ATF 41F and You....

[SC-Texas]

The people who have observed that the coming changes will improve things have oft been shot down in flames.

The silencershop fingerprint scanning kiosks are a sigh that the changes in the law might just make NFA applications better!!!
http://t.lt02.net/q/f5HFV6iGjl8v40BQFydwAUlduyci6H9aH4WEzyAvsZxPAvXQRzhInBXS0

http://blog.silencershop.com/atf-41f-is-not-the-end/

Those whom choose to embrace rather that oppose change will win in the long game.

Seriously? Tell me you are being sarcastic!

Good thing you aren't
1. black
2 Hispanic
3 gay
4 female
5 a chl/LTC holder
6 an open carrier
7. LtGT marriage
8. Transgender rights

The reason that these groups have successfully pushed their agendas and expanded their rights is because they simply refused to compromise on anything. They would no more accept a law such as this that discriminates against them even a little bit. However the majority of gun owners are more than willing to compromise their rights.

This attitude is unacceptable in the 2nd Amendment community.

How does forcing background checks on everyone, and fingerprints and photographs on the vast majority of people who buy the stuff make it better for anyone?

This goes back to what I've been preaching about incrementalism.

It is an incremental steps to getting each and every Firearm owner used to
1 submitting fingerprints for every gun purchase
2 submit photographs for every gun purchase and
3 for submitting a form with every gun purchase and
4 waiting 6 to 12 months to get your gun.


Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Tejano Scott]

My question said nothing about RPs and was not intended to reference the RP discussion. I was commenting on someone else's suggestion to create a new trust with the Grantor and only the Grantor on it. I don't think that is legit and I think that trust will fail. There must be more than one person on a trust, even if that second person is just a Beneficiary. That is my understanding but I'm hoping someone with legal knowledge can clear it up.

RPs were correctly mentioned in my answer because that's why people are talking about creating trusts that list only themselves as the RP (settlor/grantor and trustees are considered RPs under 41F). Since beneficiaries are not considered RPs, people can list them freely on their trust and therefore do not need to worry about the potential legal problem you ponder. As to that specific question, I believe you may be right that a trust should, at a minimum, contain a beneficiary so if settlor/trustee dies there is a succession plan for the trust assets. The work around people are saying above (including me in the OP) is to have a trust that only lists yourself as an RP (settlor/trustee), but still have a beneficiary (which takes care of the problem you ponder). Then they can add additional trustees at a later date. I know that jives, because Sean and other trust attorneys have set up plenty of trusts like that which essentially has 1 person who has all the possession rights and a beneficiary named for worst case scenario.

 

[Charlie]

Revocable is the way to go

This is not silencerGeddon.

We will still be purchasing suppressors and short barreled rifles after July 13th

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Is there a short answer as to why?

 

[Tejano Scott]

You can change your mind and revoke the trust.

 

[SC-Texas]

Is there a short answer as to why?

Yes, the short answer is because you can change it, you can amend it, You keep control of the property owned by the trust, you can add people to it take people off of it, you can add beneficiaries remove beneficiaries it at your leisure.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Charlie]

Thanks to both of ya'!

 

[SC-Texas]

Thanks to both of ya'!

You are welcome

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Tejano Scott]

It's kind of funny to watch the inventory at CA rapidly selling out. Reminds me of Black Friday. I need to decide Wednesday if I'm gonna do a new trust or amend current one.

 

[Texas42]

It's kind of funny to watch the inventory at CA rapidly selling out. Reminds me of Black Friday. I need to decide Wednesday if I'm gonna do a new trust or amend current one.

I know. I'd love to form 1 a pap92, . . . But the one I want won't be in stock anytime soon. Guess I better start scoping out the fingerprinting places.

 

[Tejano Scott]

Well hopefully it's only a minor pain in the ass. Guess I'll start looking into it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tejano Scott]

Here is the draft ATF 5320.23 that will have to be completed by all RPs:
https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regul...act-responsible-person-questionnaire/download

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

eta updated post to reflect "draft"

 

[35Remington]

Scott, thanks for clearing up my question. Sean, just making sure you agree? Post #60.

 

[SC-Texas]

My question said nothing about RPs and was not intended to reference the RP discussion. I was commenting on someone else's suggestion to create a new trust with the Grantor and only the Grantor on it. I don't think that is legit and I think that trust will fail. There must be more than one person on a trust, even if that second person is just a Beneficiary. That is my understanding but I'm hoping someone with legal knowledge can clear it up.

This is correct The trust fails in this scenario

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[Tejano Scott]

I will update the link to the Form 5320.23 that does not have a "draft" watermark across it. I noticed this form has a space for the passport photo to be attached, so I presume I attach that photo. Does anyone know if the 5320.23 is supposed to have fingerprints attached, or do those only go to ATF? I need to do some more reading and I'll try to compile an easy 1-2-3 step process.

 

[Tejano Scott]

As promised... Here is a link to the form without the "draft" watermark. The link on ATF site is busted. I tried to order the form from them and it's not populated into their drop down menu yet. I also ordered 6 sets of fingerprint cards.

https://princelaw.files.wordpress.c..._act_nfa_responsible_person_questionnaire.pdf


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bignic83]

It's kind of funny to watch the inventory at CA rapidly selling out. Reminds me of Black Friday. I need to decide Wednesday if I'm gonna do a new trust or amend current one.

Better hurry, they posted a picture of 110 lbs of form 4's they sent out yesterday. Yes I am correct 110 pounds!!

 

[bignic83]

View attachment 39284

 

[Tejano Scott]

View attachment 39284

I believed you and had seen that pic earlier. Silencer Shop has been posting similar ones for weeks. Good for CA, great group of folks over there. 3 of mine are in that pile.

 

[locke_n_load]

Mailed a form 1 today for an SBS. Maybe I'll have it by my birthday (August) of next year!

 

[deemus]

Can someone fill me in on all this? I am having a trust done, but really don't understand all of this right now.

Trust no longer needed?

Individuals can now buy NFA items without having the local sherriff sign off?

New rules?

This is some confusing stuff.

Links to threads explaining it all would be appreciated.