41P signed and passed

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brutal

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NFATrustGuy

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O2HeN2

...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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by muddywings

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.

So I am guessing that since we will now have to send photos and fingerprint card, Efile will be a thing of the past?

.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by th3w01f

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wulf202

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]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brutal

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.

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian

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/ho...erprints-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.

---