XCR Forum banner

NFA Collectors Group INITIATED Gun Trust Rule Change.....

5K views 33 replies 9 participants last post by  Rob 
#1 ·
Some of you may remember a few years back that I posted some articles about the NFATCA (National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association) working with ATF to curtail our rights while driving the price of their "collectible" NFA weapons higher. Well, they are the ones who lobbied for this latest rule change to demand pics and prints from Trust members. I'll post another link to the other article from a few years back for those who want the back story.

The important things to remember from this article: CLEO SIGN OFF IS STILL REQUIRED. We were lied to when the other recent articles told of ATF dropping this requirement in exchange for the pics/prints. And....that the NFATCA is the one that initiated the rule change in the first place. Ostensibly to protect NFA owners image, but what exactly needed protecting considering the rarity of NFA items being used in ANY crime? IMO, it was likely to make NFA ownership that much more elite thereby consolidating their power among their base.

The question is: Why are NFA owners joining NFATCA in the first place and those who don't join, why are we allowing these shit heads to speak for us?

Here's the latest article.

NFA firearms collectors group initiated ATF gun trust rule change - National gun rights | Examiner.com


NFA firearms collectors group initiated ATF gun trust rule change


Alex Wong/Getty Images




David CodreaGun Rights Examiner



Advertisement





August 30, 2013

The Obama administration’s proposed regulatory amendment regarding background checks for principal officers of gun trusts will still require a chief law enforcement officer sign-off, and the rule change itself was initiated by a petition from a group representing National Firearms Act gun collectors. That information comes from a draft Department of Justice notice made public this morning by firearms industry consulting attorney Joshua Prince.
Gun Rights Examiner reported on the proposed regulation change last Friday, relying on the government’s summary as posted on the Executive Office of the President’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs website, which stated:
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.
While this column expressed concerns for the new requirements, commentators weighed in emphasizing the benefits of doing away with the CLEO signature requirement, as the current state of affairs allows a police chief or sheriff to ignore the application, thus halting the firearms transfer. The change was thus represented by some as a tradeoff worth making.
“Unfortunately, we just obtained a copy of the 62-page proposal and the above statement is a false depiction of the actual proposal, as everyone was made to believe that the CLEO signature requirement would be eliminated in exchange for additional regulations on fictitious entities,” Prince explained. “ATF will NOT be eliminating the CLEO requirement and instead IMPOSING it on ALL entities.”
A review of the DOJ draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking bears that out.
“ATF does not propose to eliminate the CLEO certificate requirement at this time,” the proposal confirms. “Rather, ATF proposes extending the CLEO certificate requirement to responsible persons of a legal entity.”
What they’re evidently proposing to eliminate, for liability reasons, is having the CLEO certify “that he has no information that the applicant or transferee will use the firearm for other than lawful purposes.”
The rule change itself, the draft continues, was instigated by a petition from the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association.
“The NFATCA expressed concern that persons who are prohibited by law from possessing or receiving firearms may acquire NFA firearms through the establishment of legal entities such as a corporation, trust, or partnership,” the notice explains. “The Petitioner [NFATCA] expressed concern that an NFA firearm could be obtained by a prohibited person and used in a violent crime.
"Therefore, for applications for a corporation, trust, partnership, or other legal entity to make or receive an NFA firearms, petitioner has requested amendments … to require photographs and fingerprint cards for persons who are responsible for directing the management and policies of the entity, so that a background check of the individual may be conducted,” the notice elaborates.
In other words, the leadership of a national influential collectors group petitioned ATF and endorsed more “gun control,” apparently under the assumption that there would be a tradeoff benefit to them in terms of eliminating a certification some CLEOs have been reluctant to provide.
As for their concern that violent criminals are going to be using trusts and lawyers to skirt the law, ATF noted “the number of Forms … involving legal entities that are not Federal firearms licensees increased … to 40,700 in 2012.” Despite this, the only corroborating example ATF cited was where an applicant denied transfer of a silencer “subsequently applied to transfer the same silencer to a trust,” that was discovered and the application was denied. Further information about the specifics of the example and the likely danger this posed in terms of increasing violent crime risks were not provided.
"No criminal would subject themselves to notifying the ATF of their intent to purchase a machine gun, wait six - 12 months to be able to receive the firearm, pay a $200 tax, and pay an extra $10,000 - $20,000 to purchase a legal machine gun when illegal machine guns can be purchased or made easily without waiting or notifying the ATF," Gun Trust Lawyer David M. Goldman wrote yesterday in a deconstruction of a so-called fact sheet from the White House. "This logic is flawed."
What’s apparent from these new revelations is that additional public scrutiny is required, including scrutiny of backroom deals being arranged without fanfare by special interest groups who petition for changes to regulations that will reach beyond their membership of collectors and investors. What is unknown at this time is what changes the White House will insist on before a final draft is presented for public comment. That period has not yet begun, but when it does, as today’s revelations should make clear, it will be in the interests of all gun owners to become informed and engaged.
As such, Prince and colleague Tom Odom have taken point and posted several updates just this morning, including Procedural issues with ATF’s draft proposal, National Firearms Act Day of Reckoning – September 3, 2013, and a summary of ATF’s draft proposal. Bookmarking and regularly visiting that blog will help ensure concerned citizens can keep up to date on the information being uncovered there.
UPDATE: NFATCA responds. Curious that they have not released the actual petition they submitted.
------------
The latest GUNS Magazine "Rights Watch" column is online, and you can read it before the magazine hits the stands. B. Todd Jones may be ATF's new director, but the path he's heading the bureau down is decidedly the same old one Holder an Obama want him to stay on. Click here to read "New Director, Same Old Direction".
------------
 
See less See more
2
#3 ·
So in trying to lobby the ATF for their own interest and a compromise for their own monetary gain they screw themselves and everyone else's Rights. And of course the information presented to the idiot media and masses will be taken verbatim like they always do.:mad: I would say lemmings but that has found to be a bad example and giving lemmings a bad name.
 
#4 ·
Most importantly, if your CLEO won't sign off....you can't go around him by forming a trust now either. I wonder what happens to those with trusts who didn't have to send in pics/prints. I have one item in an NFA trust....I'm hoping the requirement isn't that I have to send in pics/prints now to keep it. I wonder if I'd then have "standing" to bring suit. I have plenty of other NFA items that are on individual form 1s and I'd be willing to lose this 1 item to the potential loss in court. I just don't want to go to jail over it....scratch that, I WON'T go to jail over it.
 
#5 ·
Bastards!
 
#10 ·
So is this a done thing or what? I am thinking it is going to be, public comments or not. View attachment 6390
There's a public commentary period that hasn't started yet...at least that's my limited understanding. But with most of these comment periods, the bureaucracy keeps it low profile so most people dont' know when it starts or ends and they ignore the input anyway and do as they please.....but that's what you get when you have bureaucracy in the first place...unaccountable, unelected government officials who do what they are told by their superiors rather than by the people.
 
#15 ·
I'm taking Tuesday off to do the required work to fund my trust bank account, get the SBR paperwork going and get the suppressors ordered. I hope...

I haven't found definitive info, but it appears that the fingerprinting and CLEO letter aren't in effect yet, and hopefully I can squeeze in now.
 
#20 ·
I know. Just busting your balls a little since there is a history of people who actually get a little wound up about your posts by getting hung up on your words and not your intent far too often. Should have inserted a smiley. You have been a great asset to me in my XCR journey, and I genuinely appreciate your well wishes, and all the help along the way, and think you are a huge asset to this online community.
 
#21 ·
Very nice of you to say, man. Much appreciated. I just wanted to be sure I made it clear I was making a joke, not endorsing any kind of "religion" with my comment. ;)

Best wishes man...hope you get the NFA stuff taken care of in short order. Seems the current administration is trying to slam a door shut on NFA for folks in areas with hostile CLEOs.
 
#22 ·
See? John Brown of NFATCA isn't a snitch.....

Sipsey Street Irregulars: He's not a snitch, he's just my special NFATCA friend.

He's not a snitch, he's just my special NFATCA friend.
Testimony under oath by Richard Vasquez, former grand poobah in ATF's Firearms Technology Branch, in the case of United States of America vs. Randolph Benjamin Rodman and Idan C. Greenberg, November 28, 2012.​
Question by Mr. Sanders, trying to get to the truth of why John Brown of the NFATCA got special treatment from ATF.​
Q. He supplied e-mails from a party in litigation with ATF and you supplied -- and you supplied them to the ATF counsel and prosecutors of that case; isn't that right?​
A. That is correct. Like I said, John Brown's friendship was a friendship. Anything to do with ATF business, there was nothing hidden so any information given to me, I immediately passed it on.​
. Q. M'hum. And you would not consider that being an informant?​
A. Absolutely not.​
Q. What would you consider it?​
A. Passing on information that had to do with an -- it wasn't even an investigation. It was -- I guess a term, litigation.​
Q. It was a case in progress?​
A. It was not a case. It was not a criminal case.​
Q. It was a forfeiture?​
A. Yes, that's correct.​
Q. And you passed the information on to the --​
A. Absolutely.​
 
#24 ·
Well, got the new XCR today, got a new Title 2 dealer to take my transfers today. Made some decisions on which cans to get, and got the trust bank account open. Just waiting on Title 2 dealer credentials to get the orders processed. Hopefully this will go through before the rules change and invalidates my paper work.
 
#26 · (Edited)
While my NFA hobby isn't continuous it hasn't ran it's course either. The NFATCA group do NOT represent me. I am appalled at the outcome of their meddling. Many of whom are trust lawyers (irony). I have never had an issue with a sign off until I moved to the big city. Now I can still get them but it takes some time i.e. leave the forms, call in 2 weeks to see , drive back and collect them . idiot thinks you need fingerprints for every set . btw 1 set of fingerprints is good for multi form transfers.
The EO needs to have a check in place so as to not violate the constitution. Call and write your rep's and senators about it.
Now the NRA has weighed in;http://nraila.org/legislation/feder...-overbroad-nfa-background-check-proposal.aspx
 
#28 ·
#29 ·
Wow...it costs $3.2M a year to fund the background checks...and that's just Form 4s....that's money our government is spending on this shit.
 
#30 ·
A. Comments Sought ATF is requesting comments on the proposed rule from all interested persons. ATF is also specifically requesting comments on the clarity of this proposed rule and how it may be made easier to understand, as well as comments on the costs or benefits of the proposed rule and on the appropriate methodology and data for calculating those costs and benefits.
All comments must reference the docket number (ATF 41P), be legible, and include the commenter's name and complete mailing address. ATF will treat all comments as originals and will not acknowledge receipt of comments.
Comments received on or before the closing date will be carefully considered. Comments received after that date will be given the same consideration if it is practical to do so, but assurance of consideration cannot be given except as to comments received on or before the closing date.
 
#31 ·
C. Submitting Comments Comments may be submitted in any of three ways:

  • Mail: Send written comments to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Written comments must appear in minimum 12 point font size (.17 inches), include your mailing address, be signed, and may be of any length.Show citation box
  • Facsimile: You may submit comments by facsimile transmission to (202) 648-9741. Faxed comments must:
(1) Be legible and appear in minimum 12 point font size (.17 inches);
(2) Be on 81/2″ x 11″ paper;
(3) Contain a legible, written signature; and
(4) Be no more than five pages long. ATF will not accept faxed comments that exceed five pages.

  • Federal eRulemaking Portal: To submit comments to ATF via the Federal eRulemaking portal, visit Regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments.
 
#33 ·
ATF Rule Changes | Savage Gun Law

Posts Tagged With: ATF Rule Changes National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association Posted on September 5, 2013 by Mark
That’s who is named in the proposed ATF rule changes on Page 9 as taking issue with the increase in transfers to other than natural persons (i.e. trusts and corporations). Here’s a link to NFATCA’s facebook site. Not surprisingly they appear to have stirred up a pretty good hornets nest by throwing gun owners (many of whom would likely be their strongest supporters) under the bus and advocating for background investigations and CLEO approval on Trustees and Corporate Officers. It looks like they are in damage control mode now and trying to spin their involvement in the proposal.
This is a change from a previous post where the ATF proposed rule change reflected that information should be submitted to the CLEO, but didn’t require the statement that the responsible person would go forth and do no harm.
My suggestions? Check out the proposed rule changes. Comment accordingly. And finally? Boycott NFATCA!
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top