Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: NFATCA Official Statement on Presidential Action

  1. #11
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by ExecDirector View Post
    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.
    Thank you for the clear response. I really appreciate it.

    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:

    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.
    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.

    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.
    Last edited by LeonR; 11-17-2013 at 08:21 PM.

  2. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    10
    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.
    Last edited by LeonR; 11-17-2013 at 07:51 PM.

  3. #13
    Primary responsible party, person or persons... Just like the FFL system.

    Jeff Folloder

    NFATCA Executive Director
    www.nfatca.org










  4. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by ExecDirector View Post
    Primary responsible party, person or persons... Just like the FFL system.
    Well then it's clear I don't understand the legal terminology.

    Still, if you have any more info on the vouchesafe please let me know. Google can only find 1 hit within one single PDF.

  5. #15
    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.

    Jeff Folloder

    NFATCA Executive Director
    www.nfatca.org










  6. #16
    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.

    Jeff Folloder

    NFATCA Executive Director
    www.nfatca.org










  7. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    10
    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:

    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.
    http://www.atf.gov/firearms/how-to/become-an-ffl.html

    I'm trying to find a 3rd party source of information that confirms what you are saying.
    Last edited by LeonR; 11-22-2013 at 05:21 AM.

  8. #18
    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.

    Jeff Folloder

    NFATCA Executive Director
    www.nfatca.org










  9. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by ExecDirector View Post

    Part of the stupidity of what the White House proposes.............
    Absolute contradiction in terminology. LOL.
    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.
    Last edited by ddnc; 11-22-2013 at 07:41 PM.

  10. #20
    And now they have stripped the filibuster from the Senate. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Jeff Folloder

    NFATCA Executive Director
    www.nfatca.org










Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •