New Trust Regulation

[Sgt]

Is anyone up on the new proposed NFA trust regs. It looks very troubling. The Department of Justice (ATF) has proposed a rule change which, if passed, will affect all gun trusts and corporations which seek to acquire NFA items after the effective date of the change. The rule, once effective, would require CLEO signoffs on Form 1’s and Form 4’s by trusts and corporations and also fingerprint cards, photos and background checks for all trustees and responsible officers. Do you suppose this is a done deal? I'm not sure I want to keep my trust if I have to bother all my trustees every time I want to purchase a new NFA firearm. This is just one more reason to strongly dislike this President.

Edited February 19, 2015 by Sgt

[Guest title ii]

In the United States we have a Constitution which is the frame work for how the government operates with the article I (making the law), article II (executing the law), and article III being the referee when there is disagreement. The framers set up the United States to be unique with power being distributed equally among the three different co-equal branches of government. Its set up not to be easy for starters. If the regulation in question goes through there will be many suits filed in the courts when those CLEOs start refusing to sign the documents for what ever reason be that political or other reason. Depending on the outcome of those court cases which may over rule the CLEO's decision you will see states beginning to pass shall sign legislation to correct those CLEOs and or court decisions (except the Supreme Court) if the outcry is there from the citizenry.

[johnsonlmg41]

There actually won't be many suits filed if this is implemented, just as there are hardly any (if any) now for the masses (relatively speaking) that currently can't get LEO signatures. Outcry from a few hundred MG or potential MG owners isn't even on the radar screen as a dust spec.

The only reason I can't see it being implemented is the complexity of US/ state corporate laws and the commerce clause intertwined into an area where even the IRS lawyers are often beaten or confused into submission by their legal peers. Watching atf delve into corporate assets/ property registration, etc. will either be amusing or very painful. Having 2 corporations in 2 states, both owning MG's, and watching them handle it over the years has already enlightened me as to the sheer chaos that could ensue. We've never been able to get the license center to recognize both at one time. In one state we sent the state statutes in with highlighting and they still were unable to comprehend it.

I do see states passing shall sign and that's great, but the elimination of CLEO would have been far better. If you start now, by the time it winds it's way up we may have a more friendly administration in place? You'd need to start this week with several million in the bank to make the wheels turn. Or if you have no money a twitter campaign "bring our transferables home". It seems to work for some people.....probably not us though

[The Lone Ranger]

No one posting on tne net knows what will come of 41P. ATF doesn't need to be concerned with corporate assets now or if the regulations are changed. One entity is a registrant, so if you form 10 corporations and want a firearm registered - pick one. Licensing can be more complex, but in the end is similar in concept - who is running it - and there is only one. I've seen one guy complaining that ATF is telling people who can be in a legal entity but I have not seen that in the text anywhere - just that anyone who plans to control the firearm gets a background check. You can have 20 felons in the corporation if you choose. Same with an FFL.

 

There have been a few CLEO suits; as far as I know all dismissed for lack of standing due to not exhausting all possibilities prior to having a form disapproved. If someone were to do so, it would be money better spent than the "a person ceases to be a person when named in a trust" fund raising currently ongoing.

[johnsonlmg41]

Actually movement, disposition, and custody are key factors which may be impacted by their decision (or hopefully no decision) of corporate assets.

 

I agree that an individual currently being denied ownership of a legal firearm because of lack of and LE signature would be a much better case to pursue in the same exact way handgun bans have been defeated for the same exact reasons. The pool of affected individuals is much larger than potentially disenfranchised corporations, yet it hasn't happened, thus I don't see a flurry of lawsuits for corps. coming?

Having went down this road vs. challenging it, we just moved to greener pastures like every other sane individual or business. Hopefully the whole farm doesn't incur a drought? Then we're either done or have to irrigate and fertilize immensely ?

[The Lone Ranger]

Any chance you will share one or more of these scenarios you are having such difficulty getting answers from ATF on? Unless I am missing something (happens every day) you are talking about changes to statutes far beyond anything in 41P. Movement remains movement, possession is possession, and disposing is disposing. Maybe you are asking the wrong employee(s)?

[johnsonlmg41]

Sorry, no sharing on this one, it just gets too far out in the weeds, but business assets fall under the commerce clause unlike most "personal" items, thus states have less control over the laws and rules governing them, etc.. and 41P may also be in conflict. Best I will do at the moment. Probably shared too much already?

 

Heck, I can't even copy and paste here or I would have provided more.......oh well.

[The Lone Ranger]

If you get serious about an answer, post it or e-mail it. I would love to add it to the library if registration or interstate transport laws don't apply due to corporate registration.

[johnsonlmg41]

Well,

as you know Corps have certain exceptions such as no CLEO signatures and yes requirements for travel/ transport. All this stems from the commerce clause which effectively means states cannot prohiblt interstate commerce of items used in commerce. This means if a CLEO in one town says a business can't own something or won't sign the feds say that interrupts commerce and that's a big no-no or the whole system crashes. Same with impeding travel of commercial items, be they by common carrier or by corporate courier, same rules apply, states or CLEOs can't impede the movement. The commerce clause has been the basis for the tax and the sole reason for limiting these items all along, however along with these limits there can also be certain.....well I'm not going to go so far as benefits, but let's say specific rules that commerce of "items or assets" are governed by congress and the courts have almost always ruled in favor or "commerce" and business when limits were attempted to be applied either by states or the feds. When reading cases like this you really have to leave out the term firearm and replace it with widget, since for commerce purposes they are one and the same regardless of what it actually is. People often get hung up on the terms, things turn emotional and the argument is lost.

 

In the end 41p would be overturned by the courts easily since it is a blatant overreach of government at impeding commerce for any business that gets rejected for a signature. I'm sure that will take about 2 days for the first guy to get rejected if it gets that far. I'm not sure gov. attorneys are tuned into this and I won't be shocked at all if they implement it, but it clearly will fail in a court challenge. Of course the danger there is if that part fails, how much of the rest of 922 would get chopped as well since that hangs on a thread for some of the same reasons. They were of course careful to allow an out that you can still make new MG's, but you need to get a mfr's license to do so, therefore there really is no gun ban, since there is still a way to do it. And of course for what's out there they can't take those away or that would be a ban as well, which can't really happen without a change to the constitution.

 

So the gist of it is any legal challenge to any of this needs to come from restrictions of goods in commerce as it relates to the commerce clause. As we've seen over the years other attempts have had limited little or no success but they've mostly come from angles of petty rule infractions which admittedly the agency is tasked with coming up with to keep the peace as it were. I had a lot more, but it's late and I've forgotten more than I remember. HTH

[gunhistorian]

Just as a sort of amusing detour from the thread, back in the early to mid-70s I went to the big gun show in Baltimore (don't even know if they have it anymore) and a dealer (FFL, not SOT) had an AK-47 (Viet Nam bring-back) for sale. I asked about the "legality" of his selling the thing and he told me he could sell it to anyone who was a resident of Maryland. My understanding of his position was that selling a Class 3 weapon "in state" did not involve "interstate commerce" and the sale was therefore exempt from Federal law!

[The Lone Ranger]

I am not surprised no one at ATF is answering you - no one there has the authority or likely the knowledge to speak for a court on a commerce law. We are of different understandings on origin of laws. I had always thought the taxing clause was the rationale for the NFA (the AG at the time opined that a ban would be unconstitutional - how crazy is that) and the commerce clause (both in Art 1, section 8) for the GCA - hence countless references to "interstate commerce" throughout the act). Also, the GCA makes no distinction on transportation - no exemptions for firearms registered to corporations - only for certain licensees which can be natural persons or legal entities other than trusts. The CLEO signature is not applied to any legal entity at the moment to include trusts which have nothing to do with commerce. Notwithstanding the lack of authority in the USC, a local LEO has no statutory authority, either.

 

The commerce clause has been used to take more freedom than any other from the 1930s on. When SCOTUS says the federal government has authority to control a farmer because he does NOT sell his wheat interstate and by not engaging in interstate commerce, he has an effect on interstate commerce - the jig is up. Every restriction placed on the government by the authors is voided. You cannot live a day without either engaging or not enagaging in interstate commerce, touching or not touching some item that was or was not part of interstate commerce and all are gateways to control your actions. Maybe it can be turned for regaining some freedom; I would not claim to know the answer, but would withold any celebration before seeing it actually happen. When I move across state lines, I have to terminate my insurance policy in state A and re-acquire in state B even though I stay with the same company. That doesn't give me a warm feeling about the federal gov threatening anyone with actually doing what the clause envisioned - "making regular". Here's some video of one of the SCOTUS justices being asked if the commerce clause gives the federal government authority to tell you what to eat: