot and sing Yankee Doodle if that's the way the dealer wants to run his business. Dumb and he'll end up losing business over it, but it's a [somewhat… theoretically….] free country [according to prior administrations…].

My client was/is pissed because he wasted a fairly long drive to the dealer's shop only to go away empty handed. He was also upset that they gave him the name of "their" lawyer because my friend's lawyer (that'd be me) obviously didn't know what he was doing. I don't really appreciate this tactic, either, but it's his business and if he thinks bashing the competition is an effective sales tactic, then that's his prerogative, too.

[ray1970]

I don't suppose you would care to disclose which shop this was so that I can avoid it when the time comes to buy my first NFA item?

[Hound]

I don't suppose you would care to disclose which shop this was so that I can avoid it when the time comes to buy my first NFA item?

Second this ^^^. I have just picked up 2 suppressors a few weeks ago from Machine Gun Tours and know it was not them. I would like to know so I don't support or have to deal with that kind of BS.

[Alpha2]

Have you asked Geoff about this?

[asmo]

I don't suppose you would care to disclose which shop this was so that I can avoid it when the time comes to buy my first NFA item?

Thirded.. The only way to get this to stop is education, and one of the post powerful ways to educate is impacting the pocketbook.

If the ATF really would have started to require this form they would have needed to send out a magic letter stating so - and the SOT would have probably had that on hand.

[Great-Kazoo]

The dealer should have disclosed this info by phone, prior to your clients long drive. As well as produced what he said was an ATF ruling in writing for client to read.

[NFATrustGuy]

I talked with my client again late this afternoon. He visited the gun shop and ended up speaking to one of the owners. Turns out the supposed "new law" wasn't really a new law at all. When he pressed them on it, they said it was a new store policy. My client said he expressed his opinion of the policy in no uncertain terms.

I'm all for free enterprise so if that's the way someone wants to run his business, then so be it.

I'm not going to disclose the name of the gun shop because I don't want to deal with the drama of some pissed off asshole calling and making a bunch of legal threats and wanting to plead his case with me about why he implemented this policy. I understand that this will disappoint a few of the board members, and I'm sorry. I also understand the desire to know who this is because you'll want to avoid this gun shop. I would avoid it, too. There's enough paperwork in this world without people making up new rules that require new paperwork and then trying to pass them off as a new government rule.

Here's what I will say: This particular dealer has been discussed at great length and with a significant number of less than happy reviews over in the Dealer and Range Reviews section of this forum. Again, this is a south Denver area dealer. Based on member reports of MSRP+ pricing along with repeated and continued failure to make good on promises and generally treating people poorly, I really doubt that any of the regular members would buy anything from this gun shop anyway. I also haven't seen much participation on this forum from anyone representing this particular dealer.

As a precaution, I would strongly suggest that anyone purchasing an NFA item using a Trust should ask the selling dealer what EXACTLY will be required to pick up / take possession of the item after the Form 4 or Form 1 is approved.

RWW

[Brian]

Lame.

I agree though - make whatever policies you want, I can certainly understand being scared with people threatening to sue gun shops who sell guns or ammo to people who do bad things. Everybody has the right to their own decisions, even if they're bad ones.

But don't try to pass it off as anything other than your own decision. There's enough bad info out there already.

[Hound]

Ok, fair enough that you don't want to be the one to out them. Thank you for letting us know what you have already. I would ask two things. 1) please confirm they are at least not on the list of Industry partners. It really does not sound like it and to be honest that would go against my impression of dealings with all of them I have already dealt with. 2) please at least ask your client, of his own volition, if he would like to out them. I think I know where you are going with your last statements of who it might be but want to be sure. I have been picking up a lot of NFA items lately and would hate to be in a hassle that could have been easily avoided. It sounds like they might lie if I were to ask them up front since they would know it probably lose them a sale.

[ray1970]

Thanks for the update. I totally understand not wanting to start the pissing match that would come with calling them out here on a public forum. I'm sure if they have a less than stellar reputation anyways I probably wouldn't be shopping there anyways. I figured the "new law" was probably just their own policy. That's their prerogative I suppose. Can't say I blame them for putting that policy in place. Probably just making sure the individual they are turning the NFA item over to is legally allowed to posses it. Still, they should have made this requirement clear before your client went to pick it up.

[NFATrustGuy]

Just reviewed the Industry Partners section of this site... This shop is NOT listed.

I mentioned this site to my client, but he 'doesn't internet' so I doubt we'll see him posting anytime soon. :-) I think if he would have browsed this site a bit and had dealt with some of the good guys here, not only would he have saved about 30%, he would have also avoided a bunch of hassle.

He'll be buying more NFA stuff in the future so I gave him contact information for everyone I could think of in the southern part of town and one in Colorado Springs. When I give out recommendations, I make it my policy to give out at least 3 because I don't want to play favorites with all the different shops sending me referrals.

[Great-Kazoo]

Thanks for the update. I totally understand not wanting to start the pissing match that would come with calling them out here on a public forum. I'm sure if they have a less than stellar reputation anyways I probably wouldn't be shopping there anyways. I figured the "new law" was probably just their own policy. That's their prerogative I suppose. Can't say I blame them for putting that policy in place. Probably just making sure the individual they are turning the NFA item over to is legally allowed to posses it. Still, they should have made this requirement clear before your client went to pick it up.


Agreed, when you purchase a NFA item the ffl needs to have all requirements given up front. Don't tell me after approval, Oh by the way, there's now a $100 transfer fee, you own another $50.
If and when the ATF gives the approval and sends forms back by paper or electronically, that's enough documentation to verify legality of ownership. Hell they took 4- 48 weeks to get it done. Any burden of legality after that falls on the ATF's head. The FFL for NFA items is just the middle man.

[Hound]

Just reviewed the Industry Partners section of this site... This shop is NOT listed.

I mentioned this site to my client, but he 'doesn't internet' so I doubt we'll see him posting anytime soon. :-) I think if he would have browsed this site a bit and had dealt with some of the good guys here, not only would he have saved about 30%, he would have also avoided a bunch of hassle.

He'll be buying more NFA stuff in the future so I gave him contact information for everyone I could think of in the southern part of town and one in Colorado Springs. When I give out recommendations, I make it my policy to give out at least 3 because I don't want to play favorites with all the different shops sending me referrals.

Thanks. I had my trust done before I knew about you but have been impressed by the way you handle yourself. I was just recommending you yesterday (out at CRC) to a fellow shooter because of this. I appritiate that you at least gave us all a heads up.

[ray1970]

I was just recommending you yesterday (out at CRC)

I was out at CRC yesterday. I would have said hello if I knew you were there.

I haven't gotten into the NFA stuff just yet but I'm getting close. Hope to,have my trust set up sometime between now and the end of the year. Definitely going to let NFATrustGuy set it up.

[asmo]

Here's what I will say: This particular dealer has been discussed at great length and with a significant number of less than happy reviews over in the Dealer and Range Reviews section of this forum. Again, this is a south Denver area dealer. Based on member reports of MSRP+ pricing along with repeated and continued failure to make good on promises and generally treating people poorly, I really doubt that any of the regular members would buy anything from this gun shop anyway. I also haven't seen much participation on this forum from anyone representing this particular dealer.


Thank you. That is enough to go on. That place constantly gives the gun industry a bad name.

[RSix]

I've have the same problem; the shop is holding my suppressor hostage also. I'll out 'em when I get my property out of their "jail." Since I don't plan on paying their lawyer, it may take a while.

[Ranger353]

A what a what?!

First off, after the stamp is issued it is YOUR NFA ITEM, not the dealers. The dealer can ask for a copy of my trust, heck he can even ask to see the original, and for grins and giggles I'll show it to them. But that NFA ITEM BELONGS TO WHOMEVER IS LISTED ON THE FORM 1 WITH A STAMP STUCK ON IT.

Second, if they want to loose there FFL then fine, I'll file a theft report with the local LE agency and/or then a civil case of replevin to get my property back.

That was an easy one.

[NFATrustGuy]

I understand one particular gun shop who's requiring the Affidavit of Trust is suggesting that their customers contact their preferred lawyer who will be happy to prepare the document for a fee of $95.

Here's my answer to this plan:

If you're one of my clients, just email me and I'll prepare the document for no charge.

If you're NOT one of my clients, email me a copy of your Trust and I'll prepare the document for no charge.

Fair enough?

PM me for my email address if you don't already have it.

RWW

[XC700116]

A what a what?!

First off, after the stamp is issued it is YOUR NFA ITEM, not the dealers. The dealer can ask for a copy of my trust, heck he can even ask to see the original, and for grins and giggles I'll show it to them. But that NFA ITEM BELONGS TO WHOMEVER IS LISTED ON THE FORM 1 WITH A STAMP STUCK ON IT.

Second, if they want to loose there FFL then fine, I'll file a theft report with the local LE agency and/or then a civil case of replevin to get my property back.

That was an easy one.

That's kinda what I was thinking, once its approved the trust owns it not the ffl.

[asmo]

That's kinda what I was thinking, once its approved the trust owns it not the ffl.

Not true.. Once the trust 'buys' it, the trust 'owns' it but cant take possession. This part has nothing to do with the SOT/FFL..

There is a more fun case of the ATF approving something but then the buyer failing the NICS check. This has happened and will continue to happen. Gets kinda interesting for the FFL (they maintain possession).

[Ranger353]

Not true.. Once the trust 'buys' it, the trust 'owns' it but cant take possession. This part has nothing to do with the SOT/FFL..

There is a more fun case of the ATF approving something but then the buyer failing the NICS check. This has happened and will continue to happen. Gets kinda interesting for the FFL (they maintain possession).

If you are clearly a trustee of the trust, and of course pass a NICS check, then it is your property on behalf of the trust. The only limiting factor is if you have not paid for it yet, which would be dumb on the FFLs part for registering an NFA item before selling it.

[Alpha2]

" There is a more fun case of the ATF approving something but then the buyer failing the NICS check. This has happened and will continue to happen. Gets kinda interesting for the FFL (they maintain possession)."

I'm trying to remember how it went with my two suppressors, but I don't recall having to do a NICS check after I had purchased the item and it was approved by the BATFE. Is this new? I'm about to pop on a TBAC in .30cal and I don't want any surprises. I might have done it, but it's been a while now since the last two.

[ChunkyMonkey]

I hope it's not the same South Denver shop/shooting range that's charging $200 just to transfer an NFA item. Yep, not the stamp, not the cbi, just for the transfer, $200. [facepalm]

[spqrzilla]

I understand one particular gun shop who's requiring the Affidavit of Trust is suggesting that their customers contact their preferred lawyer who will be happy to prepare the document for a fee of $95.

Here's my answer to this plan:

If you're one of my clients, just email me and I'll prepare the document for no charge.

If you're NOT one of my clients, email me a copy of your Trust and I'll prepare the document for no charge.

Fair enough?

PM me for my email address if you don't already have it.

RWW

Nope, not "fair". Its quite generous. And that reinforces that this "new" requirement is a load of horse manure. In fact, I would not mind learning the identity of this shop's "favorite" attorney. For future reference ...

[Great-Kazoo]

" There is a more fun case of the ATF approving something but then the buyer failing the NICS check. This has happened and will continue to happen. Gets kinda interesting for the FFL (they maintain possession)."

I'm trying to remember how it went with my two suppressors, but I don't recall having to do a NICS check after I had purchased the item and it was approved by the BATFE. Is this new? I'm about to pop on a TBAC in .30cal and I don't want any surprises. I might have done it, but it's been a while now since the last two.

I was hit with this crap (BG check) AND $10 FEE when i picked up my last can in march. I thought it was something the LGS was doing to put another $10 in their pocket.

[To Bear Arms]

Since the new laws, we get charged $10 for every BGC ran. So since we have the item in our books and it requires a BGC to be transferred there is a $10 fee.

[Alpha2]

Oh, it gets better...The democraps in the state legislature have decreed, and the Gov has concurred, that FFLs can only charge 10 bucks for their time and paperwork, (receiving, logging in, logging out, etc) in addition to the State BCG fee, which they have to pay the state. Regardless of the time, and paperwork involved on our part. How would like to be a plumber, and the state determined that you could only charge 10 bucks for installing a sink, a toilet, and clear a plugged main drain line? Because, they know all about this stuff, right?

Sorry, it just chaps my a$$. I do the BCG for FREE if the firearm is bought from me. But if you buy online, totally bypassing me, I can only charge you 10 bucks for my contribution. So, tell me, would you sign on to that arrangement?

[Rucker61]

Oh, it gets better...The democraps in the state legislature have decreed, and the Gov has concurred, that FFLs can only charge 10 bucks for their time and paperwork, (receiving, logging in, logging out, etc) in addition to the State BCG fee, which they have to pay the state. Regardless of the time, and paperwork involved on our part. How would like to be a plumber, and the state determined that you could only charge 10 bucks for installing a sink, a toilet, and clear a plugged main drain line? Because, they know all about this stuff, right?

Sorry, it just chaps my a$$. I do the BCG for FREE if the firearm is bought from me. But if you buy online, totally bypassing me, I can only charge you 10 bucks for my contribution. So, tell me, would you sign on to that arrangement?

They can only charge $10 for the background check, but they can charge what they want for a transfer, right?

[Great-Kazoo]

They can only charge $10 for the background check, but they can charge what they want for a transfer, right?

Correct

[brutal]

FFL can charge what they want and most do, but the bill stated $10 plus the $10 CBI fee.

More unenforceable excrement.

[DenverGP]

I think the way the law was worded, a lot of people thought that it was $10 for the background check, and a max of $10 for the transfer itself. I think a lot of stores thought thats what the law intended. And it wouldn't surprise me if thats what the lawmakers wanted. I generally see shops charging $15-$20 plus the $10 background check.

[coop68]

Here is a copy of the Statue,

Now these are a pain to read, but from my understanding that ten dollars to the dealer refers to private party transfers! 10 to the state 10 to the dealer, If they choose to charge a fee.

FFL to FFL transfers are not mentioned unless I'm not seeing it, granted how these are worded wouldn't surprise me.


CHAPTER 47


HOUSE BILL NO. 1229


2013 Colo. ALS 47; 2013 Colo. Ch. 47; 2013 Colo. HB. 1229


SYNOPSIS: AN ACT CONCERNING CRIMINAL BACKGROUND CHECKS PERFORMED PURSUANT TO THE TRANSFER OF A FIREARM, AND, IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, MAKING AN APPROPRIATION.

NOTICE:
[A> Text within these symbols is added <A]
[D> Text within these symbols is deleted <D]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
To view the next section, type .np* and TRANSMIT.
To view a specific section, transmit p* and the section number. E.g. p*1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Be it enacted by the General Assembly of the State of Colorado:

[*1] SECTION 1. In Colorado Revised Statutes, add 18-12-112 as follows:

[A> 18-12-112. Private firearms transfers - background check required - penalty - definitions. (1) (a) ON AND AFTER JULY 1, 2013, EXCEPT AS DESCRIBED IN SUBSECTION (6) OF THIS SECTION, BEFORE ANY PERSON WHO IS NOT A LICENSED GUN DEALER, AS DEFINED IN SECTION 12-26.1-106 (6), C.R.S., TRANSFERS OR ATTEMPTS TO TRANSFER POSSESSION OF A FIREARM TO A TRANSFEREE, HE OR SHE SHALL: <A]

[A> (I) REQUIRE THAT A BACKGROUND CHECK, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 24-33.5-424, C.R.S., BE CONDUCTED OF THE PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE; AND <A]

[A> (II) OBTAIN APPROVAL OF A TRANSFER FROM THE BUREAU AFTER A BACKGROUND CHECK HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY A LICENSED GUN DEALER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 24-33.5-424, C.R.S. <A]

[A> (b) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT REQUIRES OTHERWISE, "TRANSFEREE" MEANS A PERSON WHO DESIRES TO RECEIVE OR ACQUIRE A FIREARM FROM A TRANSFEROR. IF A TRANSFEREE IS NOT A NATURAL PERSON, THEN EACH NATURAL PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED BY THE TRANSFEREE TO POSSESS THE FIREARM AFTER THE TRANSFER SHALL UNDERGO A BACKGROUND CHECK, AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (a) OF THIS SUBSECTION (1), BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF THE FIREARM. <A]

[A> (2) (a) A PROSPECTIVE FIREARM TRANSFEROR WHO IS NOT A LICENSED GUN DEALER SHALL ARRANGE FOR A LICENSED GUN DEALER TO OBTAIN THE BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIRED BY THIS SECTION. <A]

[A> (b) A LICENSED GUN DEALER WHO OBTAINS A BACKGROUND CHECK ON A PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE SHALL RECORD THE TRANSFER, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12-26-102, C.R.S., AND RETAIN THE RECORDS, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 12-26-103, C.R.S., IN THE SAME MANNER AS WHEN CONDUCTING A SALE, RENTAL, OR EXCHANGE AT RETAIL. THE LICENSED GUN DEALER SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS, INCLUDING 18 U.S.C. SEC. 922, AS IF HE OR SHE WERE TRANSFERRING THE FIREARM FROM HIS OR HER INVENTORY TO THE PROSPECTIVE TRANSFEREE. <A]

[A> (c) A LICENSED GUN DEALER WHO OBTAINS A BACKGROUND CHECK FOR A PROSPECTIVE FIREARM TRANSFEROR PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION SHALL PROVIDE THE FIREARM TRANSFEROR AND TRANSFEREE A COPY OF THE RESULTS OF THE BACKGROUND CHECK, INCLUDING THE BUREAU'S APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF THE TRANSFER. <A]

[A> (d) A LICENSED GUN DEALER MAY CHARGE A FEE FOR SERVICES RENDERED PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, WHICH FEE SHALL NOT EXCEED TEN DOLLARS. <A]

[A> (3) (a) A PROSPECTIVE FIREARM TRANSFEREE UNDER THIS SECTION SHALL NOT ACCEPT POSSESSION OF THE FIREARM UNLESS THE PROSPECTIVE FIREARM TRANSFEROR HAS OBTAINED APPROVAL OF THE TRANSFER FROM THE BUREAU AFTER A BACKGROUND CHECK HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY A LICENSED GUN DEALER, AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (b) OF SUBSECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION. <A]

[A> (b) A PROSPECTIVE FIREARM TRANSFEREE SHALL NOT KNOWINGLY PROVIDE FALSE INFORMATION TO A PROSPECTIVE FIREARM TRANSFEROR OR TO A LICENSED GUN DEALER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING A FIREARM. <A]

[A> (4) IF THE BUREAU APPROVES A TRANSFER OF A FIREARM PURSUANT TO THIS SECTION, THE APPROVAL SHALL BE VALID FOR THIRTY CALENDAR DAYS, DURING WHICH TIME THE TRANSFEROR AND TRANSFEREE MAY COMPLETE THE TRANSFER. <A]

[A> (5) A PERSON WHO TRANSFERS A FIREARM IN VIOLATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION MAY BE JOINTLY AND SEVERALLY LIABLE FOR ANY CIVIL DAMAGES PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE TRANSFEREE'S SUBSEQUENT USE OF THE FIREARM. <A]

There is a lot more to this bill here is the link I do not want to take up board space. http://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/Colorado/. search the Chapter 47 or H1229.

[Brian]

It's funny, reading the last few posts, my first thought was "OMG make it stop, didn't we beat this to death last year?" but then I reminded myself that it's about time to vote, so I'd rather see more people getting fired up again so we all get off our butts. Flame on!

[Great-Kazoo]

It's funny, reading the last few posts, my first thought was "OMG make it stop, didn't we beat this to death last year?" but then I reminded myself that it's about time to vote, so I'd rather see more people getting fired up again so we all get off our butts. Flame on!

We shall see, with mail in ballot. The D's were way up, now media says dead heat. I believe it's to fire up the progressives and FSA to vote. Not so much a close race. What's your take on ebola [LOL]

[Alpha2]

(d) A licensed gun dealer may charge a fee for services rendered pursuant to this section, which fee shall not exceed ten dollars.

This is the statute. I personally know of at least one dealer that charges a "storage" fee in addition to the BCG/transfer fee. It's for the short time he "stores" the firearm in the process of entering it into and out of his bound book. The way I read it, ANY services rendered pursuant to "this section" of the statute would be included, i.e. storage. On the other hand, storage is nowhere mentioned as a service of the process.

Yes, poorly worded statute. Poorly conceived, poorly enacted, another gross over-reach of govt.