Printable View
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.
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?
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.
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.
.
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.
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by muddywings
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by NFATrustGuy
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.
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. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by SAnd
I guess I will list the MAKE (trust name) MODEL and SERIAL.