41P signed and passed

[NFATrustGuy]

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!

[O2HeN2]

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]

...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.