XCR Forum banner

1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #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".
------------
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,840 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,523 Posts
Bastards!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,840 Posts
So is this a done thing or what? I am thinking it is going to be, public comments or not. angry_cuss.gif
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,143 Posts
Do away with the NFA.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
This is sad news. I have formed my trust, and now it may serve no purpose, as I have not yet begun any of my NFA purchases or paperwork. Is there any hope for this to be squashed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #12
Only after the comment period......check ATF's website for info on when it will commence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,593 Posts
So correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone in the trust will still be able to use the items in the trust? The main reason, IMHO, for a trust.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
So correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone in the trust will still be able to use the items in the trust? The main reason, IMHO, for a trust.
This is half the reason for me. The other half is the CLEO/Fingerprinting/photographing that I would like to avoid. I'm not that into begging my masters for their permission just to SBR and quiet my rifles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
So correct me if I'm wrong, but everyone in the trust will still be able to use the items in the trust? The main reason, IMHO, for a trust.
Main reason for most trusts is speed in getting it approved or you have a CLEO that won't sign off. It would seem now that people in those areas with CLEOs who won't sign off are effectively banned from owning any more NFA items (thereby curtailing their rights that have been regulated to mere privileges by NFA in the first place) and worse: there is the ever so slight possibility that a case could be made for them to have to give up items currently owned or move to an area where CLEO will sign off....though I HIGHLY doubt this to be the case at this point in history...but what the future holds in a completely different story.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #17
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.
Vaya Con Dios my friend. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
Vaya Con Dios my friend. :)
Though we don't share the same understanding of Dios, I thank you just the same. Looking at a Sparrow or XCaliber, need a little more info for the .22lr, a couple all Ti Templar Tactical suppressors, and both XCRs SBRed. That's $1k in tax stamps alone. I guess the basement remodel will be on hold for a few months. Probably good to just do it, as I have been waiting for a good SBR suppressor option, and now there seems to be one. I am sad I missed the group buys on these last fall though. They look pretty impressive on the you tubes and in the reviews. People are liking them, and they are rated for use on barrels as short as 7" with 5.56 and .300. Should make them fun offhand shooters. I may need to cut my 10" barrel down. :).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
22,085 Posts
Discussion Starter #19
I didn't mean it like that, Rob. More of a joke. ;)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
492 Posts
I didn't mean it like that, Rob. More of a joke. ;)
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.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
Top