Trusts and the New Anti-Gun Laws

[NFATrustGuy]

Thanks Rod. A few quick questions. So does this need to be notarized or anything like that? Can I draft this document and it be legal? If not, what's the process to make a legal trust?

Holy Smokes!

Folks I present Exhibit A as to why lawyers are reluctant to post on forums.

Viper45, this isn't meant as a slam on you AT ALL, but it's a good example of how things can be misunderdstood.

The document I posted a link to isn't for forming a Trust. It's for transferring items to a Trust if a Trust already exists. I charge $300 to create a gun trust. More information on the process is available by sending an email to the address listed in my signature line, below.

In answer to the notary question: No. The transfer form does not need to be notarized.

Rod

[Viper45]

Holy Smokes!

Folks I present Exhibit A as to why lawyers are reluctant to post on forums.

Viper45, this isn't meant as a slam on you AT ALL, but it's a good example of how things can be misunderdstood.

The document I posted a link to isn't for forming a Trust. It's for transferring items to a Trust if a Trust already exists. I charge $300 to create a gun trust. More information on the process is available by sending an email to the address listed in my signature line, below.

In answer to the notary question: No. The transfer form does not need to be notarized.

Rod

Please don't let my comments discourage you or anyone else from pointing many of us in the right direction. I view topics like this not as 100% legal advice that will hold up in court, but as a nudge in the right direction before seeking further counsel.

You said yourself that this was a summary of a 13 page analysis, and since I don't know much about trusts, I figured I should ask for clarification to my questions. In hindsight, a PM might have been warranted (then obviously followed with a f2f meeting), but I digress. Regardless, thanks for taking the time to write this (and to set me straight); honestly didn't mean to make any waves here.

[NFATrustGuy]

Please don't let my comments discourage you or anyone else from pointing many of us in the right direction. I view topics like this not as 100% legal advice that will hold up in court, but as a nudge in the right direction before seeking further counsel.

You said yourself that this was a summary of a 13 page analysis, and since I don't know much about trusts, I figured I should ask for clarification to my questions. In hindsight, a PM might have been warranted (then obviously followed with a f2f meeting), but I digress. Regardless, thanks for taking the time to write this (and to set me straight); honestly didn't mean to make any waves here.

No worries, man. We're all good. Keep posting if you've got questions. I'll do my best to answer.

Rod

[SAnd]

With all due respect for NFATrustGuy and the rest of the people people discussing things here...

I have been following this thread with great interest. I have great respect for the people here. But everything that has been discussed here is all speculation. I don't believe you can use normal legal reasoning when dealing with these laws. There was a press release the afternoon that hick signed the gun laws that said that hick had directed the appropriate office to study the new laws and come up with a set of guidelines on how the laws were going to be enforced. He said they would be out by July 1st. I wouldn't trust any goofball liberal staffer or lawyer to have interpret the legislation as it is written. They are going to interpret it the way they want regardless of what it actually says. Under normal circumstances those guidelines would have been released within days of the signing. I can't help but think they are not going to release any details until it's to late to properly prepare.

And yes my tin foil hat is firmly in place. The last time I checked it is about four layers thick. Maybe it needs another layer.

Have a nice day.

[NFATrustGuy]

Here's a very good question I received via email:

One question I have that I haven’t seen a definitive answer for is if suppressors are considered ‘firearms’ as far as the multiple background checks for trustee and co-trustees is concerned.

My answer: NO.

The new law will be added to CRS 18-12-101 through [now] 111. Title 18, Section 12, Part 101 lists definitions of about a dozen specific terms. It specifically defines things like "firearm silencer." "handgun," "machine gun," "short rifle," "short shotgun," etc. It DOES NOT define "firearm."

To find the definition of "firearm" we have to look at 18-1-901 which gives a definition of "firearm" and further states that this definition is applicable to other Sections under Title 18. The new law is a section under Title 18 so this definition is applicable. The definition is... drum roll, please...

C.R.S. 18-1-901(3)(h)

"Firearm" means any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.

With regard to Trusts and Trustees, the new law requires:

"(b) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT REQUIRESOTHERWISE, "TRANSFEREE" MEANS A PERSON WHO DESIRES TO RECEIVE ORACQUIRE A FIREARM FROM A TRANSFEROR. IF A TRANSFEREE IS NOT ANATURAL PERSON, THEN EACH NATURAL PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED BYTHE TRANSFEREE TO POSSESS THE FIREARM AFTER THE TRANSFER SHALLUNDERGO A BACKGROUND CHECK, AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (a) OF THISSUBSECTION (1), BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF THE FIREARM. "

Nowhere in any part of the new legislation do our legislators change the definition of "firearm" from the default provided by 18-1-901(3)(h) as I quoted, above, so NO, a suppressor is not a firearm.

My disclaimer: This is my analysis of the law as it stands today. Reasonable people can have different interpretations of the law. This is usually where lawsuits come into play. If the government charges you, me or anyone else with a crime because the government has an interpretation of the law different from mine, this is where you either spend tons of time defending yourself or spend tons of money hiring a lawyer to defend you and promote the interpretation of the law that you believe. I make no guarantees that the government's interpretation of this law is the same as my interpretation. I will NOT provide you with a free defense based on the free opinion I gave on this internet forum. The only truly safe answer any lawyer can ever give is "it depends." i think this is a copout and that's why I'm offering my opinion on this as someone who has more knowledge than most of the population re: legal issues. WHAT I DON'T POSSESS, HOWEVER, is the ability to read minds--the minds of the jurors and the judges who will ultimately interpret what these laws mean. Without this ability to read minds, there's no way I can tell you for certain that my interpretation will prevail in a courtroom.

I really hope you all can understand where I'm coming from... I'd like to help out, but I'm not willing to get strung up for sticking my nose out.

[Great-Kazoo]

Here's a very good question I received via email:

One question I have that I haven’t seen a definitive answer for is if suppressors are considered ‘firearms’ as far as the multiple background checks for trustee and co-trustees is concerned.

My answer: NO.

The new law will be added to CRS 18-12-101 through [now] 111. Title 18, Section 12, Part 101 lists definitions of about a dozen specific terms. It specifically defines things like "firearm silencer." "handgun," "machine gun," "short rifle," "short shotgun," etc. It DOES NOT define "firearm."

To find the definition of "firearm" we have to look at 18-1-901 which gives a definition of "firearm" and further states that this definition is applicable to other Sections under Title 18. The new law is a section under Title 18 so this definition is applicable. The definition is... drum roll, please...

C.R.S. 18-1-901(3)(h)

"Firearm" means any handgun, automatic, revolver, pistol, rifle, shotgun, or other instrument or device capable or intended to be capable of discharging bullets, cartridges, or other explosive charges.

With regard to Trusts and Trustees, the new law requires:

"(b) AS USED IN THIS SECTION, UNLESS THE CONTEXT REQUIRESOTHERWISE, "TRANSFEREE" MEANS A PERSON WHO DESIRES TO RECEIVE ORACQUIRE A FIREARM FROM A TRANSFEROR. IF A TRANSFEREE IS NOT ANATURAL PERSON, THEN EACH NATURAL PERSON WHO IS AUTHORIZED BYTHE TRANSFEREE TO POSSESS THE FIREARM AFTER THE TRANSFER SHALLUNDERGO A BACKGROUND CHECK, AS DESCRIBED IN PARAGRAPH (a) OF THISSUBSECTION (1), BEFORE TAKING POSSESSION OF THE FIREARM. "

Nowhere in any part of the new legislation do our legislators change the definition of "firearm" from the default provided by 18-1-901(3)(h) as I quoted, above, so NO, a suppressor is not a firearm.

My disclaimer: This is my analysis of the law as it stands today. Reasonable people can have different interpretations of the law. This is usually where lawsuits come into play. If the government charges you, me or anyone else with a crime because the government has an interpretation of the law different from mine, this is where you either spend tons of time defending yourself or spend tons of money hiring a lawyer to defend you and promote the interpretation of the law that you believe. I make no guarantees that the government's interpretation of this law is the same as my interpretation. I will NOT provide you with a free defense based on the free opinion I gave on this internet forum. The only truly safe answer any lawyer can ever give is "it depends." i think this is a copout and that's why I'm offering my opinion on this as someone who has more knowledge than most of the population re: legal issues. WHAT I DON'T POSSESS, HOWEVER, is the ability to read minds--the minds of the jurors and the judges who will ultimately interpret what these laws mean. Without this ability to read minds, there's no way I can tell you for certain that my interpretation will prevail in a courtroom.

I really hope you all can understand where I'm coming from... I'd like to help out, but I'm not willing to get strung up for sticking my nose out.

But your Honor the guy who said he was an attorney on some web site said IT WAS LEGAL .

Been there.

[NFATrustGuy]

RE: a repeal of the "large" capacity mag law...

Jim's pretty much nailed it. Leave them in the Trust or take them out. It doesn't much matter. If you decide to take them out of the Trust I'd suggest some sort of Bill of Sale or gift letter just to provide a paper trail for your backup Trustees so they won't be looking for the mags in your pile of Trust assets after you're dead. There would be no legal requirement for a Bill of Sale or gift letter, it'd just be a matter of courtesy for your backup Trustees.

Rod

[NFATrustGuy]

Here's another question I recently received via email:

If a new co-trustee is added and there are firearms in the trust does that person need to do a background check before being added to the trust?

My answer: MAYBE.

As mentioned in my posting above, the new HB13-1229 requires background checks for all people who are authorized to possess the transferred firearm before they are allowed to possess the item. In a Trust, any present-day Trustee has the authority to possess the assets of the Trust. Notice that I said 'PRESENT DAY TRUSTEE.' This means that BACKUP Trustees--those that assume the role of Trustee after you die--don't need a background check until after you die and they become the acting Trustee.

For my Trusts, you can add a co-Trustee at any time HOWEVER the new co-Trustee would need a background check before you allow them to take possession of any firearms held in the Trust UNLESS they are eligible for an exemption.

As I mentioned in Post #1 to this thread, Trusts lose a few of the exemptions offered by the new [terrible] law because Trusts don't have an "immediate family." But they don't lose ALL the exemptions. Specifically, a Trust would still be eligible for the following exemptions:

1. Antiques
2. Temporary transfer in someone's home
3. Temporary transfer at a shooting range
4. Temporary transfer at a shooting competition
5. Temporary transfer while hunting, fishing, trapping or target shooting
*6. Temporary transfer while in the continuous presence of the owner
7. Temporary transfer for less than 72 hours

I've obviously shortened the description of all these exemptions. If you're planning on relying on a specific exemption, it'd be best to look up the full text of the law which can be found now at HB13-1229 and after July 1, 2013 at CRS 18-12-112.

* I starred #6 because I think this requires further discussion. My interpretation of this would be that the new co-Trustee is in the presence of the primary Trustee who is legal to possess the Trust's firearms because he is either grandfathered because he was Trustee before July 1, 2013 or if he became a Trustee after July 1, 2013, he had a background check when the Trust purchased the firearm.

My disclaimer: This is my analysis of the law as it stands today. Reasonable people can have different interpretations of the law. This is usually where lawsuits come into play. If the government charges you, me or anyone else with a crime because the government has an interpretation of the law different from mine, this is where you either spend tons of time defending yourself or spend tons of money hiring a lawyer to defend you and promote the interpretation of the law that you believe. I make no guarantees that the government's interpretation of this law is the same as my interpretation. I will NOT provide you with a free defense based on the free opinion I gave on this internet forum. The only truly safe answer any lawyer can ever give is "it depends." i think this is a copout and that's why I'm offering my opinion on this as someone who has more knowledge than most of the population re: legal issues. WHAT I DON'T POSSESS, HOWEVER, is the ability to read minds--the minds of the jurors and the judges who will ultimately interpret what these laws mean. Without this ability to read minds, there's no way I can tell you for certain that my interpretation will prevail in a courtroom.

I really hope you all can understand where I'm coming from... I'd like to help out, but I'm not willing to get strung up for sticking my nose out.

[brutal]

Great synopsis and sage advice as always Rod.

Would you care to comment on the effect a repeal of the mag limit may have on mags placed in the trust?

If you think an email response or call is more appropriate, please let me know.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

[Great-Kazoo]

Great synopsis and sage advice as always Rod.

Would you care to comment on the effect a repeal of the mag limit may have on mags placed in the trust?

If you think an email response or call is more appropriate, please let me know.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

If appealed or no longer a law. Either keep them in or dump them from the trust ,Just My $2 sheckels