Is an attorney needed for NFA? What is a NFA trust document?

**SigForLife** · October 25th, 2009, 03:57 PM

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

Still, you're mistaken about ATF and corporate bona-fide employees.

I don't disagree with you in regards to normal non-NFA assets, but as I stated before, Section Chief Rob Howard has stated differently when it comes to NFA. While I know you don't consider Mr. Howard's opinion persuasive, let alone binding, I think there is a potential issue there but I don't think anyone wants to submit a written request for a definitive answer because of the possible outcome. If the BATFE would decide along the lines of Mr. Howard's position, there would be a lot of people scrambling. Moreover, while a sole-member LLC would not have any fiduciary duties, as soon as you are talking about a multiple member LLC that all changes. Lastly, I agree that trusts used to be an asset planning device but in the past several decades they have become more generally used with the advent of special needs trusts, pet trusts, third-party trusts...etc. They are no longer solely considered for asset planning, just like corporations aren't all looking to turn a profit. Just as you said, you can't name your gardener a bona fide employee, you can name him your trustee

Also, let's face it, I am sure a large contingent of your clients use corps so that they and their family/friends can be temporary users of the stuff that they pay for. I know there are a lot of husbands and wives that enjoy the sport and want the other to have the ability to take the firearm to the range without the other being present. Both are viable avenues to the same ends, just use them with proper legal advice.

**GunLawyer001** · October 25th, 2009, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by SigForLife

I don't disagree with you in regards to normal non-NFA assets, but as I stated before, Section Chief Rob Howard has stated differently when it comes to NFA. While I know you don't consider Mr. Howard's opinion persuasive, let alone binding, I think there is a potential issue there but I don't think anyone wants to submit a written request for a definitive answer because of the possible outcome. If the BATFE would decide along the lines of Mr. Howard's position, there would be a lot of people scrambling. Moreover, while a sole-member LLC would not have any fiduciary duties, as soon as you are talking about a multiple member LLC that all changes. Lastly, I agree that trusts used to be an asset planning device but in the past several decades they have become more generally used with the advent of special needs trusts, pet trusts, third-party trusts...etc. They are no longer solely considered for asset planning, just like corporations aren't all looking to turn a profit. Just as you said, you can't name your gardener a bona fide employee, you can name him your trustee

Also, let's face it, I am sure a large contingent of your clients use corps so that they and their family/friends can be temporary users of the stuff that they pay for. I know there are a lot of husbands and wives that enjoy the sport and want the other to have the ability to take the firearm to the range without the other being present. Both are viable avenues to the same ends, just use them with proper legal advice.

Not what I said at all, your gardener can certainly be a bona-fide employee, he's just not a bona-fide employee who has a reasonable need to possess the corporate machinegun. Not unless the gophers are really out of control (in PA, C-4 isn't an option like it was in "Caddyshack", because it's a "bomb", a prohibited Offensive Weapon.) I would agree that General Motors can't buy some MAC-10's and lend them out to random assembly line workers and accountants for Employee Appreciation Day, but GM can certainly equip the GM security staff with them.

As for your interpretation of whatever Howard said, his verbal opinion has the weight of the paper it's written on. That's not how ATF creates new rules. A bona-fide corporate employee is an agent of the corporation, and corporations can only act through agents. This is basic law. ATF can't have the position that corporations may only act through their officers, so I think you may have misunderstood whatever he said. I'd be interested in seeing the letter or transcript.

ETA: Forgot to add, Rob Howard is not a policy maker at ATF, he's a supervisor over the people who process the Forms. One step up from the folks who send your prints off to the FBI and lick the $200 stamps. He may be knowledgeable and probably is a good guy to have a beer with, but he won't be negating 75 years of corporate employee policy under the NFA.

**SigForLife** · October 25th, 2009, 07:08 PM

I thought I sent you a copy a few months ago. If I didn't, mea copa. Anyway, I sent you a copy and while I completely agree that he isn't a policy maker, I am somewhat concerned about what is being discussed behind the scenes or without any heads up to those who own. I guess the only way to get a definitive answer is to submit a written request and you know no matter what the result, even if you are trying to protect yourself, you will be shunned. Just like with the Akins...you want to CYA and because of the BATFE, you get blackballed.

**GunLawyer001** · October 25th, 2009, 07:39 PM

Originally Posted by SigForLife

I thought I sent you a copy a few months ago. If I didn't, mea copa. Anyway, I sent you a copy and while I completely agree that he isn't a policy maker, I am somewhat concerned about what is being discussed behind the scenes or without any heads up to those who own. I guess the only way to get a definitive answer is to submit a written request and you know no matter what the result, even if you are trying to protect yourself, you will be shunned. Just like with the Akins...you want to CYA and because of the BATFE, you get blackballed.

That's not what happened with the Akins. The people who wrote in to ATF had their own agendas, some of them wanted to stab Bowers in the back, one of them wanted to push his own agenda with the juvenile argument that "if he can do this then why can't I do that?"

CYA for the Akins would have been to not buy the damn thing. If someone bought one and immediately shipped it off to ATF with a letter stating that "this is probably illegal, could you reconsider your approval", and then that person "lost" his copy of the letter he sent when his "friends" asked him what he did, that sure as hell doesn't look like innocent self-protection. It looks like betrayal. So please don't use the Akins ATF flip-flop as evidence of good faith CYA, you really don't know what happened there. You don't have the connections, you don't know the back story.

And there's no need for any clarification about whether a bona fide corporate employee with an articulable need for the NFA firearm may be in possession of it, it's not in question.

And while we're at it, I'm seeing references all over the Web to "ATF is examining Quicken trust documents and seeking to forfeit approved NFA transfers if the trust is invalid". I have a pretty good idea what really happened there, I think that if I had to I could prove who posted what and from where, and why, and someone really should review the ethical canons for PA lawyers and see what they say about deception and advertising of services.

Lawyers get a bad enough reputation, I think quite a few people have seen through that particular shill posting, and as someone who practices in the firearms community I really don't appreciate the implication that lawyers will blatantly lie to push their services. Especially when potential clients have that pretty obvious example to point to.

**JayBell** · November 4th, 2009, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by GunLawyer001

And while we're at it, I'm seeing references all over the Web to "ATF is examining Quicken trust documents and seeking to forfeit approved NFA transfers if the trust is invalid". I have a pretty good idea what really happened there, I think that if I had to I could prove who posted what and from where, and why, and someone really should review the ethical canons for PA lawyers and see what they say about deception and advertising of services.

Lawyers get a bad enough reputation, I think quite a few people have seen through that particular shill posting, and as someone who practices in the firearms community I really don't appreciate the implication that lawyers will blatantly lie to push their services. Especially when potential clients have that pretty obvious example to point to.

indeed... I'm fully agreed with GL here...

as staff for the site where the shill posting occurred... i'd suggest certain lawyers, both in PA and in Florida clean up thier acts... they're already banned elsewhere... the both of them.

I'm not pleased I've had to deal with this low life deceptive BS on TWO forums i work for...

Goldman, solicit clients elsewhere...

Josh, you're gonna want to tread lightly unless you want to lose this place as an advertising location also...

**williedec** · November 10th, 2009, 06:43 PM

In the statement of pupose for a LLC should the intent of the LLC to own Class 3 firearms be included?

**ungawa** · November 10th, 2009, 08:12 PM

Originally Posted by williedec

In the statement of pupose for a LLC should the intent of the LLC to own Class 3 firearms be included?

Not going to give you for free what I paid a lawyer for. I survived a very serious felony stop (you can't begin to imagine) and went home with all my guns and had dinner. Did the work from the lawyer help? No way to know.