Jump to content

Screwed by Our Own


Hawkeye_Joe
 Share

Recommended Posts

I hope the NFATCA learned a lesson about who they are dealing with. This remind anyone of 1986?

You can not bargain with these people. They will take what you offer and forget about whatever it was you wanted in return.

NFA rules were a sleeping dog in Washington and the NFATCA picked the worse possible time to poke the dog.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Notice that the first draft of the osama rule change was worded to eliminate the cleo sig and now it reads to modify the cleo sig....1986 anyone? anyone?....NFATCA will never get one penny from me..ever...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the National Firearms Act Trade and Collectors Association acted in good faith, although perhaps naively. I also believe the ATF acted in good faith. The change -- to retain and expand the CLEO signoff requirement, instead of eliminating it -- was made at the last minute, and was the doing of Holder's office and the White House. The timing of the annoucement -- just before the Labor Day weekend, and when the media were distracted by Syria -- is also highly suspect.

 

We need to make our voices heard during the 90-day comment period. Also complain to Congress. It may take legislation to overturn this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I felt the same way toward the NRA in 1986 and have not changed my opinion of them since.

 

Notice that the first draft of the osama rule change was worded to eliminate the cleo sig and now it reads to modify the cleo sig....1986 anyone? anyone?....NFATCA will never get one penny from me..ever...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If this goes through as stated on the draft, we are screwed. NOTHING can be transferred without a CLEO signature, and if you live in a county that the CLEO won't sign, you can't have it, period. And if you die, then your family can't have it either, and then it's confiscated and destroyed. Eventually, almost no CLEO's will sign, and then the guns will be worthless. This is their end goal. To eliminate Class 3 in one generation. Unless we get this changed, machine gun and virtually all Class 3 ownership in this country will end with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The mistake made by the NFATCA was raising the fictional issue of disqualified people using trusts or corps, and thinking this administration was interested in "fixing" it without totally sticking it to law abiding gun owners. I do believe they acted in good faith, but naive is an understatement.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why can't we just run a standard NICS check on the responsible persons of the trusts/corps/partnerships and be good to go????

 

The standard NICS check takes less than 5 minutes and no fingerprints or other things are required. ID is checked and they are filling out a federal form which is punishable under federal law to prison time.

 

I wonder why this isn't a posibility????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just an FYI - when you pass, there is no requirement the firearm go to a family member; The executor can transfer the item to any eligible recipient so confiscation due to the death of the owner is not a likely occurrence. As an example, machineguns are prohibited in NY - when a NY owner dies who had a MG dies, the executors transfer the firearms out of the state.

 

AlexanderA has a very good grasp of events.

 

 

If this goes through as stated on the draft, we are screwed. NOTHING can be transferred without a CLEO signature, and if you live in a county that the CLEO won't sign, you can't have it, period. And if you die, then your family can't have it either, and then it's confiscated and destroyed. Eventually, almost no CLEO's will sign, and then the guns will be worthless. This is their end goal. To eliminate Class 3 in one generation. Unless we get this changed, machine gun and virtually all Class 3 ownership in this country will end with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some things can be fixed at the state level. For example, Tennessee has passed legislation that the CLEO will sign the Form 4 unless he knows of a reason that the Transferee would be prohibited from owning the firearm. A CLEO cannot just not sign the Form here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have always though they should take "Collectors" out of their name, from what I have read and seen the NFATCA is primarily an industry organization.

 

 

NFA firearms collectors group initiated ATF gun trust rule change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here are the people involved in this debacle:

 

Officers, Board Members:

John Brown, President -Battlefield Sports, Ltd.

Teresa Starnes, VP -DoubleStar

Jeff Folloder, Executive Director, Sec/Treasurer

 

Additional Board Members

Curt Wolf , Vice President - US Armament Corp.

Robert Landies - Ohio Ordnance Works

Wayne Weber - Heckler & Koch USA

Darren Mellors - LWRCI

Robert Segel - Small Arms Review, The Partisan, NFATCA Newsletter

John Brown, Publisher

Jeff Folloder, Senior Editor

Oleg Volk, Graphics Editor

 

I know a couple of these people and they are no "real" supporters of the second amendment. Having spoke to them in the past about getting the 86 manufacturing ban repealed, I was told that would ruin the value of their collections and profit with lower prices and they would fight any repeal.

 

Nice guys huh!

Edited by calibre
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
Arrogant to assume they represent us and to negotiate with the ATF on our behalf regarding what we want or should not want. Naive in estimating their power and influence. Impotent when the rubber met the road. If nfatca were captain Tupolev we the crew would be yelling to this arrogant, naive, impotent captain "you have killed us" as the torpedo he insisted to launch turns back on our own ship.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To your list of who to blame you can also add all of those who got on the internet and bragged about how they used trusts to get around the law and encouraged others to do the same. They brought unwanted attention to this issue by their lack of discretion in their posts. I have watched people do this over the past few years and often wondered how long it would be before their bragging brought the powers that be down on them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's becoming a big pain in the ass anymore, I'm glad I already bought most of the Class 111 stuff I wanted, I still want a AK47 but with the 3 ring circus they are setting up and the 15 month wait time on the approval, I am not so sure its worth it anymore.

Edited by GUTTERRATT
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When, since 1968, have the anti's ever offered anything positive in exchange for their goals?

Give us some of what we want now, and you can give us more later, -has always been their ideology.

Remember when the Brady bunch wanted only a national background check, nothing more?

Remember when they were only interested in handguns, and said they had no interest in shotguns or rifles?

NFATCA approached the most antigun administration -period, and thought they would come away winners?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Woulda, shoulda, coulda and CYA and at least they tried. Really, really there WAS a trust loophole - they were about to pounce on you anyway. (Glad they were looking out for us helping to close those loopholes). McCain esque with strong elitism. And for only $50 you too can become an "associate" member of the club.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to blame anyone, blame the ones abusing the trust provision that overloaded the system. The huge increase in numbers from one year to the next got ATF's attention, they didn't need NFATCA to point it out to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I talked to Browne at the Creek,listening to his take on this...was not to optomitistic about the outcome..neither him nor I....had some input from Curtis Higgins...he told me thru some inside info that ATF had about 44 cases of trust transferees that can`t pass the NICS check to hold up as examples for the cleo change....my question is how come we haven`t heard about this before....smoke and mirror.....I just had a compliance check and the agent insisted no NICS was required on a FORM 4 transfer.I questioned his opinion about this to the point of him following up with his supervisor.He has been informed he was wrong...he has been preaching from the wrong PDF book for 7 years....I have known about this requirement since 2006....and as far has protecting a collection by shutting the door on new MG registration,how much do you think an asset is worth if there is no market to sell in?...just ask a collector in Canada...$000.00

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had a similar conversation with John at Knob Creek. This is probably one of the better articles I have read on this subject.

 

http://soldiersystems.net/2013/09/01/what-last-weeks-executive-action-nfa-trust-corporate-transfers-means-to-you/

 

Just to add to what 21 Smoker stated, this is the regulation covering the NICS requirement for F4 NFA.

 

9.12.1 NFA Transfers to other than individuals.

Subsequent to the approval of an application requesting to transfer an NFA firearm to, or on behalf of, a partnership, company, association, trust, estate, or corporation, the authorized person picking up the firearm on behalf of, a partnership, company, association, trust, estate, or corporation from the FFL must complete the Form 4473 with his/her personal information and undergo a NICS check. See also, question P6

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FWIW - the handbook is in error regarding NICS. The handbook is neither law nor regulation, but a plain language summary of them. The original intent was to revisit it yearly for updates and corrections - it was actually done in 2008 and not again to date.

 

See page 5 of the 11/2008 newsletter:

 

http://www.atf.gov/files/publications/newsletters/ffl/ffl-newsletter-2008-11.pdf

 

and disregard that advice if you are in a POC state - their laws apply. PA is an example... NFA or not, the check is done except for silencers which do not meet definition of firearm in PA.

Edited by The Lone Ranger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guys, I'm as pro-gun as anybody. But let me say I would have a hard time staking out a position that says an otherwise ineligible person should be allowed to take possession of a machinegun.

 

In some cases doing so would be a separate crime. For example, someone with a felony conviction who uses this "trust loophole" would be committing a crime by becoming a felon in possession of a firearm. But there are other disqualifying factors that prevent acquisition by transfer but don't prohibit continued ownership or possession of a firearm. An example is Virginia Code Sec. 18.2-308.1:4 http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-308.1C4.

 

That section prohibits the purchase or transport of a firearm, but not the possession. Therefore, a person disqualified under this section can lawfully retain ownership and could lawfully be the beneficiary of an NFA trust. The trust could lawfully acquire a machinegun during this person's disqualification, as the trust is the transferee and purchaser. This disqualified person could lawfully possess a machinegun as beneficiary of a trust. He or she could not transport it, so another beneficiary must be present to lawfully get it to a shooting range, etc., but once there, the disqualified beneficiary could lawfully shoot it.

 

I'm sure there can be other examples.

 

The problem is unbridled discretion held by the CLEO. Intuitively I feel sure the rule will go through to close the trust loophole. A few examples of disqualified persons attempting or succeeding in getting NFA items will convince BATFE to adopt this rule change; but maybe not in the proposed form.

 

I suggest that anybody submitting a comment or lobbying in regard to the proposed change should target the CLEO signoff. Perhaps it should not be eliminated entirely, but it can be changed to require a response within a certain time or automatic waiver. Think of ways to curtail the unreasonable and arbitrary discretion of the CLEO. That's the weak point and all we can hope for, in my opinion.

 

Curl

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...