DOJ finalizing rule change for Trusts, LLC and Corporation's

[pyld]

Gun laws are a high risk game, with expensive consequences should you roll snake-eyes. Trusts are only as good as the paper they are written on, whereas LLC's and Corporations are registered with the appropriate state and are irrefutable. The validity of a trust can be washed away with the mere stroke of a pen. Trusts have been, and always shall be, the least stable of the entities. A judge can kill a trust quite easily by find one single fault in wording, or just finding fault in the creators and roster. LLC's and Corps cannot be denied their existence if properly registered and maintained.

I don't disagree with any of that. I'm simply musing about the prevalence of judges killing a trust, specifically a gun trust, and even more specifically in the course of prosecuting someone for possession of an NFA item. I recognize it's easier to do that whacking an LLC or Corp. I'm wondering if that ease is academic.

If you want to trust(no pun intended) 10 years and $250000 in fine upon a <$200 trust - then be my guest.

Without knowing how often that risk is actually germane, I don't know that a $200 trust is any better or worse than an LLC or Corp.

But once this EO goes into effect, gone are the days of needing legal entities for most people/situations.

I'm fortunate to have lived somewhere with decent CLEOs and had an estate attorney who knows this stuff--but I agree with that assessment.

[GunLawyer001]

People here used to recommend that anyone unsure of his legal status, just "go try to buy a gun". A denial would lead to a challenge, and the PSP would clarify your status. Almost nobody was prosecuted, prior to 2012.

Since 2006 or so, since I've been on PAFOA, I've repeatedly told people NOT to fill out the 4473 or the Challenge Form if they were unsure, because even though few were prosecuted, everyone became vulnerable. And then, around 2012, the PSP made a decision to prosecute nearly every denial.

I seriously doubt that ATF would sort through everybody's trust documents (which they have, because you guys had to submit them), and pick some to randomly challenge. Even though ATF clearly hates trusts, and did their latest rule-making mostly to launch a first strike against trusts, and Obama hates all gun owners, and this would look good in the media as "Obama gets serious about closing gun loopholes". Probably won't happen.

But what COULD happen, as any reader of "Unintended Consequences" has thought about, would be that some Feds would take a run at one of you for something else. Maybe UPS looked into a package for you and found empty practice grenade hulls. Maybe there's an invoice saying you bought an "A2 conversion kit" for replacing some cosmetic parts to upgrade your A1 configuration AR-15 to the A2, and some ignorant LEO "expert" thinks you're making a machinegun.

Whatever. Let's say you get raided and your kittens get stomped and the media get hold of photos of your grandma in her nightie being proned with a bloody lip by some SWAT guys, and the PR angle looks bad for the cops. At that point, the police may have a motive to dig into the paperwork and "find" something wrong.

With a trust, any decent lawyer could find something that sounds plausible, and throw it to the courts until the media buzz fades. By the time you find yourself comforting grandma and nailing boards across the busted windows and sweeping up the charred remains of the flash-bangs, it's too late to replace that trust with a better trust.

How plausible is all of this? Read about the Federal actions against some ranchers lately; about the 2 that are going back to jail as "terrorists" for 5-year minimum terms because they stopped a forest fire. Think about the IRS war against the Tea Party, and how Justice sat on its hands.

Me, I'd rather be safer. Scores of PAFOA members have called me over the years, and heard me tell them to go individual NFA if they can, even though that advice costs me money. In my opinion, the options for individual non-SOT's to own NFA, in order of safety, best to worst, are (1) individual, (2) LLC or corp, (3) trusts using dedicated trust lawyers, (4) trusts that you found somewhere.

[Ricochet]

People here used to recommend that anyone unsure of his legal status, just "go try to buy a gun". A denial would lead to a challenge, and the PSP would clarify your status. Almost nobody was prosecuted, prior to 2012.

Since 2006 or so, since I've been on PAFOA, I've repeatedly told people NOT to fill out the 4473 or the Challenge Form if they were unsure, because even though few were prosecuted, everyone became vulnerable. And then, around 2012, the PSP made a decision to prosecute nearly every denial.

I seriously doubt that ATF would sort through everybody's trust documents (which they have, because you guys had to submit them), and pick some to randomly challenge. Even though ATF clearly hates trusts, and did their latest rule-making mostly to launch a first strike against trusts, and Obama hates all gun owners, and this would look good in the media as "Obama gets serious about closing gun loopholes". Probably won't happen.

But what COULD happen, as any reader of "Unintended Consequences" has thought about, would be that some Feds would take a run at one of you for something else. Maybe UPS looked into a package for you and found empty practice grenade hulls. Maybe there's an invoice saying you bought an "A2 conversion kit" for replacing some cosmetic parts to upgrade your A1 configuration AR-15 to the A2, and some ignorant LEO "expert" thinks you're making a machinegun.

Whatever. Let's say you get raided and your kittens get stomped and the media get hold of photos of your grandma in her nightie being proned with a bloody lip by some SWAT guys, and the PR angle looks bad for the cops. At that point, the police may have a motive to dig into the paperwork and "find" something wrong.

With a trust, any decent lawyer could find something that sounds plausible, and throw it to the courts until the media buzz fades. By the time you find yourself comforting grandma and nailing boards across the busted windows and sweeping up the charred remains of the flash-bangs, it's too late to replace that trust with a better trust.

How plausible is all of this? Read about the Federal actions against some ranchers lately; about the 2 that are going back to jail as "terrorists" for 5-year minimum terms because they stopped a forest fire. Think about the IRS war against the Tea Party, and how Justice sat on its hands.

Me, I'd rather be safer. Scores of PAFOA members have called me over the years, and heard me tell them to go individual NFA if they can, even though that advice costs me money. In my opinion, the options for individual non-SOT's to own NFA, in order of safety, best to worst, are (1) individual, (2) LLC or corp, (3) trusts using dedicated trust lawyers, (4) trusts that you found somewhere.

Well, I think you have me convinced to go the individual route.
However, can I also have a trust so someone else can have temporary possess of said NFA firearm?

[GunLawyer001]

Well, I think you have me convinced to go the individual route.
However, can I also have a trust so someone else can have temporary possess of said NFA firearm?

To quote the Highlander, "There can be only one" registrant, and it's either you, or some entity that you control but is not you.

I have to wonder, in actual practice, how often does somebody's wife or brother or dad want to swing by and take out the NFA toys for a day at the range, without the guy who bought them? It seems like one of those pleasant fictions, like the grandkids wanting to have grandpa's expensive guns in 50 years, instead of the cash they represent.

[ExFlyinguy]

To quote the Highlander, "There can be only one" registrant, and it's either you, or some entity that you control but is not you.

I have to wonder, in actual practice, how often does somebody's wife or brother or dad want to swing by and take out the NFA toys for a day at the range, without the guy who bought them? It seems like one of those pleasant fictions, like the grandkids wanting to have grandpa's expensive guns in 50 years, instead of the cash they represent.

That's a question I also asked myself, and a very good point. How often will my father or brother have a need to actually have my silencer(s) absent my presence? Very unlikely, however I have a home defense firearm equipped with a silencer and I would like for my better half to be able to legally use it to defend herself in my absence if necessary. That is a much more likely scenario, than having fun at the range with NFA. They can actually have practical purposes other than fun.

[pyld]

That's a question I also asked myself, and a very good point. How often will my father or brother have a need to actually have my silencer(s) absent my presence? Very unlikely, however I have a home defense firearm equipped with a silencer and I would like for my better half to be able to legally use it to defend herself in my absence if necessary. That is a much more likely scenario, than having fun at the range with NFA. They can actually have practical purposes other than fun.

If we are into hypothetical things which might get one tossed in jail, it seems to me that if the wife has the combination to the safe and you are registering as an individual, those intrepid folks at the ATF might claim she can "possess" the firearm. Forget about "using" it for a second: you might get wrapped up in something else and the ATF could come after you or her for possession.

Or not. Again, I wonder if it's ever happened.

[Ricochet]

To quote the Highlander, "There can be only one" registrant, and it's either you, or some entity that you control but is not you.

I have to wonder, in actual practice, how often does somebody's wife or brother or dad want to swing by and take out the NFA toys for a day at the range, without the guy who bought them? It seems like one of those pleasant fictions, like the grandkids wanting to have grandpa's expensive guns in 50 years, instead of the cash they represent.

It's not about letting a family member take your NFA toys out for fun, it's about having someone you trust to legally take possession of your bra items in case of an emergency or in my case, sometimes I'm out of the country for extended periods of time.

I don't understand why that's such a difficult concept.
.

[GunLawyer001]

It's not about letting a family member take your NFA toys out for fun, it's about having someone you trust to legally take possession of your bra items in case of an emergency or in my case, sometimes I'm out of the country for extended periods of time.

I don't understand why that's such a difficult concept.
.

That's not a difficult concept (the "bra" notwithstanding), but it often helps others to understand if you reveal it first.

The typical rationale is that someone wants to be able to share his toys when he's not around, and mostly, that doesn't happen.

Second in popularity is folks who have been lied to about "constructive possession" issues, where they are told "if your wife is in your home she can be charged with constructive possession of your guns, unless you buy our trust and add her to it." That doesn't happen; keeping your registered NFA firearms in your own home does not translate into an untaxed transfer to everyone else in your family. The only time that's an issue, is if you have a family member who is a prohibited person, and in that case, adding them to your trust won't help.

You can use an entity to allow storage of your toys while you're away, but each firearm has to be transferred to that entity, and you don't own it anymore (although you can own the entity). Or you can place a gun safe in your friend's home, to which he doesn't have the key/combination, and that's not a transfer. Or you can rent a box at the bank and put the registered parts in there.

[txjimbob911]

So here is a question; what happens if I have a trust (and i use it to purchase multiple NFA items) and I decide as the settler that I want to remove all other trustees or disolve the trust and transfer my NFA items to an individual I.E. me? Pay the BATFE another $200.00 a pop?
Or is there a way to word things in such a manner that it can be done without paying the tax again.

[NathanB]

You can submit a trust amendment.if you want to transfer from the trust to an individual it's 200 bucks a pop. There is no waiver of that fee for a transfer.