Now is the time

[Mouthpiece]

We all know, or should know, that the rules for obtaining Class III items are potentially changing in a couple of months. The most drastic change for us is the potential requirement for CLEO sign off for trusts and corporations. If this happens a great many of us are going to lose our opportunity to purchase the Class III items we want as some/many CLEOs just won't sign off.

However, right now the rules have not changed. And right now we have sponsors on this Board who have Class III items in stock and ready to purchase. With a trust or corporation you can e-file the Form 4 and go pending almost immediately (cutting 6-8 weeks off the waiting time).

My point is that if you want that Class III item, now is the time to get one. Get your applications filed and in line before any rule change occurs. Help out the sponsors who have the stock in hand. Most of all, help yourself out to that new item you've always wanted and may not, in a few months, be able to buy.

(For the cynical few, I am not trying to gin up business for me. There are a number of sponsors on this Board who can prepare a trust or corporation for you. I've heard rumor of an attorney who also sells Class III items and can prepare your trust as well. Bottom line, don't call me. Call your sponsors and get that Class III item or items you want before it becomes too late.)

[Soapbox put away]

 

[Lafsnguy]

Also wanted to add if you haven't commented on the proposed rule changes please do. Here's a link to where you can comment

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=ATF-2013-0001-0001

And here is a sample comment by the American silencer Association

http://americansilencerassociation.com/how-to-comment-against-atf-41p/

 

[madwabbit]

deleted

 

[ABNsurveyor]

Just to add my .02 worth. Mouthpiece prepared my trust back in July in just a few days; I now have a few Class III items in the system as I could afford them over the last few months. If you want to build a Short Barreled Rifle, with a trust you can create an account with the ATF and submit the Form 1 yourself in less than 30 minutes. Once you have an account and done a Form 1 before it takes less than 10 minutes to do another. If you are buying a suppressor or any other Class III item you e-mail your trust to your local in state dealer and they file your Form 4 electronically. Then you wait for your stamp to come in and pick up your item from them. My primary reason for using a trust is so my wife can use and be in possession of any Class III items we own (the trust owns) without me being there. Remember if you buy a Class III item without a trust and one of your family members that you authorize to use it will be committing a felony if you are not there with your Form 1 or 4 as only you and you alone are allowed to be in possession of it. With the Trust and Form 1 or 4 for your Class III item anyone on the trust are good to go.

 

[Cheesy Lasagna]

My .02- listen to Mouthpiece.
He did my trust and I now have a decent collection of Class III items.
In my experiences with him, not once did I feel he was reactionary or unstable, as is much of the talk over Class III laws nowadays.
If he says buy now, I'd cast it in gold.

 

[slogoat]

Terry, have you submitted a comment? I've read some pretty solid submissions from other attorneys.

 

[Mouthpiece]

Terry, have you submitted a comment? I've read some pretty solid submissions from other attorneys.

Not yet, however I intend to. I have been reading the other comments and intend to build on them.

I haven't given up on the possibility that the rule change will not be as onerous as the proposal. That said, an "assuming the worst" mindset does work.

 

[slogoat]

Not yet, however I intend to. I have been reading the other comments and intend to build on them.

I haven't given up on the possibility that the rule change will not be as onerous as the proposal. That said, an "assuming the worst" mindset does work.

I hear ya, and I have been. Glad to hear you are submitting one.

 

[mpl006]

Terry,
I was going to email you this to get your opinion but I figured others could benefit from it as well. Using the worst case scenario and assuming the rule, as proposed, goes into effect, the definition of "reasonable person" is defined in the rule as such:

The Department proposes amending § 479.11 to add a definition for the term *responsible person.* The term would include specific definitions in the case of a trust, partnership, association, company (including a Limited Liability Company (LLC)), or corporation. Depending on the context, the term includes any individual, including any grantor, trustee, beneficiary, partner, member, officer, director, board member, owner, shareholder, or manager, who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any trust instrument, contract, agreement, article, certificate, bylaw, or instrument, or under state law, to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the entity.

It is my assumption that that would include trustee, beneficiary, and successor trustee? I see in the definition the trustee and beneficiary but not successor trustee. Also, would it make a difference if the beneficiary resides in a different state, as in, would that no longer be allowed? If you want to PM me your answer, that is fine.

 

[Pas Tout La]

Thanks for the call to action. I just wish I had the funds to get a few of the toys I've always wanted. It looks like I'll just have to keep dreaming.

Does anybody know the CLEO in Lafayette parish stance on NFA items?

 

[Lafsnguy]

I know Sheriff Neustrom and Chief Craft will not sign.

 

[Pas Tout La]

I know Sheriff Neustrom and Chief Craft will not sign.

That's about right.

 

[Mouthpiece]

Terry,
I was going to email you this to get your opinion but I figured others could benefit from it as well. Using the worst case scenario and assuming the rule, as proposed, goes into effect, the definition of "reasonable person" is defined in the rule as such:



It is my assumption that that would include trustee, beneficiary, and successor trustee? I see in the definition the trustee and beneficiary but not successor trustee. Also, would it make a difference if the beneficiary resides in a different state, as in, would that no longer be allowed? If you want to PM me your answer, that is fine.

Right now I don't know. A plain reading includes anyone named in the trust. However, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense if the beneficiary is a minor. Will the ATF require fingerprints and a background check on a child who is a beneficiary?

I don't see that the proposed rules would have an effect on a beneficiary in a different state. However, the proposed CLEO rules may make it necessary to have a sign off in every jurisdiction where someone resides. I would like to hope that all of these issues would be resolved in any final rules.

 

[mpl006]

Also wanted to add if you haven't commented on the proposed rule changes please do. Here's a link to where you can comment

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=ATF-2013-0001-0001

And here is a sample comment by the American silencer Association

http://americansilencerassociation.com/how-to-comment-against-atf-41p/

Just read this on SilencerTalk. It was posted by a silencer manufacturer so I would take it he has the contacts to confirm about the comments:

Correct, any changes will require another comment period.

I also verified today that copy/paste comments are counted as only one comment for the final consideration. They use an algorithm to find all the duplicate comments and then move all but 1 to a separate system, it also has a % variance associated with it as well.

This is why it is important to submit your own comment and not just copy paste it. Rearrange it, write your own, sort through the comments and copy parts you like but don't just copy/paste the comment if you want it to be considered.

The first part was regarding if they made any changes to the rules after reading the comments and the second part is the important part to me. Hopefully the sample comment has enough differences in it that it wouldn't be considered the same comment.