Printable View
I am the only trustee on the trust at this point. So my understanding is that I am the only one that needs a BGC. None of the beneficiaries need a check as they have no control unless I am dead. If I add any more trustees then they have to have a Check?
Curious about this as well. If I wanted the trust to own a lower (for a future sbr build) would the grantor and all of the trustees need to be present for BGC's or can I just transfer it with a background check on myself as a trustee?Quote:
Originally Posted by sako55
Any PRESENT DAY Trustee needs a background check when transferring a FIREARM to a Trust. In my form of Gun Trust, we name backup Trustees. These Backup Trustees don't have any rights, responsibilities or power over the Trust until AFTER The main Trustee dies. These BACKUP Trustees won't need a background check until you die.
I also give people the option to name CO-Trustee(s). A Co-Trustee has present-day powers over the Trust including the ability to use/possess assets of the Trust. Under Colorado law, any Trustee who has legal access to a FIREARM held in a Trust must have a background check.
For my clients, what I'd suggest is that you keep the number of co-Trustees to a bare minimum to avoid unnecessary background checks. In a pinch, you could remove ALL co-Trustees from the Trust in anticipation of adding a firearm to the Trust. Before reestablishing someone as a co-Trustee, you'd still need to make sure to get a background check on the reinstated co-Trustee. For non-NFA items, you should first check to see if one of the exemptions might cover your particular situation and avoid the background check altogether. If, however, you want to share an NFA firearm, you'd need to name the person as co-Trustee and have the background check.
More clear as mud, right?!?!?
Rod
Thanks for the response. If the co-trustee lives out of state is this approached any differently? Kind of looking like I will have to wait until we are both in town and then transfer it to the trust (which is a major PITA)...Quote:
Originally Posted by NFATrustGuy
The funny thing about the law and wjo does what. The FFL that I used to transfer lowers to my trust called the CBI for clarification and they said to call the ATF for how to do this. The ATF said to just have the lawyer assign the lowers in the trust, no background check was needed. (true per federal law) Called the CBI back and ask them how to comply with the new Colorado law since the ATF didn't require one. They said one wasn't needed since the seller and trustee were the same person and the only trustee. We did a BG check and transfer anyway just in case.
Stupid poorly written laws that no one understands.
NFAGuy you are a great asset to this site.
@Tx1021: Hmm. This is starting to sound like a law school test question... :-) First, make sure you understand the difference between a co-Trustee and a BACKUP Trustee. If you're concerned about a backup Trustee, don't be. See my previous post in this thread. If the out of state person is truly a co-Trustee, would it be practical to revoke his/her status temporarily until he/she visits Colorado for a background check? At least this way you could proceed with the purchase/transfer.
@ Eric P: I think you did the right thing in doing the BGC anyway. From a legal standpoint, I can see where the CBI person was coming from and I'd love to just go with that interpretation. Unfortunately, all it takes is one anti-gunner prosecutor or boss of a prosecutor to make an example out of someone. If at all possible, I'd try to get that CBI interpretation in writing. If not, if anyone out there plans to rely on advice given by a bureaucrat over the telephone, at a minimum you should get his/her name and title and follow up with a letter summarizing your understanding of what was said during the phone conversation. Such a letter certainly wouldn't be a get-out-of-jail-free card, but it'd at least show that you were **trying** to follow this dipshit unintelligible set of laws!
@Irving: Thanks for the kind words. This site has provided a significant amount of business for me over the past year so I try to help out when I can.
Rod
ANYTIME, you deal with a .gov entity, OR business [cell ph, or internet providers], small office person. You should be writing down, NAME, DATE, TIME, brief description of conversation / what they said to you, etc. How many times has a call, or in person conversation turned in to, " Well we have no record" story.Quote:
Originally Posted by NFATrustGuy
UNTIL you inform them I talked with John / Jane Doe, Dec 12th, 11am MST, and they said xxxxx. Then things get real quiet for a few, the usual response is Give us a day or two to look in to it , we'll get back with an answer.
Yes Irving Rodney's not that bad a guy.
Definitely a co-trustee. We were trying to get a couple more items in the trust before the new federal laws got implemented against trusts so if one of us got taken off it would kind of defeat that. At least in my current, and limited, understanding of these ridiculous laws.Quote:
Originally Posted by NFATrustGuy
ETA:
+1 The help is really appreciated. Unfortunately it feels like you almost need a law degree to even interpret and correctly follow the laws nowadays.Quote:
Originally Posted by Irving
I'm definitely no expert at political philosophy, but I seem to remember that one of the first steps in tyranny is labeling the 'governed' as criminals. Poorly written laws that are subject to variances in interpretation lead to one of two things: 1. Good people choose to avoid the subject altogether for fear of prosecution, or 2. Good people are convicted because some anti-gun bureaucrat comes into power and stretches the interpretation to fit his agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tx1021
In today's society where it is politically incorrect to maintain even basic standards of right and wrong, it's no surprise that we're headed down a path where what's right and wrong is determined by (and changed by) whoever happened to win the last election. We have constitutional protections to prevent this election-cycle reinterpretation, but we've also made it a habit of ignoring certain parts of the Constitution when it suits us. Once we started down the path of reinterpreting the Constitution, it's just a matter of degree... What is reinterpreted along with just how much it is stretched becomes a political question... Which brings us back full circle: What is right or Wong depends on who won the last election.
I'll probably suffer the consequences of trying to help people with these pitiful laws when somebody decides to push the issue and then throws me under the bus by saying NFATrustGuy said it was OK. The safest thing for me to do would be similar to my #1 option listed above... Keep my mouth shut and disengage. But that's not really my personality! :-)
Rod