View Full Version : 41P signed and passed
SouthPaw
01-04-2016, 22:22
Well the party ends in 180 days from today. Great way to start 2016.
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download
Assuming I'm reading this right on my first pass of the summary pages:
1) Responsible person(s) now required, including fingerprints and photographs
2) CLEO signature removed
3) CLEO notification required
4) Adjust treatment of estates. If you die, your executor can possess your junk without "transferring" it to them, and transfer to a beneficiary is tax-exempt
5) Valid 180 days from date published
6) 5330.20 not required going forward as it'll continue to be absorbed in other forms
248 pages of comments and propsed amendments, etc.
Is it too late to submit forms tonight? Fuck!
Roger Ronas
01-04-2016, 22:53
Assuming I'm reading this right on my first pass of the summary pages:
1) Responsible person(s) now required, including fingerprints and photographs
2) CLEO signature removed
3) CLEO notification required
4) Adjust treatment of estates. If you die, your executor can possess your junk without "transferring" it to them, and transfer to a beneficiary is tax-exempt
5) Valid 180 days from date published
6) 5330.20 not required going forward as it'll continue to be absorbed in other forms
248 pages of comments and propsed amendments, etc.
so am I reading your notes correctly, No CLEO sig Needed?
How do you notify CLEO?
Also my questions:
Do we have 180 days to get trust and any forms filed before this takes affect?
Is today the published date so that means 7-3-16 a valid date?
May be Rodney will chime in
Roger
SouthPaw
01-04-2016, 22:57
Trusts never need a CLEO signature to begin with. I think someone pointed out that individual forms will no longer require CLEO signature only notification.
This means I am going to start having to miss work to get fingerprints done along with my family members as well to abide. Ridiculous.
Many thanks to the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association for fucking this one up.
My understanding is they tried to work their way around CLEO's not signing off on individual NFA submissions by changing the process. Then we ended up with 41P. My reading of this in its current state is that CLEO sign off is not required for trusts, but fingerprints and photo, NICS, and CLEO notification after form1 maker or form4 transfer approval is required.
What happened to removing suppressors from NFA? Wasn't that supposed to be the trade off for this horseshit?
Well bunch of horse crap. Would like to get some more clarification on this. Do we have time to submit more before it goes into effect? So now with trusts, I still have to get fingerprinted and photographed for EVERY item?
Trusts never need a CLEO signature to begin with. I think someone pointed out that individual forms will no longer require CLEO signature only notification.
This means I am going to start having to miss work to get fingerprints done along with my family members as well to abide. Ridiculous.
True, but "responsible person" CLEO signoff for trusts were part of the original draft, which was what I was trying to say.
DangerLee_Industries
01-04-2016, 23:13
It reads that this goes into enforcement in 180 days from today. I am not a lawyer and don't work for the ATF but that's how I read it.
Well bunch of horse crap. Would like to get some more clarification on this. Do we have time to submit more before it goes into effect? So now with trusts, I still have to get fingerprinted and photographed for EVERY item?
Yes, at least 180 days until it takes effect. Make sure you're in pending and you're probably 90% sure you're grandfathered. Might be ok if you mail your form by then too, but I wouldn't risk it.
Yes, you will need to get fingerprinted/photographed/notification for every form (every item) starting 180+ days from now.
Figure some suppressors will sell out this week, and ATF lead times are going to lengthen due to the influx of expected forms starting tomorrow morning.
SA Friday
01-04-2016, 23:27
As I read it, all trustees of a trust or owners of an LLC have to now submit photos, fingerprints, and 5320.23's along with the rest the package. They run a background on this info when processing the package. CLEO certify the FPs and photos are the person and no known disqualifying info locally on each trustee/LLC member. This isn't CLEO certification, as I read it this can be delegated. Problem is many sheriff's offices will refuse to accomplish the administrative tasks or back burner the requests for months. Anyone see Denver Sheriffs doing this? So, now someone HAS to sue a sheriff for infringement before the rest will get it. Also probably means no more digital filing of form 1s and no future filing of form 4s.
He just made a mess with this one. This could take a while to clear up.
So it's only a "notification" of CLEO and not sign-off? It would be a pain in the azz to jump through the hoops, but if that's true . . . then at least it would eliminate what I was most concerned about in that I had heard the Douglas County sheriffs have traditionally refused to sign off on NFA items. Will have to try to grind through the info and would welcome some expert interpretations.
But good grief . . anything to make it harder, more frustrating, more expensive, etc for the people who aren't the problem. Such a screw job from the bureaucrats and progressives.
So it's only a "notification" of CLEO and not sign-off? It would be a pain in the azz to jump through the hoops, but if that's true . . . then at least it would eliminate what I was most concerned about in that I had heard the Douglas County sheriffs have traditionally refused to sign off on NFA items. Will have to try to grind through the info and would welcome some expert interpretations.
But good grief . . anything to make it harder, more frustrating, more expensive, etc for the people who aren't the problem. Such a screw job from the bureaucrats and progressives.
RE: DougCo. Weaver wouldn't sign NFA. New sheriff is reported to have done so.
SA Friday
01-04-2016, 23:43
NO ITS NOT ONLY NOTIFICATION!!!!!!
READ THE FUCKING DOCUMENT.
HEY, READ MY POST EVEN... then read the document. WTF?
SA Friday
01-04-2016, 23:44
RE: DougCo. Weaver wouldn't sign NFA. New sheriff is reported to have done so.
Not that I ever saw, but he might have started after I got out of the Class III business about a year ago.
Not that I ever saw, but he might have started after I got out of the Class III business about a year ago.
Spurlock was not signing off? I believe, even though he ran essentially unopposed, that was a campaign promise.
HoneyBadger
01-04-2016, 23:54
When the actions of reasonable men are outlawed, reasonable men become outlaws.
How much more of this bullshit is everyone going to continue to put up with? [Shake]
Rooskibar03
01-05-2016, 00:07
Is it too late to submit forms tonight? Fuck!
I had one sitting in draft status that I paid for and submitted about 2 hours ago.
guess I'll be hunting for a supressors or two tomorrow.
SA Friday
01-05-2016, 00:13
Spurlock was not signing off? I believe, even though he ran essentially unopposed, that was a campaign promise.
Weaver said the same shit when he ran too. Spurlock was a Weaver underling as I understand it.
I think convincing Spurlock to do this would be minor compared to the Denver Sheriff. I would lump the last Adams County sheriff in there too, but he's gone now. Arapahoe was't signing off on any last I checked also. Someone will have to be sued or this will have to has an injunction against it before it gets cleared up.
Funny, this EO has huge errors in it too. It states that they know the NFA transfer requires a 4473 and NICS before completing the transfer. Not true, the 4473 clearly states NFA transfers require a 4473 completed but no NICS is accomplished. Says it right there on page two.
AND another thing. fingerprint cards (blue cards) have a certification block for the person taking the fingerprints to sign and print their name certifying the FPs are of who they say they are. If submitting cards and photos, why would anything more be required? Any info stopping a gun sale is required by law to be entered into NCIC under Brady.
Has anyone involved in writing this POS actually every gone through any of these processes? This is just stupid.
While a bunch of you have eyes on this thread, let me pop an unrelated question since I'm going to scramble submit two more form1 SBR's ASAP.
I just got my first DIY can Form1 back. What is everyone listing as manufacturer for DIY cans on their schedule A? The name of the trust? Or the name shown on the approved Form1 which is FORM1 REGISTRATION, UNITED STATES?
What say the hive?
SA Friday
01-05-2016, 01:22
While a bunch of you have eyes on this thread, let me pop an unrelated question since I'm going to scramble submit two more form1 SBR's ASAP.
I just got my first DIY can Form1 back. What is everyone listing as manufacturer for DIY cans on their schedule A? The name of the trust? Or the name shown on the approved Form1 which is FORM1 REGISTRATION, UNITED STATES?
What say the hive?
You are the manufacturer. Whatever is in the block for name of manufacturer on the form one. So if you did it under xxx pimp daddy gun trust, Parker, CO. Then that's what's engraved on the can and should be listed in the schedule.
You are the manufacturer. Whatever is in the block for name of manufacturer on the form one. So if you did it under xxx pimp daddy gun trust, Parker, CO. Then that's what's engraved on the can and should be listed in the schedule.
Have you made a DIY form1 can?
It doesn't list the applicant (the trust) in the manufacturer block, it lists
4a
FORM1 REGISTRATION, UNITED STATES
4b
SILENCER
4c
30
This isn't like making an SBR. I still list the lower MFR on the schedule A for an SBR I "made."
What does this mean for people who have yet to enter into the NFA game? I read all the posts, but don't really know what any of it means. It sounds like you have to jump through the same hoops to get a CCW (as far as photo and finger prints) for each new item. Is it correct that the concern is that sheriff departments will just blow off the requests to have the prints and photos done?
Have I missed the NFA boat until this gets cleared up?
While a bunch of you have eyes on this thread, let me pop an unrelated question since I'm going to scramble submit two more form1 SBR's ASAP.
I just got my first DIY can Form1 back. What is everyone listing as manufacturer for DIY cans on their schedule A? The name of the trust? Or the name shown on the approved Form1 which is FORM1 REGISTRATION, UNITED STATES?
What say the hive?
Not a Can but...
I made a SBR from a raw 0% forging. In 4a I put my trust information. I put my trust info on my trust schedule A inventory list. The items on the Schedule A need correct information to identify what is in it. "FORM 1 REGISTRATION" doesn't properly identify that item. It needs the trust name to identify the make. That is my reasoning for the way I did it.
On a side note to your side note. Manufacturers do not send in Form 1s. You need a manufacturers license to manufacture a silencer or firearm. A individual or legal entity can make a NFA item but not manufacture one. The Form 1 is an "Application to Make and Register a Firearm". If you construct something to sell you are manufacturing it. If are making it it is for personal use. Manufacturers and Makers pay taxes differently.
The forging in my avatar is now my 9mm SBR.
What does this mean for people who have yet to enter into the NFA game? I read all the posts, but don't really know what any of it means. It sounds like you have to jump through the same hoops to get a CCW (as far as photo and finger prints) for each new item. Is it correct that the concern is that sheriff departments will just blow off the requests to have the prints and photos done?
Have I missed the NFA boat until this gets cleared up?
Nobody knows for certain positive what is going to happen. The following is my opinion only. The final rule document has this in it.
"V. Final Rule
For the reasons discussed above, this final rule has been revised from the proposed rule to eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by a CLEO and instead add a CLEO notification requirement. (page 209)
Accordingly, because the law enforcement certification will no longer be required, the regulations in§§ 479.63 and 479.85 are being revised to require the applicant maker or transferee, as well as each responsible person, to provide a notice to the appropriate State or local official that an application is being submitted to ATF. (page208)" end of quote.
Earlier in the same document it says the way the notification is going to be accomplished is by have the applicants send in 2 copies of Form 5320.23 and fingerprint cards with their Forms to the ATF. The ATF will then keep one copy to conduct their background check and send the other to the CLEO to fulfil the notification requirement. Doing it this way does mean there would be no CLEO sign off required.
On the other hand I wonder what would happen if the CLEO told the ATF they don't think the applicant should be approved.
I guess I just don't see how the CLEO is going to have any ability to stand in the way of this process.
I tend to agree. What I have read sure looks like the CLEO signoff is gone. But I am paranoid enough to worry about it.
I had a friend that was always telling me to think positive. We'd be getting ready to go for a cruise on our bikes I'd say it looks like it might rain. She laugh and tell me to think positive. I'd turn my head and mumble something about now I am positive it's going to rain.
So my hopes of forming a trust and sbr'ing a rifle or two might not be dead? That's wonderful.
So this brings up an interesting question. Let's say I form a trust with only me. I get a bunch of NFA items approved via the trust.
Now at a later point in time I want to add someone to the trust. What do I do? They're already owned by the trust, therefore I can't go through another approval, which is the only way that that the ATF would have a mechanism to get fingerprints and pictures...
O2
Of the many things I'm unclear on with regard to this . . . what is the story with the "fingerprint cards" that would be involved here? The doc refers to a "FBI Form FD-258 (fingerprint card)" along with the Form 5320.23. Is that something new that people would need to go get? We were photographed and printed as part of the process to get our CHP, so is that something that you would just need to get from the county sheriff's office to be used for the applications? If so, seems like part of the process that could be slow-walked either purposefully or just through actual volume.
Guess it will take some time to get a rundown of the key details that apply for those of us with trusts. That's a lot of text to read though.
You don't have to go through the sheriff to get finger printed on a blue card though. Many sheriff departments farm this out, so you just show up with money and they finger print you. It's the way I've been officially finger printed every time I've had to apply for a state adjusting license.
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-05-2016, 09:28
So if you have to get everyone printed and BGC for NFA items on a trust, and the CLEO sign off has been removed, why not just skip the trust and go the standard route? Is the CLEO sign off still in place for individual owned items?
While finger printing and checking the trust members is not a step in the right direction, if CLEO sign off is really removed for trusts and individuals, that is pretty positive. If they have removed the CLEO only for trusts, that is pretty odd. With the FFL and BGC EO that is pretty lawless, they could have been far more punitive on the NFA items. My concern is that the state or Home Rule (Denver only?) cities will ban NFA items.
Part of me wonders if they are opening the door a little bit, and the next push is to get 'AW' into the NFA- and then they slam the door. This is all about registering, since with out that banning is nearly useless.
So no more CLEO sign of for individually owned NFA items?
NFATrustGuy
01-05-2016, 10:16
Good morning folks.
As you might expect, I started my day with a bit of light reading. NOT.
I'll have more later, but I'd like to start off with just a few preliminary comments to stem the tide of emails.
Keep in mind that the terms I'm using apply to my form of NFA Trusts. Other attorneys or DIY solutions may use different terms or may use the same terms to mean different things. Nobody's necessarily right or wrong. Just different.
1. Under my form of Trust, Backup Trustees (a/k/a "Successor Trustees) do not need a background check or fingerprints or a photograph. These folks have ZERO authority until after the original Trustee dies or otherwise becomes incapacitated. They will (presumably) need a background check when they assume their role as Trustee after you die, but not until then.
2. Under my form of Trust, backup (successor) Beneficiaries do not need a background check or fingerprints or a photograph. These folks have ZERO authority until after the original Beneficiary dies or otherwise becomes incapacitated. In my form of Trust, the original Trustee (YOU) is also the Beneficiary until you die. Backup Beneficiaries will need a background check after you die, and before they take possession of any NFA item, but not until then.
3. Under my form of Trust, anyone you name as a Co-Trustee **will** need a background check, fingerprints, photo, etc. Co-Trustees have present-day authority and have the legal authority to use/possess items held by the Trust. As an example, I might choose to name my brother as Co-Trustee so that he can take my Trust's .22LR suppressor to the range when I'm out of town. He'll need a BGC, FP, & P. He may ALSO be listed as a backup Trustee and a backup Beneficiary, but he only needs a BGC, FP, & P because he's named as Co-Trustee.
3-1/2. Under my form of Trust, there are ZERO persons named as co-Trustee within the body of the Trust. I provide forms for you to ADD or REMOVE co-Trustees at your leisure. My thought is that co-Trustees will likely come and go throughout the remainder of your life. I didn't want to force you to go see an attorney for an amendment each time you want to add or remove a co-Trustee. The co-Trustee concept is explained starting on page 14 of my Trust package.
4. Grandfathering Provision. I haven't had a chance to digest this part of the new rule. I'll post more later.
5. Adding a person as O2NeH2 describes above… Good question. Don't have an answer for you, but I'll look.
6. Ability of an "unenthusiastic" CLEO to delay or otherwise sabotage the process because of the fingerprint cards… I'm concerned, too. I think it'll take reading through all the comments and answers to figure out whether this is an issue or not.
Give me a day or two to digest this and I'll post more here. I'm also planning to create an auto-responder email account with my thoughts on the matter and possibly even a brief FAQ. I'll post that information here on this site as soon as it's available.
mtnrider
01-05-2016, 10:25
EDIT: Looks like NFA trust Guy answered my questions before I finished typing..
The whole idea behind me going the trust route with all my NFA items wasn't to avoid CLEO sign off it was to make sure the firearms had a clear path of inheritance and users if something was to happen to me, my wife etc.
So if I understand what I am hearing now, every person listed in the trust has to do fingerprints, photo, and BGC? Is that correct? What if the kids are under age at this point? As I have it now if something happens to me and my wife my sister would take the items until my kids were of age etc.
.
NFATrustGuy
01-05-2016, 10:37
To answer "FromMyColdDeadHand"'s question:
Personally, the main reason I'm using a Trust for my NFA items is that it allows me to give my brother permission to use my NFA items while I'm out of town or for whatever other reason, can't go to the range with him.
Even with this new rule, it's still legal to share an NFA item with a buddy. More burdensome, YES, but still possible.
SamuraiCO
01-05-2016, 11:08
I am not sure how the Republican primary shakes out. Ted Cruz and Trump have already stated they will immediately strike out these executive orders. Remember if you do not get who you want Hillary has already stated she approves of this. Without veto proof majorities in the House and Senate and the Senate unwilling to change the filibuster rule we can be sure our representatives will do nothing to help us out. Other R candidates may not come out one way or another but legislation in our favor at least has a chance to be sighed vs Hillary.
Wonder if the 4 million who stayed home and did not vote because Romney was not conservative enough for them would ever guess Romney would ever do something similar to this. Or if his lit of judges would be such any where as bad as Obamas. Voting or not voting has consequences.
Obama's tenure can not come soon enough.
muddywings
01-05-2016, 11:14
Thanks NFA TrustGuy. Glad I got my trust with you.
I'll let this shake out a bit because it will induce as many confusing issues just as CO UBC law did right as I got my trust.
Might as well tag this post.....
Thanks NFA TrustGuy. Glad I got my trust with you.
I'll let this shake out a bit because it will induce as many confusing issues just as CO UBC law did right as I got my trust.
Might as well tag this post.....
I'll second that. This is why I went with someone local and recommended.
1. Under my form of Trust, Backup Trustees (a/k/a "Successor Trustees) do not need a background check or fingerprints or a photograph. These folks have ZERO authority until after the original Trustee dies or otherwise becomes incapacitated. They will (presumably) need a background check when they assume their role as Trustee after you die, but not until then.
2. Under my form of Trust, backup (successor) Beneficiaries do not need a background check or fingerprints or a photograph. These folks have ZERO authority until after the original Beneficiary dies or otherwise becomes incapacitated. In my form of Trust, the original Trustee (YOU) is also the Beneficiary until you die. Backup Beneficiaries will need a background check after you die, and before they take possession of any NFA item, but not until then.
My recommendation, take it for what its worth, is to make the term "Responsible Person" very clearly called out as it is now a term of art that various people, many of whom are not trust/will/estate attorneys, will now need to rely on. Example I don't want to have to argue with my SOT about whether or not a "Successor Trustee" or "Settlors Beneficiary" or the like are a "Responsible Person" when it comes any issues in the future. I can see an SOT (and/or an ATF Examiner) saying they want fingerprints/pictures from any name that is in the trust just to cover themselves or because they don't understand the legaleese that some lawyer has put down.
I am also looking at ways of having Co-Trustees that do *NOT* have the power and authority to direct the management and policies of the entity insofar as they pertain to firearms. Thus making them not a "Responsible Person" in the capacity the ATF has specified.
Not a Can but...
I made a SBR from a raw 0% forging. In 4a I put my trust information. I put my trust info on my trust schedule A inventory list. The items on the Schedule A need correct information to identify what is in it. "FORM 1 REGISTRATION" doesn't properly identify that item. It needs the trust name to identify the make. That is my reasoning for the way I did it.
On a side note to your side note. Manufacturers do not send in Form 1s. You need a manufacturers license to manufacture a silencer or firearm. A individual or legal entity can make a NFA item but not manufacture one. The Form 1 is an "Application to Make and Register a Firearm". If you construct something to sell you are manufacturing it. If are making it it is for personal use. Manufacturers and Makers pay taxes differently.
The forging in my avatar is now my 9mm SBR.
I didn't put anything in 4a, that's what the e-form populated. By your own logic, you incorrectly put your trust as a MANUFACTURER. :D
I guess I will list the MAKE (trust name) MODEL and SERIAL.
Of the many things I'm unclear on with regard to this . . . what is the story with the "fingerprint cards" that would be involved here? The doc refers to a "FBI Form FD-258 (fingerprint card)" along with the Form 5320.23. Is that something new that people would need to go get? We were photographed and printed as part of the process to get our CHP, so is that something that you would just need to get from the county sheriff's office to be used for the applications? If so, seems like part of the process that could be slow-walked either purposefully or just through actual volume.
Guess it will take some time to get a rundown of the key details that apply for those of us with trusts. That's a lot of text to read though.
You don't have to go through the sheriff to get finger printed on a blue card though. Many sheriff departments farm this out, so you just show up with money and they finger print you. It's the way I've been officially finger printed every time I've had to apply for a state adjusting license.
You can probably get a blue FP card done at your local PD. I have to do this for work related BGC periodically. I think the only hurdle was Parker PD had specific hours that their FP person was available.
Here's another thought. To get an FP card completed, you have to show valid ID (DL or passport). To get a BGC you have to show valid ID. You need a valid ID for almost everything EXCEPT voting. And there folks, is the cause for all this BS.
yankeefan98121
01-05-2016, 13:25
You can probably get a blue FP card done at your local PD. I have to do this for work related BGC periodically. I think the only hurdle was Parker PD had specific hours that their FP person was available.
Here's another thought. To get an FP card completed, you have to show valid ID (DL or passport). To get a BGC you have to show valid ID. You need a valid ID for almost everything EXCEPT voting. And there folks, is the cause for all this BS.
^^^^^^^ this! HAHAHAHAHA [LOL]
Great-Kazoo
01-05-2016, 13:50
Ironically You don't need I.D to vote, a given right. But you not only need Valid I.D to buy a gun. Sometimes you have to wait for approval to take a gun home. A right granted CONSTITUTIONALLY.
IMAGINE telling Juan al Farisi sorry not only do you need Valid identification to vote.... There's a 5 day waiting period to do so. This allows us to verify you're allowed a ballot.
The derpy outrage would be worth the price of admission.
OK, another question here.
If I have my items on a trust and I don't purchase any new items or add anyone to the trust, is there anything that needs to be done or does this only impact future (180 days from now) additions?
FromMyColdDeadHand
01-05-2016, 14:08
Ironically You don't need I.D to vote, a given right. But you not only need Valid I.D to buy a gun. Sometimes you have to wait for approval to take a gun home. A right granted CONSTITUTIONALLY.
IMAGINE telling Juan al Farisi sorry not only do you need Valid identification to vote.... There's a 5 day waiting period to do so. This allows us to verify you're allowed a ballot.
The derpy outrage would be worth the price of admission.
or $200 and six months to get approved, and you have to tell the gov when you cross state lines...
yankeefan98121
01-05-2016, 14:20
OK, another question here.
If I have my items on a trust and I don't purchase any new items or add anyone to the trust, is there anything that needs to be done or does this only impact future (180 days from now) additions?
Only new additions...or any changes to your co-trustees
Ironically You don't need I.D to vote, a given right. But you not only need Valid I.D to buy a gun. Sometimes you have to wait for approval to take a gun home. A right granted Guaranteed CONSTITUTIONALLY.
IMAGINE telling Juan al Farisi sorry not only do you need Valid identification to vote.... There's a 5 day waiting period to do so. This allows us to verify you're allowed a ballot.
The derpy outrage would be worth the price of admission.
Semantics matter. The government/constitution do not grant rights, they can only guarantee or protect those that are preexisting.
Only new additions...or any changes to your co-trustees
Thanks, that's the way I read it too. Now I need to find a 7.62 Saker ASAP. :)
muddywings
01-05-2016, 15:07
Only new additions...or any changes to your co-trustees
Not sure about the reading on the bold. If you add a trustee, without adding an item, who do you report that to?
Just spit balling cause I really don't know.
yankeefan98121
01-05-2016, 15:22
Not sure about the reading on the bold. If you add a trustee, without adding an item, who do you report that to?
Just spit balling cause I really don't know.
I don't know either...
Going off what NFA guy as well (post #33, #3)....
muddywings
01-05-2016, 15:46
I don't know either...
Going off what NFA guy as well (post #33, #3)....
ahh, see your point.
I'm going to arm-chair lawyer this and the way I see (because work is slow right now):
I have trust with 3 co-trustees (wife, mother, father) currently in place with an NFA item currently on the trust.
1. I want to add father-in-law-- I would simply write his name on as a co-trustee have him sign/date.*
2. I want to add another item-- all co-trustees and myself would need BGC paperwork, FP cards, and pictures sent in with trust paperwork (to include the trustee page, which I don't think you included in the past, but the way I read it, will have to do that now) with the application for the new item
*I got my trust right about the time the CO UBC came out. To cover my butt and all the bases when I picked up two suppressors, I asked them seller to run CBI BGC on my wife, and parents. I then had him print out the CBI paperwork showing they were all cleared. I then added them to the trust on that date and kept the printout to show as proof. Right or wrong figured it couldn't hurt. If i added the father-in-law I would do the same again. I actually chatted with an FFL about this right as the CO UBC laws came out and he thought it wasn't required but I did it anyway for piece of mind.
ETA: I'm just spit balling here and in the end will wait for NFA Trustguy to enlighten my ignorance.
or $200 and six months to get approved, and you have to tell the gov when you cross state lines...
...with your SBR.
Not required for suppressors.
SouthPaw
01-05-2016, 16:41
This the first I have heard of this so take it for what it is worth but...
Do you have to do this for EVERY form submitted? The answer is maybe, it just depends on how many you submit. If there have been no changes to the entity or the responsible parties and you had a form approved within 24 months of the current submission, then you will not be required to resubmit photos and fingerprints for each trustee. Instead you will provide a certification identifying the prior transfer and certifying that nothing has changed.
What about transfers pending before the rule changes? These transfers will not be affected and will be grandfathered in.
What about adding new trustees after the form has been approved? It does not appear that this has been addressed by the Rule. My position at this time is that only Current “Responsible Persons” will need to submit the information at the time the Form to make or transfer is submitted to the ATF.
Source: https://primaryandsecondary.com/41f-and-you/
If this is the case, one set of FP and PP photo would be good for two years. I am hoping this will be confirmed.
Great-Kazoo
01-05-2016, 18:12
While i'm no attorney i will say
There's a reason i spent a few dollars to use NFATrust / Rodney as the person to set up my NFA Trust. Pot #33 is one of them. Another is his accessibility (within a time frame) for responding to inquiries about trust concerns.
Yes one can spend $99 for a web site trust. I didn't. I as I'm sure others are Very happy with that decision to use Rodney.
I see this as a watershed ruling. Expect more people to say" phukit" and just build whatever they want, regardless of the law. Those that comply will be penalized as more draconian regs come down the line to attempt to stem the flow of illegal SBRs and supressors. Make no mistake, this is by design of the progressive left.
Roger Ronas
01-05-2016, 18:54
I have put off getting a trust long enough. By the end of the month I will contact NFATrustguy for a trust. Then within the next 90 days I have two form 1's that I will file. Get the parts as I go.
Roger
I have put off getting a trust long enough. By the end of the month I will contact NFATrustguy for a trust. Then within the next 90 days I have two form 1's that I will file. Get the parts as I go.
I always recommend you build the lowers and test fire them (with a legal barrel length or with a pistol tube) before engraving and submitting the form 1 to assure they work.
O2
Roger Ronas
01-05-2016, 20:05
No SBRs for me right now. I will be doing 2 suppressors.
Roger
I always recommend you build the lowers and test fire them (with a legal barrel length or with a pistol tube) before engraving and submitting the form 1 to assure they work.
O2
I always recommend you build the lowers and test fire them (with a legal barrel length or with a pistol tube) before engraving and submitting the form 1 to assure they work.
O2
Putting a pistol tube on a rifle lower doesn't make it a pistol.
Just saying for the benefit of the lurkers...
SA Friday
01-05-2016, 21:24
In accordance with the instructions provided on Form 5320.23, a certification for eachresponsible person completed by the local chief of police, sheriff of the county, headof the State police, State or local district attorney or prosecutor, or such other personwhose certification may in a particular case be acceptable to the Director. Thecertification for each responsible person must be completed by the CLEO who hasjurisdiction over the area in which the responsible person resides. The certificationmust state that the official is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph accompanying the application are those of the responsible person and that the certifying official has no information indicating that receipt or possession of the firearm by the responsible person would be in violation of State or local law.
This is in both the section for proposed changes for form 1s and form 4s, pages 16 to 23. I can't find form 5320.23, but this is saying that although CLEO certification is gone, the FPs and the photo have to be certified and that there is "no information" the responsible person (s) can posses the firearm. This CLEARLY indicates to me that the FPs and photos have to be signed off on by CLEO and in doing so they have to ensure there isn't any reason the person on the Form 5320.23 can possess a firearm. This means 1; there is no law in that area not permitting it, and 2; the individual doesn't have anything in their background. So, CLEO sign off and CLEO background before any CLEO worth his weight is going to sign (of have anyone else) sign off on this.
BAM!!! CLEO sign off paradox again. Anyone see Denver Sheriffs office doing this? Hold your breath and stomp your foot.
Am I the only one that reads this section this way? NFA Trust guy?
In accordance with the instructions provided on Form 5320.23, a certification for eachresponsible person completed by the local chief of police, sheriff of the county, headof the State police, State or local district attorney or prosecutor, or such other personwhose certification may in a particular case be acceptable to the Director. Thecertification for each responsible person must be completed by the CLEO who hasjurisdiction over the area in which the responsible person resides. The certificationmust state that the official is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph accompanying the application are those of the responsible person and that the certifying official has no information indicating that receipt or possession of the firearm by the responsible person would be in violation of State or local law.
This is in both the section for proposed changes for form 1s and form 4s, pages 16 to 23. I can't find form 5320.23, but this is saying that although CLEO certification is gone, the FPs and the photo have to be certified and that there is "no information" the responsible person (s) can posses the firearm. This CLEARLY indicates to me that the FPs and photos have to be signed off on by CLEO and in doing so they have to ensure there isn't any reason the person on the Form 5320.23 can possess a firearm. This means 1; there is no law in that area not permitting it, and 2; the individual doesn't have anything in their background. So, CLEO sign off and CLEO background before any CLEO worth his weight is going to sign (of have anyone else) sign off on this.
BAM!!! CLEO sign off paradox again. Anyone see Denver Sheriffs office doing this? Hold your breath and stomp your foot.
Am I the only one that reads this section this way? NFA Trust guy?
Wasn't that just a restatement of the "proposed" amendments . . . but not what was in the final ruling? Maybe I am incorrect there. Still digesting.
EDIT: Pretty sure that was just a rehash of the original proposed amendments and that the final rule threw that out.
P. 4: "The goal of this final rule is to ensure that the identification and background checkrequirements apply equally to individuals, trusts, and legal entities. To lessen potentialcompliance burdens for the public and law enforcement, DOJ has revised the final rule toeliminate the requirement for a certification signed by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO)and instead require CLEO notification."
P. 69: "As previously stated, in response to the concerns expressed by commenters, the final rule will no longer include a CLEO certification provision; instead, the final rule will include a CLEO / notification provision that will require applicants simply to notify the CLEO in writing of the application in accordance with the language of the final regulation."
P. 123 "As indicated in section IV.C.l the Department has replaced the CLEO certification requirement with a CLEO notification requirement. This change renders moot many of the hypothetical questions submitted by commenters, including those that focus on jurisdictions in which obtaining CLEO certification is hindered for "political" reasons."
Putting a pistol tube on a rifle lower doesn't make it a pistol.
Just saying for the benefit of the lurkers...
Assuming a brand new, unused lower, isn't the pistol vs rifle dependent on how the lower is transferred on the 4473 and first built? If you're lower says 'pistol' and you throw a stock on it I'm pretty sure it's now a rifle.
This is in both the section for proposed changes for form 1s and form 4s, pages 16 to 23. I can't find form 5320.23, but this is saying that although CLEO certification is gone, the FPs and the photo have to be certified and that there is "no information" the responsible person (s) can posses the firearm. This CLEARLY indicates to me that the FPs and photos have to be signed off on by CLEO and in doing so they have to ensure there isn't any reason the person on the Form 5320.23 can possess a firearm. This means 1; there is no law in that area not permitting it, and 2; the individual doesn't have anything in their background. So, CLEO sign off and CLEO background before any CLEO worth his weight is going to sign (of have anyone else) sign off on this.
BAM!!! CLEO sign off paradox again. Anyone see Denver Sheriffs office doing this? Hold your breath and stomp your foot.
Am I the only one that reads this section this way? NFA Trust guy?
Interpreted that way sure sounds like the CLEO certification never went away at all. I already know first hand the games the sheriff's department can/will play with people when they are given this power. This sounds no good if true.
SA Friday
01-05-2016, 22:46
Wasn't that just a restatement of the "proposed" amendments . . . but not what was in the final ruling? Maybe I am incorrect there. Still digesting.
EDIT: Pretty sure that was just a rehash of the original proposed amendments and that the final rule threw that out.
P. 4: "The goal of this final rule is to ensure that the identification and background checkrequirements apply equally to individuals, trusts, and legal entities. To lessen potentialcompliance burdens for the public and law enforcement, DOJ has revised the final rule toeliminate the requirement for a certification signed by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO)and instead require CLEO notification."
P. 69: "As previously stated, in response to the concerns expressed by commenters, the final rule will no longer include a CLEO certification provision; instead, the final rule will include a CLEO / notification provision that will require applicants simply to notify the CLEO in writing of the application in accordance with the language of the final regulation."
P. 123 "As indicated in section IV.C.l the Department has replaced the CLEO certification requirement with a CLEO notification requirement. This change renders moot many of the hypothetical questions submitted by commenters, including those that focus on jurisdictions in which obtaining CLEO certification is hindered for "political" reasons."
Ya. I finally found it. Page 209 is the final ruling concerning CLEO sign off. Notification only and mention of changing forms 1,4, and 5 to reflect this. No direct info as to how CLEO notification is documented for the transfer package though. Will it be a signature from the Sheriff's office acknowledging receipt????? Lol... Uh, what if they refuse to sign?
What a confusing document.
Ya. I finally found it. Page 209 is the final ruling concerning CLEO sign off. Notification only and mention of changing forms 1,4, and 5 to reflect this. No direct info as to how CLEO notification is documented for the transfer package though. Will it be a signature from the Sheriff's office acknowledging receipt????? Lol... Uh, what if they refuse to sign?
What a confusing document.
Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. Once you "notify" . . . then what . . . if anything? Can they put it on hold or deny it somehow? Is there some timeframe within which they have to act--or not? The ATF would do a background check, so is the only CLEO involvement really just as simple as you send the docs/prints/pics and the CLEO has no say in it? Would be great, if true. Seems like that is the case based on the other mentions of the notification--that a key reason they removed it was the nonsense that was being reported.
EDIT: someone on another site said to use certified mail and they have to sign to receive it. LOL. Can't say they didn't get it.
Assuming a brand new, unused lower, isn't the pistol vs rifle dependent on how the lower is transferred on the 4473 and first built? If you're lower says 'pistol' and you throw a stock on it I'm pretty sure it's now a rifle.
Correct, your best bet is to ensure the 4473 says "other" like it should for a stripped lower if you want it to be born pistol by installing a pistol buffer tube.
I was nit-picking O2HeN2's post.
NFATrustGuy
01-06-2016, 00:46
The issue raised by SA Friday is indeed a non-issue. The section quoted was a restatement of the initial proposed change to the rule. This part was specifically NOT implemented.
For those of you trying to digest the entire 248 page document, please note that the actual changes to the various sections of code begin on page 238. Everything leading up to this point is the government's logic (justification) leading up to the actual changes. As part of the process, the government is obligated to show that it considered things like public comments, impact on industry, time impact to comply, financial impact to comply, etc. That's what the first 237 pages are attempting to accomplish.
Here's what I've been able to glean so far:
1. Fingerprint Cards. You can essentially have your fingerprints recorded anywhere. The language used says, "Attach to the application two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card). The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them."
A quick search on Amazon reveals that you can be properly equipped with 50 FD-258 signature cards and a fingerprint ink pad for about $25--with Free Second Day shipping if you have Amazon Prime! I haven't searched, but I'm sure there are YouTube videos showing the proper technique to record fingerprints. I've been fingerprinted more times than I can count and have never been overwhelmed by the mental prowess of the person taking my fingerprints.
2. Responsible Person(s)--"RPs": The law specifically defines RPs to **exclude** anyone with a contingent interest. A "contingent" interest means that something must happen before you have any interest in the Trust. If the Trustee must die before you assume the role of Trustee (i.e. the definition of a Backup or Successor Trustee), then you have a contingent interest and therefore do not need a background check. As I mentioned in Post #33, above, for MY Trusts, the people who'd need fingerprints, photo, and a background check would be the primary Trustee and anyone serving as a co-Trustee at the time of the application.
3. Adding/removing "Responsible Persons": Since we're talking about Trusts and in particular, MY Trusts, what we're really talking about here is adding and/or removing Co-Trustees. I'm going to go back and re-read the entire document again tomorrow (or maybe the next day because tomorrow is shaping up to be very busy), but on first glance it would seem to me that our handy liberal representatives might have screwed the pooch on this one. It sure looks to me that they've allowed a potential loophole. It seems to me that a person could "fire" all the co-Trustees when the Trust is ready to file an Application--leaving the primary Trustee as the ONLY Responsible Person on the Trust at the time the application is submitted. After the application has been submitted (along with the photo and fingerprints for the original Trustee), then the co-Trustees could be added back to the Trust.
Reading all the comments and the thought process leading up to the final rule, it would seem that our trusty liberal friends had once considered requiring the disclosure of newly added Responsible Parties within 30 days of being added. Under the original plan, these new Responsible Persons would also be required to submit fingerprints, a photo, and a background check. The good news is that while all this was **considered,** they specifically decided NOT to implement this part of the proposal.
I can't find any part of the final rule where any notice is required at all if RPs are added after an application is submitted. I don't mind sharing this loophole in public because if I can find it, there's a good chance even a liberal lawmaker can find it.
4. 24 Month "Nothing's Changed" Notice: I kinda like this one. It says that if nothing's changed since the last time you submitted an application--so long as it's been within 24 months--then you don't have to get new photos or fingerprints or a background check on everyone. I'm assuming you'd still need a background check when you pick up the NFA item from the dealer just as you do today.
My little disclaimer:
I'm doing my best to provide accurate and timely analysis. The dilemma I'm struggling with is that when I post something, there is an expectation that the information I'm sharing is correct. As several folks have already demonstrated in this thread, it's sometimes a challenge to be both fast AND accurate. I've provided this post in an attempt to reach a compromise in my dilemma. I reserve the right to be wrong! I'm certainly open to questioning and to be proven wrong by anyone reading this post. I'm all about WHAT is right, not WHO is right. Sometimes it really does "take a village."
Good night to all. The sun will still come up tomorrow!
canyoncarver
01-06-2016, 10:01
Thanks NFATrustGuy. I took the time to register to thank you again for answering my brief question yesterday about my trust, despite the deluge of email/calls you got. Very, very glad I had you set up my trust rather than going the budget route with an internet trust for $99.
I started up two form 1 SBRs back in November and am going to purchase a couple more suppressors in the next couple of months. After that I am done buying anything until after the election to see what, if anything, happens following the 2016 elections.
I don't really have a problem with photos/fingerprints going out with the application but the less information the .gov has the better as far as I am concerned.
Now I have to figure out what kind of pistol can to get.... new Omega 9K looks interesting.
Thanks NFA Trust GUY!!!!!!![Beer]
Rod, I hope you're right on the fingerprint cards (for anyone who cares, ATF will also send you cards free, but not the ink pads). I was looking yesterday and found this, which seems to indicate ATF thinks that only LEO can take the prints. That being said, I know people have turned in self-inked cards successfully in the past (mistaken approval or not?), and I don't believe that ATF's website is always correct or updated.
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/qa/how-do-i-get-my-fingerprints-taken
Assuming they clarify this requirement to allow other options like home inking, that would help with one of my larger concerns with the new rules. Paying an additional fee and sitting around for 30-60-90+ minutes waiting for an appointment with the sheriff does not seem like a heck of a lot of fun, and would overly complicate the process.
Found this in the financial reasoning section of the 41p responses, which further confirms your comment earlier. I guess I feel all warm and fuzzy now about these changes. /sarcasm :)
Fingerprints may be taken by anyone who is properly equipped to take them (seeinstructions on ATF Form 1, Form 4, Form 5, and Form 5320.23). Therefore, applicants mayutilize the service of any business or government agency that is properly equipped to takefingerprints. Depending on where the fingerprints are taken, the service may require anappointment, and appointment availability may be limited. Some businesses provide eveningand weekend appointments and a number of private companies provide mobile fingerprintingservices at a location chosen by the customer to be fingerprinted. Additionally, some mobilefingerprinting services offer special pricing to groups of individuals who need to befingerprinted.
Correct, your best bet is to ensure the 4473 says "other" like it should for a stripped lower if you want it to be born pistol by installing a pistol buffer tube.
I was nit-picking O2HeN2's post.
...and a valid nit-pick it was. Having never bought anything but AR receivers, I failed to cover that.
O2
It sure looks to me that they've allowed a potential loophole. It seems to me that a person could "fire" all the co-Trustees when the Trust is ready to file an Application--leaving the primary Trustee as the ONLY Responsible Person on the Trust at the time the application is submitted. After the application has been submitted (along with the photo and fingerprints for the original Trustee), then the co-Trustees could be added back to the Trust.
...though everyone would have to do a 4473 and have a CBC to get back "in" correct?
O2
NFATrustGuy
01-06-2016, 12:34
...though everyone would have to do a 4473 and have a CBC to get back "in" correct?
O2
No. Not that I can see with regard to ATF regulations.
Colorado's law may or may not require a background check depending on whether there's a gun in the Trust or if you only have a suppressor. Colorado's definition of "Firearm" does not include a suppressor. If the only reason for a background check is the Colorado law, then you must then consider whether or not you have Colorado's definition of a "Firearm" in your Trust.
kidicarus13
01-06-2016, 13:18
I have trust with 3 co-trustees (wife, mother, father) currently in place with an NFA item currently on the trust.
1. I want to add father-in-law-- I would simply write his name on as a co-trustee have him sign/date.*
2. I want to add another item-- all co-trustees and myself would need BGC paperwork, FP cards, and pictures sent in with trust paperwork (to include the trustee page, which I don't think you included in the past, but the way I read it, will have to do that now) with the application for the new item
It sounds like it'd be wise to add a co-trustee (if that's what you're planning on doing in the future) before the 180 day window is up as opposed to after the 180 days. A lot less headache.
mtnrider
01-06-2016, 14:19
So I am guessing that since we will now have to send photos and fingerprint card, Efile will be a thing of the past?
.
Assuming a brand new, unused lower, isn't the pistol vs rifle dependent on how the lower is transferred on the 4473 and first built? If you're lower says 'pistol' and you throw a stock on it I'm pretty sure it's now a rifle.
As long as were clarifying. If it's transfered as other or pistol it can be built as a pistol. Then it may be built as a rifle and transitioned back to pistol but if was first built or transfered as a rifle it may never be a pistol.
As long as were clarifying. If it's transfered as other or pistol it can be built as a pistol. Then it may be built as a rifle and transitioned back to pistol but if was first built or transfered as a rifle it may never be a pistol.
You sure about that? I thought once a rifle, always a rifle. In the eyes of the law anyway. [Coffee]
Great-Kazoo
01-07-2016, 08:59
You sure about that? I thought once a rifle, always a rifle. In the eyes of the law anyway. [Coffee]
If it's transfered as other or pistol it can be built as a pistol. Then it may be built as a rifle and transitioned back to pistol
Pistol to rifle and back = OK . Rifle to pistol = SBR
That doesn't mean one can put a folding, collapsible or fixed stock on a pistol. WITHOUT prior SBR / Form 1 paperwork.
NFATrustGuy
01-07-2016, 13:05
I'd be more concerned with the restriction you quoted if it had come from the Firearms section of the ATF website instead of the Explosives section. I'm betting that if someone (certainly not me!) wants to spend countless hours researching laws and regulations regarding the licensing and regulation of explosives, you'd probably come across the requirement for fingerprinting from ONLY specific sources. Have at it if you'd like. There's probably some regulation on the origin of fingerprints for purposes of a security clearance out at DIA, too, but they're not relevant, either.
Let's not start applying rules, regulations and interpretations from OTHER regulated pursuits to the NFA realm. We'll be chasing our tails for all eternity "proving a negative" in showing that this or that interpretation does NOT apply to the new NFA rule. The new law says what it says. If you feel like you need clarification on what the new law says, the best place to find that clarification will be in the 237 pages specifically discussing how the new law come into being.
The law says, and I quote: "The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them."
Note that it doesn't say:
1. By law enforcement
2. By the driver's license bureau
3. By someone who holds this or that license
4. By someone who holds this or that certification
5. By someone who runs a business
6. By someone wearing a striped shirt with a blue tie
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, and it's not directed solely at Brian because I deal with forms of this every day. If we start trying to discuss hypotheticals, there really is no end to it. Plan on complying with the law. That's burdensome enough without trying to lump on or infer something that's simply not there.
Perhaps someone wants to email the ATF for clarification. That worked out so well for… what was it? Arm braces?
Rod, I hope you're right on the fingerprint cards (for anyone who cares, ATF will also send you cards free, but not the ink pads). I was looking yesterday and found this, which seems to indicate ATF thinks that only LEO can take the prints. That being said, I know people have turned in self-inked cards successfully in the past (mistaken approval or not?), and I don't believe that ATF's website is always correct or updated.
https://www.atf.gov/explosives/qa/how-do-i-get-my-fingerprints-taken
Assuming they clarify this requirement to allow other options like home inking, that would help with one of my larger concerns with the new rules. Paying an additional fee and sitting around for 30-60-90+ minutes waiting for an appointment with the sheriff does not seem like a heck of a lot of fun, and would overly complicate the process.
I'd be more concerned with the restriction you quoted if it had come from the Firearms section of the ATF website instead of the Explosives section. I'm betting that if someone (certainly not me!) wants to spend countless hours researching laws and regulations regarding the licensing and regulation of explosives, you'd probably come across the requirement for fingerprinting from ONLY specific sources. Have at it if you'd like. There's probably some regulation on the origin of fingerprints for purposes of a security clearance out at DIA, too, but they're not relevant, either.
Let's not start applying rules, regulations and interpretations from OTHER regulated pursuits to the NFA realm. We'll be chasing our tails for all eternity "proving a negative" in showing that this or that interpretation does NOT apply to the new NFA rule. The new law says what it says. If you feel like you need clarification on what the new law says, the best place to find that clarification will be in the 237 pages specifically discussing how the new law come into being.
The law says, and I quote: "The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them."
Note that it doesn't say:
1. By law enforcement
2. By the driver's license bureau
3. By someone who holds this or that license
4. By someone who holds this or that certification
5. By someone who runs a business
6. By someone wearing a striped shirt with a blue tie
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, and it's not directed solely at Brian because I deal with forms of this every day. If we start trying to discuss hypotheticals, there really is no end to it. Plan on complying with the law. That's burdensome enough without trying to lump on or infer something that's simply not there.
Perhaps someone wants to email the ATF for clarification. That worked out so well for… what was it? Arm braces?
LOL BURN.
Great-Kazoo
01-07-2016, 16:18
So I need to write the ATF for clarification , correct
[Sarcasm2]
Roger Ronas
01-07-2016, 20:24
So I will be getting a Trust from Rodney by the end of the month.
I am VERY computer stupid and can't scan the signed(notarized) copy of the TRust back on my computer and also to fill out Eform and do it correctly.
so I was looking at the paper form to send in, and have no problem waiting for iot to go thru.
My question is: on the back of page 1 is a Law Enforcement Certification. Do I need to get that filled out?
IO will be building a suppressor.
Thanks and be easy on me,
Roger
EDIT: After rereading it multiple times, I think near the bottom of page 1 it states that INDIVIDUALS must fill out page 2 (other side).
So I think a trust does not have to fill page 2 out.
RIGHT????
Great-Kazoo
01-07-2016, 23:26
So I will be getting a Trust from Rodney by the end of the month.
I am VERY computer stupid and can't scan the signed(notarized) copy of the TRust back on my computer and also to fill out Eform and do it correctly.
so I was looking at the paper form to send in, and have no problem waiting for iot to go thru.
My question is: on the back of page 1 is a Law Enforcement Certification. Do I need to get that filled out?
IO will be building a suppressor.
Thanks and be easy on me,
Roger
EDIT: After rereading it multiple times, I think near the bottom of page 1 it states that INDIVIDUALS must fill out page 2 (other side).
So I think a trust does not have to fill page 2 out.
RIGHT????
Trust eliminates the need for CLEO sign off. Therefore you need nothingon the back. BUT......................... Make sure you fill out the section that requires your signature #7, making sure to include TRUSTEE after your name. That's # 8 on Pg 1
I don't have a F1 in front of me to check for any other sections to fill in. Mailing in your F1 at this time might be faster then e-filing. It's very easy to complete, perhaps a bit intimidating the first time. . You can save the application and review prior to paying. When i submit a F1 it's always off a paper copy, i use to double check i have it correct the first time.
Yet i'm still concerned there's "Something" i forgot to do once submitted.
So I will be getting a Trust from Rodney by the end of the month.
I am VERY computer stupid and can't scan the signed(notarized) copy of the TRust back on my computer and also to fill out Eform and do it correctly.
so I was looking at the paper form to send in, and have no problem waiting for iot to go thru.
My question is: on the back of page 1 is a Law Enforcement Certification. Do I need to get that filled out?
IO will be building a suppressor.
Thanks and be easy on me,
Roger
EDIT: After rereading it multiple times, I think near the bottom of page 1 it states that INDIVIDUALS must fill out page 2 (other side).
So I think a trust does not have to fill page 2 out.
RIGHT????
Correct, no CLEO cert, that's what the trust is all about!
Roger Ronas
01-08-2016, 00:21
Thank you guys,.
Reading more, I think I can do this,
Roger
muddywings
01-08-2016, 10:41
General education question-
What is the ATF doing with all these trust form1/4 applications if they are not doing a background check on the trustee (aka me)? (I'm not discussing the new issue with co-trustees)
I keep hearing that they are going to start doing 'background checks on people in trusts.' While I understand the co-trustee issue, I have to believe they are doing some type of background check on me/my address and anything around me for the 4-5 months they are sitting on my paperwork, but I could be wrong I guess.
Just curious.
The clock has started officially. Published in the register on Jan 15. 67 pages this time, but they're tiny font, 3 column. Haven't had a chance to compare to see if anything changed yet.
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-01-15/pdf/2016-00192.pdf
Was talking with some shooting buddies about this the other day . . . subject of e-file came up. Anyone know if e-file will still be supported with regard to the change to include prints/photos? Trust documents are supplied/uploaded electronically, so I would guess that everything else with the new changes can be scanned/uploaded?
Great-Kazoo
01-26-2016, 15:18
Was talking with some shooting buddies about this the other day . . . subject of e-file came up. Anyone know if e-file will still be supported with regard to the change to include prints/photos? Trust documents are supplied/uploaded electronically, so I would guess that everything else with the new changes can be scanned/uploaded?
Yes. If one reads the document. or links in another thread. They will accept e-file. HOWEVER your prints & picture need to be on file. #53 (https://www.ar-15.co/threads/153579-41P-signed-and-passed?p=1945926&viewfull=1#post1945926) southpaws reply has a link for more info
SO........... After 7/16 paper file with required pictures and prints. Once in the system, your prints & pic are good for 2 years from date received. Like renewing your ccw permit, only every 2 instead of 5 years.
IMO for all the hand wringing and ulcers, 41 helps those who don't have a trust, by eliminating the CLEO sign off . Of course you must notify them you've received a NFA approval. SO if you're one of the former unlucky ones. Send the anti-NFA dick head a Thank you card, with notification enclosed.
It's still unclear to me.
Will a trust continue to be beneficial after July?
If I have a trust set up or applied for before then, are additional requirements applicable to it come July?
Will it do me any good to set up a trust now if I can't purchase or add an NFA item to it before July?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
kidicarus13
02-09-2016, 17:29
Will it do me any good to set up a trust now if I can't purchase or add an NFA item to it before July?
You can purchase and add to it from now until July, nothing has changed.
Great-Kazoo
02-09-2016, 17:32
It's still unclear to me.
Will a trust continue to be beneficial after July?
If I have a trust set up or applied for before then, are additional requirements applicable to it come July?
Will it do me any good to set up a trust now if I can't purchase or add an NFA item to it before July?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Try rereading it.
AFTER JULY1/2016 ANY application (Trust or Individual) submitted MUST be accompanied by fingerprints AND a photo (passport size) That info stays valid for 2 years after being submitted.
You can do anything you want trust or no trust, providing you include pics & photo. You don't need a trust set up now. After July1 you don't need a trust at all.
HOWEVER if you reread this and other threads regarding Trust etc. It will (hopefully) become clear why a trust may or may not be something you want to file your NFA items under.
NFATrustGuy
02-09-2016, 19:02
ONE of the benefits of a Trust is that you don't need a sign off from the local chief law enforcement officer.
This will no longer be a benefit of a Trust after July, 2016 because neither individuals NOR Trusts will need a sign off.
For many people, a Trust will still be a viable option because it will STILL allow you to share your NFA stuff with a friend or a relative. in my form of NFA Trust, this is accomplished by naming your friend or relative as a Co-Trustee. As an example, my brother is listed as a Co-Trustee on my personal Trust so he can borrow my .22LR suppressor when he goes to the range without me. If I was married [I probably wouldn't have as many toys, but that's beside the point], I'd list my wife as a Co-Trustee so she could handle my NFA items while I'm out of town.
I know it's self-serving of me to say it, but Trusts aren't dead just because the Chief Law Enforcement Officer signoff has been removed.
Roger Ronas
02-09-2016, 19:05
my understanding is that with a Trust your Co-Trustees can possess items when your not around. As an individual only you can be in possession of item.
Also when you pass, items would legally be able to be in beneficiaries possession without another tax stamp that would be required if individual.
I think I got that right.
YMMV
Roger
my understanding is that with a Trust your Co-Trustees can possess items when your not around. As an individual only you can be in possession of item.
Also when you pass, items would legally be able to be in beneficiaries possession without another tax stamp that would be required if individual.
I think I got that right.
YMMV
Roger
I believe ATF re-confirmed in 41F that a executor / personal representative may be in possession of any firearm registered to someone who passed, and that transfers to beneficiaries remain tax exempt.
However - Rod may be able to clarify, but I believe one of the benefits of a trust is that it keeps any transfers out of any public record that they may be in as a result of probate, etc. Definitely not my area of expertise, but I know privacy is a big deal to a lot of us. Keeping your "scary guns" out of the public eye and avoiding probate in general is something that's likely a good idea, especially if it's possible things may get messy once you pass. I've been surprised as I've grown older how many normal, friendly, families disintegrate when there's a chance to fight over "stuff" they think they might be owed.
colorider
02-09-2016, 23:16
Rod,
Aren't co-trustees required to submit the prints, bgc, and photos too When the new rules go into effect? Or is it a matter of how the co-trustees are worded on the Trust? I swear I read earlier in this thread that the co-trustees will be required to provide the same stuff as the trustee.
Rod,
Aren't co-trustees required to submit the prints, bgc, and photos too When the new rules go into effect? Or is it a matter of how the co-trustees are worded on the Trust? I swear I read earlier in this thread that the co-trustees will be required to provide the same stuff as the trustee.
...jumps in with possible misinformation...
Not if they're not on the trust when you file. <wink>
rescind, file, appoint, wash and repeat?
NFATrustGuy
02-10-2016, 05:10
...jumps in with possible misinformation...
Not if they're not on the trust when you file. <wink>
rescind, file, appoint, wash and repeat?
Exactly.
As with so many feel good laws, they've left a gaping hole in this one, too.
They actively considered requiring new Co-Trustees to submit fingerprints and a photo whenever they are appointed, but in the end, decided against the requirement.
...jumps in with possible misinformation...
Not if they're not on the trust when you file. <wink>
rescind, file, appoint [requiring 4473s and acquisition statements for everyone (family relation or not) and listing all firearms in the trust and maybe requiring 3310.4s if there is more than one handgun in the trust], wash and repeat?
Just being explicit...
O2
Bitter Clinger
03-23-2016, 00:57
So from what I gather, and this is my main concern, after July 16 any items added to the trust will require passport quality photos and fingerprints? Me, a buddy and my brother in law are talking about doing a trust and building some cool stuff. So after july if my buddy decides he wants to build a new SBR, or a can etc.....he would need to do the whole thing over agian? Seems archaic to me, a BGC should be enough.
Great-Kazoo
03-23-2016, 03:46
So from what I gather, and this is my main concern, after July 16 any items added to the trust will require passport quality photos and fingerprints? Me, a buddy and my brother in law are talking about doing a trust and building some cool stuff. So after july if my buddy decides he wants to build a new SBR, or a can etc.....he would need to do the whole thing over agian? Seems archaic to me, a BGC should be enough.
https://www.ar-15.co/threads/154777-NFA-41-F-%28FINAL%29-UPDATES-amp-INFO
Bitter Clinger
03-25-2016, 00:16
That is some BS. What difference does it make? I did send the BATFE a more eloquent and PC version of this question. 15 pages to fill out for NFA items, EACH AND EVERY TIME! After July. WTF is wrong with the way it is now? Why is NFA even regulated? I drug my feet to long on getting setup, all I want is a SBR with a can. I guess trusts are still good for passing stuff on to family.
Just to clarify one detail, the new regulation is effective July 13, 2016.
27 CFR Part 479
[Docket No. ATF 41F; AG Order No. 3608– 2016]
RIN 1140–AA43
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-01-15/pdf/2016-00192.pdf (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-01-15/pdf/2016-00192.pdf)
The bottom of the left column, Page 2658. The first page after the title page.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.