http://www.nfatca.org/pubs/NFATCA_Statement_083113.pdf
While it may appear to some on the Internet that the NFATCA has "thrown folks under the bus," this is simply not the case.
Printable View
http://www.nfatca.org/pubs/NFATCA_Statement_083113.pdf
While it may appear to some on the Internet that the NFATCA has "thrown folks under the bus," this is simply not the case.
the way the ATF and media are presenting it it sure seems that way, I would be in contact with every media source I could come up with and put the truth out there, if in fact NFATCA is not responsible for this train wreck and abomination. I would be calling it to the highest hill and the lowest valley if this were not true!!
In addition NFATCA should vigorously demand the trust/corp route be allowed and continued as is currently.
The release of NFA weps to criminals or unqualified individuals is so infinitely small it is a non issue and has only allowed ATF yet another avenue to deny these items to otherwise qualified individuals that currently CLEO's refuse to sign off on. This is the entire reason for the trust/corp route to begin with. If NICS validation for a trust/corp is required that is acceptable as this is not an issue with the law abiding but as currently formulated and proposed, totally and irresponsibly unacceptable.
In Nevada, the person who picks up the NFA item at a licensed dealer must complete a 4473 and undergo the NICS check, even if a trust is owner.
mbogo
What about Petition 1209 (PDF)?
This part of the PDF gives me worry. I have my entire family on my trust. If a family of 6 gets 10 stamps then that's 60 sets of fingerprints and photos. That is a lot of hoops to go through which will "unduly burden the law abiding public, will restrain lawful commerce."
Keep in mind I'd support low resistance measures like a NICS check. Or even fingerprints in states that don't keep up their NICS database (as long as fingerprints are good for a while). But in the day and age where oil filter suppressors are sold on ebay and commonly displayed on YouTube I don't see much of a point in the repeated fingerprinting of all trust members. Substitution costs are way to low for criminals. That is unless the whole point of your actions is to protect the purity of NFA and not really reduce crime.Quote:
We request that
• 479.63 and 479.85 be amended to require photographs and fingerprints of persons responsible for directing the legal entity;
Just the responsible party. Not everyone. A process identical to the FFL system. An FFL can have 100 employees, but must have one or more responsible parties.
Doing a NICS check on pick up is problematic. ATF's guidance on the actual 4473 says "No NICS check was required because the transfer involved only National Firearms Act firearm(s)." in Box 22. ATF added in the NICS check for corporations thing in 12.6.1 in the NFA Handbook some time ago. Now, the written statement thing (affadavit) has been in place for a long time and is something that most FFL's forget to do. That's why I talked about it in our newsletter. It's part of the regulations.
But the NICS check thing: "The FFL must also initiate a background check of the individual under the Brady Law. 193" Footnote 193 refers to 5300.4 (Federal Firearms Regulations Reference Guide 2005), page 195, Question P60 as justification for this requirement. A couple of things...
- Question P59, just before it: "Is a NICS check required for the sale of firearms registered under the National Firearms Act (NFA)? No, assuming all NFA requirements have been satisfied. 18 USC 922(t), 27 CFR 478.102(d)"
- Question P60 asks: "An organization without a firearms license wishes to acquire a firearm from a licensee for the purpose of raffling the firearms at an event. How does the licensee comply with the Brady law?" P60 does not have anything to do with an NFA NICS question!
- The 4473 *still* confirms and corroborates the no NICS check requirement of P59.
This is very concerning on a number of fronts! There are at least two places where it is *confirmed* that no NICS check is required for an approved NFA transfer (the 4473 and 5300.4 P59) and the reference in the NFA Handbook refers to a QA involving raffling a Title I firearm.
Most conscientious FFL's have actually been doing the NICS check as a matter of course, even though there appears to be a great deal of conflicting information promulgated by ATF and no actual regulations in place. This is troubling because, technically, the Handbook is juts guidance, not regulation.
Thank you for the thorough response. I'm sure this will get fixed in the future.Quote:
Doing a NICS check on pick up is problematic...... There are at least two places where it is *confirmed* that no NICS check is required for an approved NFA transfer .... there appears to be a great deal of conflicting information promulgated by ATF and no actual regulations in place.
Forgive me as I'm not a lawyer. But aren't all trustees responsible parties? I'm ok with being fingerprinted, mugshot'd and NICs with every purchase. I prefer a simple NICS check, but I'll deal with the full body examination. However, I have my entire family listed in the amendment section of the Trust as "Additional Trustees". I put them on there to avoid accidental constructive transfers. So aren't they a responsible party? If not, then I guess I don't understand the definition of a responsible party. My biggest sticking point, and this is a big sticking point for me, is that I don't want to drag everyone to the station for a family night line up every time I want a new toy.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExecDirector
Also, why did Petition 1209 skip right over supporting NICS checks and instead recommend fingerprints and photos? Again, I understand not all states reporting systems are created equal but that's easy to deal with. Some states get NICS some get fingerprints and mugshots. Maybe that's a pipe-dream at this stage but it's certainly something to consider for the future.
Nope. And the definition varies from state to state. Beneficiaries may or may not be responsible persons (or even eligible to possess at a given point in time). And trustees may or may not, depending on their state of residence, etc. We are advocating for responsible person with a definition similar to that of the FFL process where one or more persons is designated as the legal "vouchsafe" for the entity. You can certainly have more than one... but you must have at least one. Just like an FFL. Same for corps, LLC's, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeonR
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeonR
Again, to keep it in line with a process that ATF is already familiar with: FFL's. And we did advocate for NICS at delivery time... along with making ATF clarify exactly how that would work with unambiguous language and direction.
Thank you for the clear response. I really appreciate it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExecDirector
Nobel Laureate Friedrich Von Hayek was famous for promoting the "rule of law". This is paraphrased by my finance professor: "Tell me the rules of the game and I'll tell you how to make money". The lack of clarity around the future trust rules will certainly complicate things and make trusts less desirable simply because they aren't understood. My trust lawyer may be happy as may mean more business for him (but less volume). This proposed system is seriously making me wonder if I should dump my trust and go with individual transfers for future purchases.
Just an off the cuff suggestion from a non-lawyer: If "responsible persons" was replaced with "settler" I'd be happy. Stipulations can be made if the settler is no longer the primary responsible person making all of the purchases. I can't help but think this petition could be reworded in a way to make future trust changes far more family friendly. Again, my trust is to simply avoid accidental felonies (constructive transfers) without the hassle of a family lineup night at the police station. Please forgive me if I don't understand the legalese. I'm not a lawyer.
EDIT:
Where is this in petition 1209? Cntrl-f didn't turn up any matches for "vouche"? If vouchesafe will ensure my family stays out of this I will certainly be happy.Quote:
We are advocating for responsible person with a definition similar to that of the FFL process where one or more persons is designated as the legal "vouchsafe" for the entity.
EDIT: #2
ok I see it in The Partisan but not any formal petitions. (PDF) Is it listed anywhere else? Google can't find it either.
I think I like the idea of vouchesafe but I need to learn more.
Thank you very much for your responses.
Also, The Partisan talks about "primary responsible party" while petition 1209 uses the words "persons responsible for directing the legal entity" which could include secondary and tertiary persons.
I'm not sure these words have significantly different legal meaning but I certainly interpret them differently. And if I interpret them differently, our enemies definitely will.
Primary responsible party, person or persons... Just like the FFL system.
Well then it's clear I don't understand the legal terminology.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExecDirector
Still, if you have any more info on the vouchesafe please let me know. Google can only find 1 hit within one single PDF.
I used the term "vouchsafe" in quotes because that is the role that responsible person(s) fulfill within an FFL enterprise.
I go out and apply for an FFL. In so doing, I have to designate on the application who will be the responsible person(s) for the FFL. Has to be at least one. This person will be taking legal responsibility for directing the operation. Included in that direction is that the responsible person(s) will insure that the laws and regulations are followed, including the part about prohibited persons not having access to firearms. Those responsible persons are fingerprinted and such with the application. I can hire as many folks as I want to work for me, but I do not have submit fingerprints and photographs on all my employees... just take steps to make sure that they can actually do their job legally.
The plan that we endorsed in our petition assumes the nuance because of the current process with FFL's that ATF is already familiar with. The nuance is often missed by those who do not deal with this on a daily basis.
I hope that helps. And no need to apologize. Just when I think I do understand the terminology... I get reminded that I still have a lot to learn and that I am not a lawyer. This stuff is always in motion.
And it's nearly impossible to codify something like "all grantors" are responsible persons because that may not necessarily be so! A grantor may or may not have possesory or financial control, depending on whether the trust is revocable or irrevocable and the nuance can and does change from state to state according to state law. Likewise for trustees and beneficiaries and all of the other hybrid variations that some states insert into actor roles in trusts. It is further complicated by the fact there absolutely is a clear division between possesory and financial interests and that can have a significant affect upon control (and care and custody)! Mirroring the current FFL process by requiring that a responsible person(s) be designated for the legal entity eliminates the guaranteed confusion of what is certain to happen should the White House implement the NPRM as currently offered.
Lets say your original endorsed changes go through. How would I know that my current state (Indiana) would read the nuance as I'm to be fingerprinted and my family is left alone? While kids may not qualify for the following definition, I can't help but think a wife would:
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/become-an-ffl.htmlQuote:
ATF defines a responsible person as a sole proprietor, partner, or anyone having the power to direct the management, policies, and practices of the business as it pertains to firearms.
I'm trying to find a 3rd party source of information that confirms what you are saying.
That is partner in the business sense. They are addressing sole proprietor, partnership, corporation, etc. You must have at least one responsible party in an FFL. Somebody who will be... responsible for the FFL's activities. Your FFL employees may or may not fulfill this role and likely will not, so they are not responsible persons, even though they are legally handling weapons and the property of the FFL. The responsible party is on the hook if he/she allows a prohibited person to be an employee...
Part of the stupidity of what the White House proposes in their NPRM is the concept that every party in a trust or corporation is a potential responsible person. That's BS and unworkable. The different components have widely varying levels of responsibility from state to state and in many cases never have a possesory interest. A trust beneficiary could be an 8 year old. The 8 year old certainly has a current contingent financial interest, but in no way has a current possession interest or even the ability to make decisions for the trust...
The state does not administer federal statutes and regulation in the case of FFL's and approving NFA transfers.
Absolute contradiction in terminology. LOL.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExecDirector
This unconstitutional communist regime and I am sorry but this is what it is unbelievably, is concerned only with removal of citizenry's ownership of firearms, be they NFA or otherwise.
When you continually hear " nobody is trying to take your guns" and we support the 2A well, how many times do you need to be lied to. They no longer even bother covering their lies anymore.
And now they have stripped the filibuster from the Senate. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
It is only for Federal judicial appointments and cabinet level positions, but how long do you think it will take before they extend it to all appointments and legislation? If so, get ready for the anti-gun stuff to come back in full force.Quote:
Originally Posted by ExecDirector
Our only hope is that we use it to our advantage when we are back in the majority.
Any comment regarding this?
http://www.300blktalk.com/forum/view...?f=152&t=86626
Quote:
Originally Posted by L1A1Rocker@300BLKTalk
The whole article reads to me like someone that didn't bother to read the initial petition, and hasn't read the proposed rule as they are as similar as apples and carrots. All I see are allusions to the idea that NFATCA is the one driving to make this a reality which, from the facts at hand (the petition and the rule text), really doesn't hold water.
In so far as Mr. Browns comments, there's nothing in there that wasn't already public knowledge (at least not if you're paying attention). ATF says they're proposing the rule because of felons getting NFA items. The comment suggests that if that's the case then perhaps they should do something meaningful and useful about it -- like use the NICS check system at pick up time.
In short: it smells like a continuation of the same old smear campaign (and that will have no positive effect for any of us).
In so far as providing information to ATF, there aren't enough facts available to us to draw any reasonable conclusion. For all any of us know, any emails that may have been provided could well have been compelled by court order. We simply don't know, and it's not any of our business either.
The world is different when you have an FFL and ATF knocks on your door; even more so when that FFL is how you feed your family. Long on verbiage, short on content/facts.
The opinions expressed by Mr. Prince and echoed by Mr. Codrea are just that: opinions. They are drawing conclusions based upon their own personal selection of facts and do not tell the whole story. Matter of fact, Mr. Codrea has yet to reach out to Mr. Brown or the NFATCA for any type of fact checking. We cannot control what anyone says or feels about this issue and will not try to control public sentiment in any way.
Suffice to say that Mr. Prince and Mr. Codrea have some sort of agenda that prefers to divide the community as opposed to unite it.