Firearm Trust Rule changes

A

alloy

New member
From the ATF rule proposal:

The Department of Justice is proposing to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. The proposed regulations would (1) add a definition for the term "responsible person"; (2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints; (3) require that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the locality in which the maker or transferee is located; and (4) eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by the CLEO.
Click to expand...

The 4th part is the odd one, since CLEO certifications aren't required for trusts in the first place.
 
Wonder what they are going to do with the 40,000 backlogged applications sitting around and submitted before this rule goes into effect? Make them all resubmit?
 
I think #4 relates to doing away with it all together for all applications. If it eliminates the CLEO certification requirement all together then this is actually a good thing. That is why most people do trusts in the first place.

The new requirements would seem to require that the CLEO be notified but it takes away their ability to deny applicants for NFA items.
 
I can understand why the ATF would prefer that people not use trusts and corporations. From the ATF perspective, it opens the door to a lot of issues they would just as soon not have to deal with, so removing the CLEO requirement ultimately benefits them.

However, unless they also loosen up the requirements on NFA firearms so that non-prohibited adult family members can have unsupervised access, people will still continue using the trust method since that is the other big ownership problem that a trust or corporation solves.
 
I think #4 relates to doing away with it all together for all applications.
Click to expand...
That's what I was wondering. They've actually been talking about doing that for awhile, so I guess we'll have to accept the other provisions to get it.

Of course, that removes one of the main factors that makes people go the trust route.
 
I think #4 relates to doing away with it all together for all applications. If it eliminates the CLEO certification requirement all together then this is actually a good thing. That is why most people do trusts in the first place.

The new requirements would seem to require that the CLEO be notified but it takes away their ability to deny applicants for NFA items.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

However, unless they also loosen up the requirements on NFA firearms so that non-prohibited adult family members can have unsupervised access, people will still continue using the trust method since that is the other big ownership problem that a trust or corporation solves.
Click to expand...
Correct. Requiring all "responsible persons" covered by a trust/corp/LLC to submit photos and fingerprints is what we would be giving up to completely get rid of the CLEO signoff requirement.

Of course, that removes one of the main factors that makes people go the trust route.
Click to expand...
If the only reason you used a trust was to avoid the CLEO signoff (often because the CLEO would not sign for anyone), then that problem would go away. If the reason you were using a trust/corp/LLC was so that multiple people would use the NFA item, that would still be available, but each of the persons would need to submit photos and fingerprints.

*Under the proposed rule change, the CLEO would have to be sent a copy of each Form 1 (build) or Form 4 (transfer) submitted, but would have no authority to block it.
 
UPDATE: What the AFT has actually proposed is significantly different. For one, rather than eliminate the CLEO sign-off (by substituting CLEO notification), they propose to expand it to trust and corporations, including any person who would have access to the NFA item. Rather than having to certify that he/she is unaware of reason to expect the recipient would use the NFA item for an illegal purpose, it require certification that the fingerprints and photos accompanying the application are of the applicant. Of course, unless the CLEO is the one who sends it in, he/she can't certify this.

For some reason I am not able to upload a PDF of the proposed rules from ATF. here is a link that might work: http://www.atf.gov/sites/default/fi...uctive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf
 
Last edited:
As noted, they are not getting rid of the CLEO requirement, they are just omitting one sentence and extending the requirement to "all responsible persons" within a Corporation or Trust.

If you have any desire to ever own NFA items, now is the time to leave ATF feedback on this proposed regulation and make your best case against it (this comment will be a matter of public record, along with your name and address - and will be published in an internet searchable format).

Reference Docket Number ATF41P and follow instructions at www.regulations.gov or see page 49 of the attached PDF for how to send a hardcopy (confidential comment)
 
Last edited:
Tom Odom at the Prince Law Blog has prepared an analysis of procedural problems with the proposed rule change: http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/08/30/procedural-issues-with-atfs-draft-proposal/

This proposed rule change has not been published in the Federal Register yet so it appears the comment period has not yet started.

Additionally, the Prince Law Blog has prepared sample letters to send to ATF for FFLs (http://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sba-1-letter.docx) and for individuals who were denied a CLEO sign off (http://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/cleo-letter.docx)

Please do not just cut and paste these letters; but instead use them as a rough template to form your own personalized letters including specific relevant details. Remember ALl information will be public record so you may need to exercise INFOSEC during submission.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top