ATF on 41F: Say Hello to the New Gun Trust Rules

Send to Kindle
41p

Even with these changes published, some confusion is guaranteed, and not all the answers are in yet. (Photo: ATF)

The Attorney General signed ATF Final Rule 41F — Machinegun, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity with Respect to Making or Transferring a Firearm — and it is officially now in effect. The ruling is a bit of a mixed blessing. It complicates how trusts are handled but it also makes it easier for individuals to buy NFA-regulated firearms.

From now on the managers of trusts, or “responsible persons,” are required to undergo background checks and submit fingerprint cards and passport photos, like individuals do, but it removes the law enforcement sign-off across the board, replacing it with law enforcement notification. This means that chief law enforcement officers can no longer enforce a de-facto NFA ban within their jurisdictions by denying applications to individuals without a trust.

Rule 41F defines “responsible persons,” people who are trustees or can take possession of guns held by the trust. A responsible person is anyone with the power or authority to direct the management and policies of the trust,” explains the ATF. “Any person who has the capability to exercise such power and possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any trust instrument, or under State law, to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the trust” is a responsible person.
According to the ATF, responsible persons include:

  • Settlors/Grantors
  • Trustees
  • Partners
  • Members
  • Officers
  • Board members
  • Owners
  • Beneficiaries – if said beneficiary has the capability to exercise any of the powers or authorities enumerated above.

The ATF published a guide to understanding 41F on their website. It also includes the revised forms for making, transferring and registering NFA-regulated material.

The guide is on the dense side, and a lot of people are going to have questions about the new process for running gun trusts. The ATF has set up an email address specifically to help people muddle through the changes. “If you have additional questions or need assistance regarding 41F, contact us at 41F@atf.gov.”

Common NFA-regulated guns include short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and increasingly popular suppressors, among a few other types of restricted firearms (including registered machine guns).

The XD(M) 45 Threaded with a SilencerCo Osprey 45 suppressor.

The XDM-45 Threaded with a SilencerCo Osprey 45 suppressor. These are going to be a lot more common from here on.

So while 41F adds a new set of burdens for gun trust-ship, it also makes it possible for many individuals to add NFA-regulated guns and accessories to their collection.

With these changes a lot of individuals are going to run out and buy a single multi-caliber suppressor and register a short-barreled rifle receiver and call it good. As frustrating as 41F seems at first, it will pave the way to a big boom in NFA-regulated gun owners. Suppressor manufacturers are already gearing up for the impending spike in demand.

Gun trusts are likely to remain the primary way for the majority of people and businesses to enjoy NFA-regulated equipment for the foreseeable future. As long as the responsible persons listed by the trust haven’t changed they will receive a 2-year exemption on print cards and photos for 2 years following an approved transfer.

“You won’t need to provide fingerprint cards or a 5320.23 with photos – or even a copy of your trust, if you’ve had any approval within the preceding 2-year period and your trust hasn’t changed,” explains the Silencer Shop. The Silencer shop is working on a new, fast-moving system for buying and transferring NFA-regulated gear post-41F. For more on that head over to the Firearm Blog.

“In response to these changes, SureFire has been increasing production to battle the ever-increasing demand for suppressors as their popularity grows throughout the United States,” reports AmmoLand.

It’s not possible to know completely how 41F will affect the NFA circuit today. A lot of questions will only be answered through trial and error as gun owners test the new system. And 41F may require further changes in the future.

What do you think of 41F? Are you considering buying some NFA-regulated gear as an individual now that the CLEO signoff is no more?

{ 54 comments… add one }
  • Luap October 13, 2016, 7:31 am

    I have a trust and nothing has changed any time recently. Every once and a while I will add a firearm I physical possess because I want convert that firearm into an SBR or SBS. The firearm I added to trust required a background check to buy or pick-up from my FFL. Does this mean I have to go through background two step again?

  • GaryQ July 26, 2016, 4:46 am

    Thanks for all you do and let’s not forget those responsible for all of this: Jeff “41F” Folloder and his gang of cronies at the NFATCA.

    Boycott them and every website that relates to them!

  • Full Tilt Firearms LLC July 22, 2016, 1:27 pm

    This is WRONG information:
    As long as the responsible persons listed by the trust haven’t changed they will receive a 2-year exemption on print cards and photos for 2 years following an approved transfer.

    FROM THE ATF TODAY 07/22/16:
    That’s incorrect. Trusts that have been submitted within 24 months with no changes would not need to submit a new copy of the Trust. However, individuals associated with a Trust would still need to submit photos and fingerprints.

    The 2-year exemption means you don’t need to send another copy of the trust if nothing has changed on it. Fingerprint & photos ARE required with EVERY form 1 or 4 submitted.

  • Meathead July 17, 2016, 2:39 pm

    Are these ATF fellows that created the 41F law, the same fellows that got together with the legislative branch to sell black guns to drug runners through unsuspecting legal gun dealers,that then cause american citizens deaths? Not to mention then trying to charge the same unsuspecting legal dealers with a crime of selling those firearms illegally. You know I don’t really think they should be writing laws of any kind after such an underhanded act! I don’t believe they are trust worthy or have are interests paramount in their agenda! I wish they (ATF) would dedicate as much time to de-arming the crazies and the criminals of firearms as they do trying to drown us with paper work redundancy! Compromise all you want, but they the BTAF has already proven their word is bogus by their conduct! If we had pulled that stunt they would be piping light and oxygen to us! By the way did any of those involved in that little below radar act they and their superiors ever spend a night in jail?

    • Fighter July 21, 2016, 5:42 pm

      I know right? They have no problem sending “full auto” unregistered firearms to rebels that are then funneled through Mexico that then go into the hands of criminals in the USA, but someone like me or you is forced to submit an application for a “semi auto” firearm, and we have to deal with the constant threats of an “assault weapons ban” because of something that was staged by them in the first place, and people gobble up the garbage on the news spewed out to them.

  • Itch July 17, 2016, 1:05 pm

    What does this mean for people who live in IL? Does it change anything?

  • Rick July 15, 2016, 2:26 pm

    I see this as a roundabout way to get gun owners names…

    • Paul O. July 20, 2016, 10:28 am

      If you’re a gun owner, they’ve got your name. You don’t seriously think the Feds get rid of your background check info do you?

  • h July 15, 2016, 1:06 pm

    While I understand the authors point of the 41F ruling being a compromise, I’m encouraged by the work of the ASA (American Suppressor Association) and the Hearing Protection Act even more by moving towards removing suppressors from being an NFA item, and ideally having the option to purchase them with the same regulations as a regular firearm. While it may not help lessen restrictions on AOWs, short barreled rifles or shotguns, etc, it would be a huge stride and benefit to suppressor owners and want-to-be owners to further that progress.

    • Mahatma Muhjesbude July 16, 2016, 3:16 pm

      Why don’t you people- with some organizational ability to finance a Sheister- mount up your mouths to more effective strategies than mewling and gripping to the mercy of this Bureaucratic Gestapo and beat them at their own game?

      File a fucking class action Litigation against the BATFE for intentionally and maliciously contributing to the vast physical hearing damage causing deafness from gunfire by purposefully, arbitrarily, and capriciously, for no pragmatic or safety reason, by performing illegal Administrative De Facto Fiat mandates to ban a much more effective simple harmless tool for reducing decibel levels of gunfire? Demand a jury trial and then you don’t have to shit around with useless tip toe ‘progress’.

      Because I’ll bet you’ll easily be able to find 12 good Patriots to perform jury nullification and stop this bullshit once and for all? Also make sure you cite damages in the amount of billions–which may actually be about right, considering the time since Silencers were outlawed, and how many people, including many of us here are damaged (they once were legal and common by the way)? And punitive damages in the amount of One Trillion Dollars, because of the egregiousness of not only causing us hearing loss by their actions, but by violating your Constitutional rights to have an innocuous piece of tube and washers that is not even dangerous in and of itself?

      Besides the fear of the bad publicity generated by such a large amount of damages, a jury nullification would set precedent for future such litigation if we are taking too long to get our lazy ass legislators to repeal ALL Gun control laws, especially the one that makes anybody who commits a crime, a permanent recipient of gun prohibition. Even after they are returned into society rehabilitated and law abiding. Because if they weren’t allowed to continually ban gun ownership from ex-criminals, or ‘possible’ ones like they are now getting away with and more on the horizon like ‘domestic violence’ ‘peace bonds’ ‘potential’ emotional/psychological problems by only the opinions of doctors, ANY drug useage, and etc…coming soon and certainly if Hellbitch gets in, then they COULD NEVER PASSIVELY DISARM US! If NO laws can include banning a person for forever owning a gun after he completes his punishment, they simply can’t disarm the populate by making everybody a criminal in some way or another, like they are in the very successful progress of doing right now!

      The only way they could try to do it then would be in a state of emergency where Martial law. But right after we repealed all gun laws and prohibition punishments, then we make a new law that mandates that during any martial Law, that there can be no police confiscation or turn in of firearms. In Fact, the police and federal agencies will be required to at least provide arms and ammunition to any law abiding citizens who don’t have them and might need them to defend themselves if the authorities in that particular outlying venue CANNOT provide Guaranteed protection for them under martial law!

      It’s so simple, even a retarded piss ant with no gas in his micro-motor scooter can do it. So why doens’t the so revered AMERICAN SUPPRESSOR ASSOCIATION get started on THAT?

      Even the American Automatic/Switchblade Knife association people are gaining more ground than the suppressor States? They just legalized switchblades in my State!

      You gotta fight TO WIN, not to dick arouund?

  • BIGKIELBASSA July 15, 2016, 12:27 pm

    And how much more is this going to cost ? Or is it covered by the cost of the $200.00 tax stamp fee ? What about those who already have a ccw that reside in states that exempt you from a regular background check if you have a valid ccw ? I assume this cost will multiply per the number of persons listed on your trust ? What they need to do is get rid of that Hughes Amendment .

  • Grant Stevens July 15, 2016, 12:26 pm

    Until the Second Amendment is repealed, “shall not be infringed” means just what it says. Laws, court rulings, executive orders, foreign treaties and bureaucratic regulations that infringe upon the unalienable right of American citizens to keep and bear arms are null and void. And those in government who violate their oath of office by infringing upon the Second Amendment should be immediately removed from power and tried for treason. There are more than 50,000 “gun-control” laws on the books. Not a single one has done anything to deter crime, only penalize law-abiding American citizens. I no longer ask why politicians and bureaucrats seek to disarm me, I just don’t comply with any of their unconstitutional edicts and tyranny. Until every American patriot does the same, the system’s “reasonable” restrictions upon our Second Amendment will be the death of our Constitutional Republic.

    • Kalashnikov Dude July 15, 2016, 3:37 pm

      Thank you Grant Stevens. I was losing faith that anybody in this country had any concept of the breach of contract between government and citizen these ridiculous, confusing and illegal “laws” regarding the ownership, possession and use for citizens represent. Just glad to know somebody else is out there.

    • Penrod July 15, 2016, 5:51 pm

      “Laws, court rulings, executive orders, foreign treaties and bureaucratic regulations that infringe upon the unalienable right of American citizens to keep and bear arms are null and void. ”

      I look forward to the conversation anyone taking that seriously has with the warden. Or the coroner.

      For practical purposes it does not matter if you are right: What matters is what the courts accept, and so far they accept plenty of infringements. That they may do so treasonously will not matter when LEOs knock down your door and shoot you for resisting.

      I suspect that any LEOs who review this site will also be delighted that you wrote “I just don’t comply with any of their unconstitutional edicts and tyranny.” It looks like you have publicly outed yourself as a law breaker.

      Good work.

      • Wolverines July 17, 2016, 12:53 am

        Looks like you outed yourself as a coward non-patriot. Around here, law enforcement feels the same way. Or have you not heard of the states making it illegal to enforce federal gun laws? Try holding your head up, it may hurt at first but in the long run it will be worth it.

    • Mackie1 July 16, 2016, 10:54 pm

      Grant and Kalashnikov Dude,
      Although this is off the topic heading, I’d like to respond to the “…unalienable right of American citizens to keep and bear arms…” I hear and read something like that often. I get the impression that most people don’t really know the entire Second Amendment text. To my knowledge the Second Amendment is a single sentence long and reads:
      Amendment II
      A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
      In today’s text I translate that as, “In a well regulated militia that is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people in such a militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
      Are you in a well regulated (organized) militia that is necessary to the security of a free state? I’m betting you’re not. The fact that the government requires you to register a weapon does not mean they are infringing on your right to keep and bear arms. If you still legally have them, then there is no infringement. Or the fact that the government wants to know who has weapons does not infringe on your right to bear arms, not if you can still have them.
      Do you know that when the second amendment was written the (state) government imposed a fee on people that did not serve or bear arms in the well regulated militia? That is because those that served were contributing to the states security by providing services to the state such as answering the call to protect the states citizens from Indian raids, organized gangs and such.
      I’m all for owning a gun, but the fact that the government wants to know about it, really isn’t much different than when the amendment was written except that in those days it was a given that most people from age 16 and up did own guns; were expected to participate when a militia was needed, and the ones the government really wanted to know about were those that did NOT own guns. If you weren’t on the list that didn’t own a gun, then the government knew you did! So they had that knowledge anyway.
      Point: Parts of most any sentence should not be used to establish the entirety of its meaning. If the government hasn’t taken any weapon from you, then your so called “unalienable” right, more often referred to as inalienable right, has not been infringed. Especially if your in a state militia. By the way, inalienable is a word used in the Declaration of Independence, not in the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

      • Tom July 17, 2016, 6:15 pm

        Not going to take much time to suffer a fool or take time to explain to a fool what the Bill of Rights mean. But to educate those willing to learn and capable of learning what the true purpose of the Bill of Rights is. The purpose of the Bill of rights is to recognize and to protect citizens rights from the government, not the government form itself. To postulate such is of the upmost absurdity. The Bill of Rights is to recognize those God given rights inherent to all men. Government does not give rights, only God can. What the government can give, it can also take away. Rights are NOT GIVEN, hence they can not be taken away! The phrase “Right of The People” is used many times throughout the United States Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
        The phrase “OF THE PEOPLE” in the U.S. CONSTITUTION is as follows:
        The Constitution famously begins with, “We the People.” The phrase “the people” appears in several other constitutional clauses, five of which are in the Bill of Rights. The First Amendment ensures “the right of the people” to petition the government and to assemble peacefully; the Second Amendment protects “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”; the Fourth Amendment protects “the right of the people” against unreasonable searches and seizures; and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve to “the people” none numerated rights and powers, respectively. This definition of “the people” applied consistently throughout the Bill of Rights.

        A government nor a person can just make up what they would like the Constitution and Bill of Rights to say; including you Mackie.

      • Jeremiah May 27, 2017, 12:46 am

        They argued and debated about the precise language of the 2nd amendment. Even where to put a comma. Your unauthorized, unconstitutional addition of “in” to “a well regulated militia is a poor attempt to change the meaning. The first part of the amendment states that a militia is important to the security of a free state. A militia was made up of ordinary men that brought their own arms from home; therefore, the right of “the people” (NOT the militia) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The right belongs to the people (who of course, may be called upon in the future to serve in said well-regulated militia if needed). The SCOTUS has already ruled that it was an individual right as well.

        • mike August 9, 2017, 4:51 pm

          i know this is old. but i always thought if you were going to stick a word in front of the second amendment,that word would be because.
          Historic:
          A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
          Modern: (add because, being becomes is.)
          (Because) A well regulated Militia, [being] (is) necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

          that just seems to me to be the intended meaning, based on both historical documents and the separate use of militia and people. if guns were only for active militia members, it would be the right of the militia not the people.

          i see this as a very clear right of the people, with a very clear reason why it was given. and that reason has nothing to do with hunting.

          but i’m apparently stupid.

  • SteveD July 15, 2016, 11:05 am

    “You won’t need to provide fingerprint cards or a 5320.23 with photos – or even a copy of your trust, if you’ve had any approval within the preceding 2-year period and your trust hasn’t changed,” explains the Silencer Shop. ”

    https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/general41fquestionsandanswersupdated-6-28-16pdf/download

    Q. If an application was approved within the preceding 24 months, are fingerprint cards and
    photographs required to be submitted with a new application?

    A. Yes. The 24-month exemption for providing supporting “documentation” refers only to the
    documentation proving the existence of an entity, such as trusts or corporate paperwork. The Form
    5320.23 with attached photograph and fingerprint cards are required for each person identified as a
    responsible person for each submission in order to initiate the required background check. See
    instruction 2 d. (4) and (5) on the Forms 1, 4, and 5.

    • rjess July 18, 2016, 10:48 am

      My thoughts exactly, only the trust paperwork is exempt, not fingerprint cards and photo id’s.

  • Dennis July 15, 2016, 10:07 am

    Hasn’t changed anything as I can see for my area except having one more thing for the gun owner to do. Our CLEO has been more than will ing to cooperate in the legal ownership.

  • Jeffrey L. Frischkorn July 15, 2016, 8:52 am

    This is the way “compromise” is suppose to work…

    • el bull July 15, 2016, 9:44 pm

      so you don’t mind comprising your rights, god given and otherwise—and don’t mind being controlled?

    • Mahatma Muhjesbude July 16, 2016, 3:27 pm

      Jeffery, It’s people like who piss and cry and beg the most when their last compromise has to do with where they are going to stand in the ‘truck exhaust’ shower line at the Fema Camps.

      There CAN’T be ANY FUCKING COMPROMISE with these Totalitarian Liberty Killers. NONE. It’s like trying to negotiate with the home invader not to resist him raping your wife just once, so that he’ll agree not to sodomize your children? Because compromise-to them-is just another way to facilitate the perpetuation of gun control. The ultimate goal of which is final and total disarmament.

      Are there so pitifully few of us that get that?

  • Edward Wright July 15, 2016, 8:15 am

    This language clears more up for law enforcement does it not? Lessens their responsibility, and hassle in one way, and absolves them from fault in another,

  • Mackie1 July 15, 2016, 8:14 am

    I have recently received my pistol permit in New York State. I don’t own a pistol yet, but I hope to soon. Additionally I will be applying for my concealed carry permit (CCP) after taking a CCP course. So I don’t really know the exact procedure for informing a law enforcement officer of a gun on one’s person, or in a vehicle, or in the home for that matter. I suppose it would be part of the CCP course instruction. However, there may be no “official” procedure to follow at all, or perhaps an official procedure only in certain states. To make matters more confusing, there could be significant differences between each state’s procedure. So I would have no problem with a federal approach to developing a uniform inform procedure in all states. I immediately see two benefits to such a law. Firstly, all CCP holders would have knowledge of the proper procedure regardless of the state that they carry. Secondly, it would seem to me that law enforcement would want a uniform procedure to help identify legal CCP carry as they would certainly have input into such a procedure and certain elements of the procedure would have the law officer’s safety in mind. Having the knowledge that the person seems to have had some safety training and is attempting to comply with the procedure might lessen the chance of mistaken intentions. Coming from a pistol permit holder, I see no second amendment infringement with such a federalized procedure backed by law.
    Addressing the… “If you’d like to argue that getting a concealed carry permit makes you safer, I’ll listen, but you’ve got some evidence that runs counter to that argument.”, evidence also supports that wearing a seat belt, or having air bags most often decreases the chance of severe personal injury or death, yet either can cause such injury or death in certain situations. The point is if something can be done to help lessen the chances of injury, then why not make it so. Or, we could just agree people do die while using vehicles, therefore we should stop all people from getting into vehicles.

    • Mike July 15, 2016, 1:21 pm

      Mackie, keep your NY state of mind at just that, in NY. What you said has no bearing on 41F, just your local “inform” laws and such. You wrote a whole lot of nothin’ man. I’d suggest getting up to speed on how the free parts of the country do things.

      • Mackie1 July 16, 2016, 9:41 am

        Mike and #black gun matter,
        Mike, I apologize for not following the 41F topic. I was reading a completely different line of discussion regarding the police shooting of Castile in which the writer was expressing that “… see, carrying a gun didn’t help Castile, it got him killed. If he didn’t have one …”. Perhaps the thread was started under the 41F topic. Any way, I’m new to the site and perhaps didn’t make my entry in the correct manner. I was entering my thoughts on how such an incident might be avoided with a national uniform inform process so as to initially imply cooperation which would lessen a cops anxiety over the situation. I see no Second Amendment infringement with such a bill. Additionally, I’m not aware if NYS even has local “inform laws” nor was I referring to NYS laws. Quite the contrary, I was suggesting a need for a uniform national process to help protect us all. After all, isn’t that why we want to possess and carry. Why such hostility, you could have responded simply by making your point. Was it because I’m from NYS? FYI, all people in NYS don’t agree with the restrictions imposed by my state and I am one of them.

        #black gun matter, I really don’t know what your response was objecting to as you didn’t make much of any point at all, just some personal attack. By the way, I consider myself more right than left, much more.

    • #black gun matter July 15, 2016, 9:19 pm

      Democrap troll!

  • Steve July 15, 2016, 7:52 am

    Good news. Now we need more funding for the ATF NFA Branch for better software for efile and to hire more examiners. That branch is a hardworking group of people that cannot keep up with the ever increasing amount of registrations and transfers.

    • Fal Phil July 15, 2016, 9:46 am

      Wrong.
      We need to go back to the pre-1934 laws and dump the ATF completely.
      Why would any sane person ask for more centralized government?

      • Fighter July 21, 2016, 5:48 pm

        I’m with you on that, abolish the ATF, anyone can use anything as a weapon. For instance, someone can use a car or a truck like in “Nice, France”. Why don’t people complain about someone who has a mental illness having permission to drive a vehicle while medicated that could run people over, and how about designing cars that don’t go 160mph; I don’t know any US speed limits that are 160mph.

  • Steve K July 15, 2016, 7:48 am

    The only reason they haven’t tried to outlaw all NFA items is the 200 beans we suckers willingly shell out, and WAIT 6-12 months for their blessing. The wait time is outrageous!

    • Mahatma Muhjesbude July 15, 2016, 9:40 am

      Well, if all you’re worried about is waiting too long, worry NOT. They won’t take too long to confiscate them when they’re ready. If I recall correctly NFA guns are 2nd or 3rd priority on the Seize and Secure list when that ‘special’ Federal Martial Law is declared. And you won’t be able to use the old ‘I thought i had them but they must have been stolen’ If you didn’t report that within 48 hours and pass a polygraph, you don’t pass go on your way to prison.

      I don’t know how everybody thinks this is so wonderful? They’ve hijacked the entire meaning of a trust, which is supposed to conceal the identity of the principals. the local police state people don’t get to approve you, but they still know who HAS what? This is nothing but a sinister methodology to get people to get used to registration, so it will be easier to do seizures and confiscations later on…because dummies will think “…oh this ain’t so bad, look at all the fun I’m having and the all mighty G don’t ‘really’ mind us peon (pronounced ‘pee-on) citizens having this good stuff as long as we just do a little homage paperwork so they can track us… you know, for that ‘Public Safety thing?”

      I don’t why the gun lobby isn’t doing what the Insurance lobby did and getting Congress and the Senate to just repeal the 1934 NFA Act, along with the 1968 permanent criminal creating Gun Control Act, along with the 1986 Machine Gun Act while they’re at it? So the ‘price gouging’ would also be stopped.

      After all, these laws are actually Unconstitutional, in case anybody forgot, so it should be even easier to repeal them than Obama care? Then we wouldn’t have to suck up all this humiliating sissy boy totalitarian obsequiousness while gleefully grinning and farting and holding each other’s ass wipe hanging from our ass cracks in the queue-up to the gun control gallows?

      Can anybody answer that for me?

      • Doug M. July 15, 2016, 12:16 pm

        Good comment, and good questions all.

    • Donald July 15, 2016, 10:23 am

      I have seen some folks take longer then 12 months

  • Aaron Edwards July 15, 2016, 7:38 am

    I filed a form 1 at the beginning of June 2016. Do I have to submit a 41F before I get my tax stamp back or am I grandfathered in?

    • Blue_Centurion July 15, 2016, 8:53 am

      You are exempt. Any application postmarked prior to July 13th is not under 41F.

  • Jim July 15, 2016, 6:44 am

    Unfortunately this doesn’t help me, I live in Illinois.

    • johnson July 15, 2016, 2:19 pm

      Move

  • Paul "Stitch" July 15, 2016, 6:25 am

    Another way of gun registry! Another way of confiscation1

    • Penrod July 15, 2016, 5:58 pm

      These are already registered. It simply makes it easier for some, and possible for many others who live under an anti-gun Servant of the People, to get Class 3 stuff.

      • Mahatma Muhjesbude July 16, 2016, 3:40 pm

        “!
        Easier to Get” And ten times easier for them to confiscate any time the feel like it.

        Does anyone in their bitch heat to conform and suck up just to have a piece of fucking tube other than your swinging between the leg silencers remember one of the most lip smacking ATF salivating things about that tax stamp permission to have that price gouged full auto sample sub gun????

        You dummys all voluntarily give up your 4th/A ssearch warrant right to premise search of where the class 3 item is stored?

  • El Alemain July 15, 2016, 5:49 am

    Buy NFA equipment? Maybe, if in a few years suppressors become more common and prices drop. I suppose this may also mean the advent of shoulder-stocked pistols as well.

  • Al Zermeno July 15, 2016, 4:04 am

    Hogwash! This article is HOGWASH. When you set up a trust before this you DIDN’T need local LE sign off. The new bill doesn’t eliminate ANYTHING but adds a “responsible person.” Does anyone check facts these days?

    • Mahatma Muhjesbude July 15, 2016, 9:53 am

      Al, you would expect from ‘sheeple’… Fact Checking? BWAhahahah!

      They trust the regime to do that for them. After all what do we pay taxes for?

      Instead of incessant pounding of their feckless fucking Reps to at least stop all these De facto Fiat bureaucratic decrees chipping away at the 2nd/A until it no longer exists, they sit their in their Chairborne Ranger Moutholution couches, crunching corn chips and salivating over the next munchie bone the ATF Lords decide to throw in the dirt for them. SLAVES, try this taste of future tyranny, you’ll like it!

    • Larry July 15, 2016, 10:43 am

      Exactly, that’s the reason I had to pay an attorney $500 to have a trust set up in the first place. Our CLEO’s have historically been anti-gun over the years and not willing to work with responsible gun owners.

      My CCL expired last year and I submitted the renewal paperwork well beyond their 90 day window they claimed it would take to complete the renewal process. It took them 7 months. Of course when I complained I was told I was still legal to carry and in the event I was pulled over or questioned by an LE officer to tell them my permit “was pending”. And since my CCL was officially expired I couldn’t use the reciprocal laws between our neighboring states since I travel monthly across state lines until it was renewed. Apparently “pending” meant only in my state.

      All this is designed to do is close the ID loop hole associated with a trust on a federal level. You still have back ground checks at your local dealer.

      And I don’t share the warm fuzzy feeling some folks here have for the BATF office that handles NFA transactions. I have four NFA items that cost me $800 in stamps alone, not to mention the $500 in attorney fees, and two of those items took almost a year for the paper work to complete. Yes I’m appreciative for the folks actually working in the office having to deal with all this paper work, but this is just another example of an understaffed, mismanaged government office that could care less about the people that they are actually serving.

      But you think it’s bad now? Wait until Hillary get in office!

  • Sean July 15, 2016, 3:30 am

    LEO approval was only for individual transfer not trusts I thought? So this is quite onerous to me. I just sent in a form 4 I wonder what will happen to it? Looks like “they”are trying to erode some benefits of the trust.

    • JH July 15, 2016, 9:20 am

      Yes because trusts were set up by criminals to bypass background checks…or at least that’s what “they” said. If it was sent in before the 41F took effect you are grandfathered in. I know lots of people with trusts, not one a criminal or ineligible personally, they just wanted a way to pass the items to their kids. The last transfer I did took 60 days via efile and my trust. Have two pending now, on the 20th it will be 60 days. My only other transfer done personally, on paper, through the mail took 11 months. Some LEO wouldn’t approve an individuals app if they were anti-gun, so this eliminates that. Which is good for some.

    • CharlieKing1 July 15, 2016, 9:35 am

      IMHO, you are correct. The O administration couldn’t handle the fact that a NFA trust eliminated all trustees from being background investigated. They argued that a trustee could be a felon and take possession of *gasp* a suppressor. And so with the stroke of a pen and a phone, we are now burdened with 41F! Great to be an American. However, I do concur with the removal of the CLEO signature for an individual purchase. That’ll really PO some sheriffs who always refused to sign off on the form.

      • Err July 15, 2016, 9:57 am

        A trustee could not have a background check and also take possession of a *gasp* machine gun, mortar, recoiless rifle, howitzer, …

        Of course, the entire NFA is unconstitutional, but I’ve always avoided the trust route because of the legal gray area surrounding them – including the confusion when law enforcement looks at your papers. I think this actually clarifies things a lot, and I may migrate my personally held toys into a trust now.

        • Tripwire July 15, 2016, 3:35 pm

          ERR, I had thought the same thing, BUT, if i did set up a trust and then tried to transfer my NFA items to the trust I would be required to pay the transfer taxes all over again, I said screw it, when I die I guess they will sit in the safe forever quietly doing their thing..

      • Penrod July 15, 2016, 6:06 pm

        “That’ll really PO some sheriffs who always refused to sign off on the form.”

        Yep, and it will delight people in places like Milwaukee, where the Police chiefs have routinely refused to sign off. No one in Milwaukee could get NFA items because ONE guy didn’t want mere serfs to have them. I don’t know about the current chief, but it was the case for decades.

Leave a Comment

Send this to a friend