NFATCA Official Statement on Presidential Action

[ExecDirector]

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.

[tad]

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!!

[ddnc]

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.

[mbogo]

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

[LeonR]

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."

We request that
• 479.63 and 479.85 be amended to require photographs and fingerprints of persons responsible for directing the legal entity;

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.

[ExecDirector]

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...

1. 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)"
2. 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!
3. 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.

[LeonR]

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.

Thank you for the thorough response. I'm sure this will get fixed in the future.

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.

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.

[LeonR]

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.

[ExecDirector]

Thank you for the thorough response. I'm sure this will get fixed in the future.



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.

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.

[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.

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.