Bill introduced to raise the NFA tax

[jason8844]

Tad,
I am sorry to hear that. But I do know there are a few rogue blue counties in the great sea of red. I have no doubt their decision not to sign is based on ignorance, politics or both.

The bottom line should be that if a state is NFA friendly and the person submitting the application is not a prohibited person, the Sheriff should be required to sign if they will not remove the requirement.

A Sheriff not signing forms in a legal jurisdiction for a law abiding citizen is equivalent, in my mind, to a Constitutional violation of the 2nd amendment and the 14th amendment equal protection clause.

[tad]

The trust system has been great, it works for thousands of us down here in the 956 where as I said leo/cleo etc have all come out umpteen times and said you won't have that in my jurisdiction, or I will never sign those papers please quit asking...so then along comes NFATCA and craps the bed....just kinda blown away by the whole deal

[ExecDirector]

Folks think that *we* offered up everyone in trusts and corps. They do not even take the time to read the part that says "for persons who are responsible for directing the management and policies of the entity..." Not *everyone*. *Everyone* is what the White House wanted.

The simple fact of the matter is that a background check can be avoided via a trust or corp. Box 22 of the 4473 very clearly says "No NICS check was required because the transfer involved only National Firearm Act firearm(s)." When trusts or corps apply for NFA making or transfer, there are no fingerprints or photos submitted and no background checks. Some dealers DO run a NICS check, but it is not required. The government WILL shore up this gap. Their first shot was telling us that they wanted the entity purchase ability gone. We countered with the narrow view. The White House wants scorched Earth.

Yes. It looks like we threw folks under the bus. And there will be folks who will *never* see us as anything but evil traitors. It concerns me that there have already been numerous death threats. I'd appreciate if others would express calm voices, but I am not holding my breath.

We will continue to fight this and we are enlisting outside resources to help. Any help you can offer is appreciated.

[tad]

Well Jeff, when everything out there reads that nfatca approached atf with a concern and petition it certainly does paint YOU in a traitorous light, so who is lying? did the ATF approach nfatca first or did nfatca petition the atf? I think that is a pretty simple question to answer. because if the ATF is lying, then the world needs to know and i will do my very best to make sure this is blasted across media outlet I can get it on!!

[ddnc]

Then why can't a NICS check be used in the trust route? That should seem sufficient for background check purposes. The fact ATF wants prints, CLEO and pics is simply an end around to eliminate the majority of NFA applications. Plain and simple.
Further more all trust pending are being backed up for clearance until this garbage is enacted and then they will be returned asking for CLEO etc. People that were being told approval would be in 30-90 days are now being told 9 months from second pending. What ever that is. Many that went initially pending 3 -13 will not be approved until sometime in 2014 but by that time this will be in effect and the majority of those abandoned due to the new requirements.

[jason8844]

ddnc,
Is this a fact that all trusts have been put on hold? Is this confirmed? Did someone call the NFA branch about it?

[ExecDirector]

Nothing is on hold at this time. The White House has floated a draft NPRM. It is not the law of the land. ATF wanted to get rid of trust/corp ownership. They said it was because prohibited persons are getting weapons without BG checks. We wanted to have an open exchange regarding what to do about it. The invitation was not accepted. We offered a very narrow definition of what that change would look like via petition. Still no discussion. Last week the administration took our definition and blew it up to cover everyone in their draft NPRM.

We did not ask for what the White House rolled out.

Please reread the post above. No NICS check required for NFA Transfers. That is because it is presumed that a background check is done. And it IS for individuals. Current legislation/regulation requires the background check (not NICS) for individuals. There is no such requirement for trusts/corps. That is the crux of the issue.

[RenegadeConservative]

Please reread the post above. No NICS check required for NFA Transfers. That is because it is presumed that a background check is done. And it IS for individuals. Current legislation/regulation requires the background check (not NICS) for individuals. There is no such requirement for trusts/corps. That is the crux of the issue.

Then perhaps a background check on the Grantor/Trustor would be a somewhat reasonable compromise. Theoretically, it would then be the responsibility of the Grantor/Trustor to ensure that the individual trustees where eligible to possess NFA items. Failure to do so would mean his backside was on the line. A background check on each of the trustees is in my opinion beyond ridiculous.

I am still not thoroughly convinced that there is a problem with ineligible persons obtaining NFA weapons through trusts. I think this is another government solution in search of a problem. As I have said before, the government has done a horrible job of punishing those who lie on Form 4473. What makes them think that another law is going do anything more than what has been done so far?

[ExecDirector]

@renegade... You are espousing what we put in our petition, a background check "for persons who are responsible for directing the management and policies of the entity..." Not *everyone*. The bare minimum so that there was at least one check done. And that was offered in lieu of eliminating the trusts/corps completely.

There are actually many cases winding through prosecution where prohibited persons got weapons via trust/corp purchase with no background check. It is nigh impossible to break out the cases through PACER or TRAC because it is a general charge with no specific modifier for "he bought a can through a trust," etc. I'm trying to lay my hands on good numbers. Sadly, the fact that there were enough folks who did exploit the process made some sort of action by the Fed inevitable.

I agree that government is woefully inept at enforcing the laws they have and that adding even more is rarely a good solution. With that said, if we (NFATCA) do nothing, there will be more regulation without ANY checks. And if we attempt to provide those checks we will get excoriated for fraternizing with the enemy. To the point where we receive death threats. And I am not kidding.

Because folks really do not understand how the process works, they assume that we threw them under the bus. It's hard to change that mind set. While we build the counter attack, we need voices of reason on the various boards to counter the tin foil hat crowd and we need cash. When it's time, we will need lots of folks actually loudly protesting the NPRM if it gets published through official channels instead of just whining that NFATCA did them wrong. We also need folks to fund the effort. That is going to be difficult at this point.

The screaming masses want nothing short of working to ban Hughes and the NFA. That is certainly a noble goal. We've actually looked at what it would take to mount such a legislative campaign... during an administration that was receptive. Tens of millions of dollars. We are hard pressed to get a couple hundred folks to pony up $50 a piece. So, for now, we fight the things that we can afford to fight. EVERYONE told us that they wanted the CLEO signature gone and we have been waging that fight for nearly a decade. Hardly anyone kicked in a few bucks to wage the fight. Yet we still did it. We got further than anyone ever had and had ATF/DOJ sign off until the White House took a giant dump on the process. Somehow, that is our fault. Newtown gave the WH all the bully pulpit they needed to screw things up. And for the record, we got the ball rolling in the Bush administration. It's hard to just pull up stakes and say "Never Mind... we'll wait until a gun guy is in the WH." You cannot start and stop and start the process. You have to be in it for the long haul.

[RenegadeConservative]

@renegade... You are espousing what we put in our petition, a background check "for persons who are responsible for directing the management and policies of the entity..." Not *everyone*. The bare minimum so that there was at least one check done. And that was offered in lieu of eliminating the trusts/corps completely.

I figured that you had something of the like in your proposal. It seems like a reasonable balance to me.

There are actually many cases winding through prosecution where prohibited persons got weapons via trust/corp purchase with no background check. It is nigh impossible to break out the cases through PACER or TRAC because it is a general charge with no specific modifier for "he bought a can through a trust," etc. I'm trying to lay my hands on good numbers. Sadly, the fact that there were enough folks who did exploit the process made some sort of action by the Fed inevitable.

This is news to me. I would never have thought that the average crook would waste money setting up a trust and then wait several months just to be able to have a papered NFA item.

I agree that government is woefully inept at enforcing the laws they have and that adding even more is rarely a good solution. With that said, if we (NFATCA) do nothing, there will be more regulation without ANY checks. And if we attempt to provide those checks we will get excoriated for fraternizing with the enemy. To the point where we receive death threats. And I am not kidding.

The current administration is the lousiest we've had since Nixon. They have had ample opportunity to address the problem of gun violence in this country but have failed to do so. I'm beginning to think that the status quo actually like gun violence. It gives them a platform to stand on with the average uninformed American.

It is unfortunate that the NFATCA got screwed by the powers that be in this particular scenario. It is also unfortunate that so called gun owners are resorting to emotional outbursts of rage instead of calm logical analysis. This is the kind of garbage that we are to expect from the "other side" - not ourselves.

The screaming masses want nothing short of working to ban Hughes and the NFA. That is certainly a noble goal. We've actually looked at what it would take to mount such a legislative campaign... during an administration that was receptive. Tens of millions of dollars. We are hard pressed to get a couple hundred folks to pony up $50 a piece. So, for now, we fight the things that we can afford to fight. EVERYONE told us that they wanted the CLEO signature gone and we have been waging that fight for nearly a decade. Hardly anyone kicked in a few bucks to wage the fight. Yet we still did it. We got further than anyone ever had and had ATF/DOJ sign off until the White House took a giant dump on the process. Somehow, that is our fault. Newtown gave the WH all the bully pulpit they needed to screw things up. And for the record, we got the ball rolling in the Bush administration. It's hard to just pull up stakes and say "Never Mind... we'll wait until a gun guy is in the WH." You cannot start and stop and start the process. You have to be in it for the long haul.

It seems like the NFATCA is going to need some major support from the major gun rights organizations in order to get things done in this political climate. The members of such organizations will need to put pressure on these orgs, especially the NRA. Congress also needs to get off their backside and fulfill their constitutional duties. The ATF has been running rampant for too long and is in major need of an overhaul.