search
top

Putting the Screws to NFA Owners

NFA trusts are becoming increasingly popular, as a means to possess NFA items. For one, it gets rid of the LEO sign-off requirement, which can often be a problem if you don’t have a friendly local chief. For two, it lets you put multiple people, like children and spouses, onto the trust to facilitate sharing and to ease inheritance. Because it eases the burdens of possessing NFA items, the Obama Administration is naturally cracking down on it, and making possessing NFA items through a trust as burdensome as through the individual tax stamp.

In the wake of Republican opposition to gun control measures in Congress, the Obama administration has had little recourse but to target guns through executive action.

Yeah, because criminals are totally getting into this NFA trust thing. They are well known to use legal constructs like this that generally require hiring attorneys and filling out a lot of legal paperwork.

This isn’t about stopping crime, this is about revenge. It’s the standard operating procedure for this President. Having derailed his gun control agenda and embarrassed him, we’re going to be made to pay… by hook or by crook.

14 Responses to “Putting the Screws to NFA Owners”

  1. Annette says:

    NFA trusts/corporate entities: the only way I can own NFA items without tripping into federal felonies. It’s not always just one person in a relationship who shoots, and couples/families might even share a few guns from time to time even when they don’t go to the range together. The alternative is to buy separate safes, not share combos, and try to plan ahead 6-8+ months and pay $200 for every time the person I’m married to might want to borrow an NFA item. We can file taxes as if we’re one person, state law considers anything else we buy while we’re married to be marital property, but we can’t share NFA items outside of a trust or corporate entity.

    Frankly, I find it a bit misogynistic.

  2. Pat says:

    The entire package sucks. Why couldn’t they take #4 (eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by the CLEO) and make that a separate rule. Then do something to make sure that family members don’t run the risk of becoming felons just by bringing a range bag home.

    NFA trusts have other advantages, but many people go that route because their CLEO absolutely refuses, as a matter of policy, to sign off on individual Form 4s. Dallas County and Harris County are two examples of that here in Texas…

  3. Jack says:

    Also note it’s never, ever enough for the antis.

    Oh look, univseral background checks AND registration.

    Nope! Not enough.

  4. HCL3 says:

    IMO the NFA trusts were over used. I always advised clients that unless they had a specific reason to use a trust (CLEO wouldn’t sign, joint ownership of one or more NFA items, allowing others to borrow/use NFA items while not in your presence) they were better off just going the individual route. Probably 95% of the people that came to me wanting to do a trust for them would have been fine with just doing an individual transfer. As far as estate planning goes, NFA items transfer to your heirs tax free on a form 5.

    Also, this notice has been out a long time I first read it nearly a year ago.

    • Earl Harding says:

      So 95% of the folks coming to you are single, have no children and have no need to do any estate and trust planning for rights of survivorship?

      Must be nice and simple where you are.

      Back in the real world estate and trust planning are pretty much mandatory for anyone who has kids and even moderate assets of estate planning.

      NFA rules are even more byzantine than the usual estate rules. An NFA trust is pretty much mandatory unless you are planning to be intestate.

      • HCL3 says:

        You’re talking about 2 different things. Any NFA trust you enter into should be separate from any other trust you use for your other property. The NFA trust should be used only for NFA items and nothing else. As far as NFA rules are not more “Byzantine than the usual estate rules.” It’s often a hell of a lot less complicated disposing of a decedent’s NFA items than a piece of real property or any business the decedent might have owned. An NFA item is disposed of by the estate just like the rest of the decedent’s personal property with the exception of the NFA forms. I do recommend that clients specifically name who they want the item to go to in their will, just like any other high value piece of property. The executor fills out a form 5 and it transfers tax free.

  5. Patrick H says:

    IME it’s more the ONE YEAR wait for form 1 and 4 transfers that are really screwing NFA buyers.

    • HCL3 says:

      I agree this is the much bigger issue with the NFA process. The transfer process has not changed all that much since 1934.

  6. KRY says:

    They can stop the NFA ill just get my full auto of a dead ruski when they team up with dhs to confiscate the lawfully owned firearms of all citizens.

  7. KRY says:

    Off not of

  8. It gets worse. There’s a new proposed rule from 2013…

    Old Proposed Rule 2012 (1140-AA43):
    The proposed regulations would (1) add a definition for the term “responsible person”; (2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints; (3) require that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the locality in which the maker or transferee is located; and (4) eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by the CLEO.

    New Rule 2013 (1140-AA43):
    The proposed regulations would (1) add a definition for the term “responsible person”; (2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints; and (3) modify the requirements regarding the certificate of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO).

    The only shiny penny in the previous rule was perhaps getting rid of the onerous CLEO sign-off. The new rule changes that to “modify.” I guarantee that Eric Holder’s DOJ is not going to “modify” the NFA processes in a way that is positive for peaceable citizens.

    I just got my NFA trust and put in for a suppressor with it, too. I guess I better get a Form 1 cooking ASAP for an SBR.

    • Patrick H says:

      Yeah I noticed that. It would have been great for people unlike me who can’t get CLEO authorization.

    • HSR47 says:

      “…modify the requirements regarding the certificate of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO).”

      By which they probably mean that they intend to require a CLEO signature for trusts/corps too.

  9. PS — Notice I said “peaceable” gun owners. Not “law abiding.” We need to stop saying “law abiding.” There are a lot of peaceable people who don’t want to start trouble who are committing serious felonies, or will be soon as some of these crazy state laws kick in. Heck, every cop in New York state committed a crime before SAFE Act was amended to give them special “more equal than others” permission to carry full loads in their mags.

    I wouldn’t vote to convict ANYONE of an NFA violation if I were on a jury, personally. I do not care if someone violates the NFA. I personally jump through the hoops due to the draconian penalties but simply do not care if someone’s barrel is an inch too short.

    I also wouldn’t vote to convict someone for violating the fugitive slave act if I lived in the 19th century, nor would I vote to convict a Jew who didn’t wear their star in 20th century Germany. Some laws are just bad laws.

    When we hang our hat on “law abiding gun owners” we will get SCREWED. The GOP jumps on the “touch on crime!” band wagon and then we face BS like the minimum sentencing rules for violating Connecticut’s draconian laws. Putting a peaceable gun owner who dared to have a rifle with a pistol grip on it into jail for a minimum no-parole sentence is garbage.

    I’m just waiting for it at the national level… tough minimum sentencing for people who commit gun crimes! Large percentages of the GOP would chase that tennis ball. They almost did with the “gun trafficking” statute BS, and only by overreaching and provoking a ferocious response did everything die. They’ll be smarter next time they’re back.

top