ATF PISTOL BRACE RULE AND SBR AMNESTY

[BritKLR]

There is a grace period - once you've filed you are good to go. Now, if they come back with a rejection, you've supplied the address you reside and where the weapon is being held. The ATF has said that at that point they would come seize your firearm.

Ok...... I just have to say, hopefully when people filled out their original form 4 to purchase these Brace guns they listed their correct address and information and if they proceed with this Brace grace period, they will also use their correct info because if not, they will be opening a whole other problem of filing a false form 4 (federal crime).

NOW, I understand NO ONE is suggesting not using their correct address on these forms, they are just saying YOU are now giving the Government your current address........but, this is just gaslighting and spinning things up with no real basis since......

Has anyone ever used open source/pay to play systems like LexisNexis or similar? Or, closed, secure, LE only systems like NCIC, ALERT, EPIC, DMV, Etc....or closed, secure, Fed Agency only systems like the ATF, Marshals, IRS, FBI, DEA, USSS, DOD, etc...use daily? If an investigation was opened (key point) they will literally do a dump from all these data bases so, they already know your current and correct address before you put it on the form.

Just FYI. FWIW and not legal advice.

 

[Ozarker]

Interesting that a Trust was mentioned. That being said, then I suspect Trusts have (or are) being used to show ownership. This can be valid, especially with collector types.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations (that is what a Trust is) has "personhood" the rights of a person. But, I'd have an issue with an entity claiming personhood that cannot operate as an individual person.

The Trust cannot fire a weapon. The argument then is, can the Trustee be allowed to act for the Trust in an act that another person is restricted from by law?

The Trustee is not the Trust but an agent of the Trust, who has fiduciary responsibilities to the Trust, the Trust has no duty to the Trustee, other than to pay expenses of its existence and operation.

I do see one avenue for the Trustee or a Beneficiary, that is to operate the assets of the Trust to ensure proper operation and maintenance and perhaps, to provide for recreational operation. Such justifies the keeping of corporate Trust assets in good condition, an obligation of the Trustee.

Use of the Trust asset which is not specifically permitted by the Trust can be a violation of the Trust and such becomes the personal responsibility of that person acting outside the Trust instructions.

Then, if the weapon were ever used for any purpose other than as specifically described, say for personal protection of the Trustee or others, such can be in violation of the Trust and therefore its license to own that asset for other uses, which otherwise are restricted by law.

At such point we have an individual, violating the Trust Agreement, acting personally without that operator being properly licensed. A Trust is not allowed to protect a Trustee from violating the Trust document or personal acts; And, the licensee is the Trust, not the Trustee or Beneficiary.

So, depending on your Federal and State Jurisdictions, the use of a licensed weapon in the name of any Trust can be more problematic than personal ownership with insurance......

I've read many Trust documents in my day, most all have been boiler plate instruments some attorney peeled off his legal library with slight modifications if any. I doubt any such document would or could provide adequate personal protection for the ownership of a registered weapon.

That brings us to a specifically drafted Trust instrument for this purpose. Such would be a pretty heavy document to cover all the bases and it would be more expensive than the weapons being the subject of this issue.

Lastly, I could bet there is some "Weapons Ownership Trust" document floating around on the internet, for $69.99 that tempt some to try out. I believe ownership of restricted weapons is a very serious matter, for many reasons, only one of which is you're betting years of your life on compliance with the law.

If you think Trust ownership of weapons might be a good idea, see an attorney with specific knowledge of the matter, in your jurisdiction (especially if you intend to travel with it) and take your checkbook.

 

[BritKLR]

Interesting that a Trust was mentioned. That being said, then I suspect Trusts have (or are) being used to show ownership. This can be valid, especially with collector types.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations (that is what a Trust is) has "personhood" the rights of a person. But, I'd have an issue with an entity claiming personhood that cannot operate as an individual person.

The Trust cannot fire a weapon. The argument then is, can the Trustee be allowed to act for the Trust in an act that another person is restricted from by law?

The Trustee is not the Trust but an agent of the Trust, who has fiduciary responsibilities to the Trust, the Trust has no duty to the Trustee, other than to pay expenses of its existence and operation.

I do see one avenue for the Trustee or a Beneficiary, that is to operate the assets of the Trust to ensure proper operation and maintenance and perhaps, to provide for recreational operation. Such justifies the keeping of corporate Trust assets in good condition, an obligation of the Trustee.

Use of the Trust asset which is not specifically permitted by the Trust can be a violation of the Trust and such becomes the personal responsibility of that person acting outside the Trust instructions.

Then, if the weapon were ever used for any purpose other than as specifically described, say for personal protection of the Trustee or others, such can be in violation of the Trust and therefore its license to own that asset for other uses, which otherwise are restricted by law.

At such point we have an individual, violating the Trust Agreement, acting personally without that operator being properly licensed. A Trust is not allowed to protect a Trustee from violating the Trust document or personal acts; And, the licensee is the Trust, not the Trustee or Beneficiary.

So, depending on your Federal and State Jurisdictions, the use of a licensed weapon in the name of any Trust can be more problematic than personal ownership with insurance......

I've read many Trust documents in my day, most all have been boiler plate instruments some attorney peeled off his legal library with slight modifications if any. I doubt any such document would or could provide adequate personal protection for the ownership of a registered weapon.

That brings us to a specifically drafted Trust instrument for this purpose. Such would be a pretty heavy document to cover all the bases and it would be more expensive than the weapons being the subject of this issue.

Lastly, I could bet there is some "Weapons Ownership Trust" document floating around on the internet, for $69.99 that tempt some to try out. I believe ownership of restricted weapons is a very serious matter, for many reasons, only one of which is you're betting years of your life on compliance with the law.

If you think Trust ownership of weapons might be a good idea, see an attorney with specific knowledge of the matter, in your jurisdiction (especially if you intend to travel with it) and take your checkbook.

Fascinating post!

Thanks for taking the time to put it together in a manner that's understandable and applicable to the Trust question.

 

[ITTOG]

Interesting that a Trust was mentioned. That being said, then I suspect Trusts have (or are) being used to show ownership. This can be valid, especially with collector types.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that corporations (that is what a Trust is) has "personhood" the rights of a person. But, I'd have an issue with an entity claiming personhood that cannot operate as an individual person.

The Trust cannot fire a weapon. The argument then is, can the Trustee be allowed to act for the Trust in an act that another person is restricted from by law?

The Trustee is not the Trust but an agent of the Trust, who has fiduciary responsibilities to the Trust, the Trust has no duty to the Trustee, other than to pay expenses of its existence and operation.

I do see one avenue for the Trustee or a Beneficiary, that is to operate the assets of the Trust to ensure proper operation and maintenance and perhaps, to provide for recreational operation. Such justifies the keeping of corporate Trust assets in good condition, an obligation of the Trustee.

Use of the Trust asset which is not specifically permitted by the Trust can be a violation of the Trust and such becomes the personal responsibility of that person acting outside the Trust instructions.

Then, if the weapon were ever used for any purpose other than as specifically described, say for personal protection of the Trustee or others, such can be in violation of the Trust and therefore its license to own that asset for other uses, which otherwise are restricted by law.

At such point we have an individual, violating the Trust Agreement, acting personally without that operator being properly licensed. A Trust is not allowed to protect a Trustee from violating the Trust document or personal acts; And, the licensee is the Trust, not the Trustee or Beneficiary.

So, depending on your Federal and State Jurisdictions, the use of a licensed weapon in the name of any Trust can be more problematic than personal ownership with insurance......

I've read many Trust documents in my day, most all have been boiler plate instruments some attorney peeled off his legal library with slight modifications if any. I doubt any such document would or could provide adequate personal protection for the ownership of a registered weapon.

That brings us to a specifically drafted Trust instrument for this purpose. Such would be a pretty heavy document to cover all the bases and it would be more expensive than the weapons being the subject of this issue.

Lastly, I could bet there is some "Weapons Ownership Trust" document floating around on the internet, for $69.99 that tempt some to try out. I believe ownership of restricted weapons is a very serious matter, for many reasons, only one of which is you're betting years of your life on compliance with the law.

If you think Trust ownership of weapons might be a good idea, see an attorney with specific knowledge of the matter, in your jurisdiction (especially if you intend to travel with it) and take your checkbook.

Conspiracy Theorist?

I felt most of your post talked in circles so I found it very difficult to follow. However, the trust allows multiple people to possess the item requiring the tax stamp, it doesn't circumvent it. It does not cover unlawful use, be it as described in the trust, or as described in local, state, or federal law. I am confident if you did a quick search you would've found the answers quicker than it took you to post your speculation.

Given this is text I want to add that I am not trying to be rude. Just hopefully providing statements based on facts.

 

[gentimmy]

Conspiracy Theorist?

I felt most of your post talked in circles so I found it very difficult to follow. However, the trust allows multiple people to possess the item requiring the tax stamp, it doesn't circumvent it. It does not cover unlawful use, be it as described in the trust, or as described in local, state, or federal law. I am confident if you did a quick search you would've found the answers quicker than it took you to post your speculation.

Given this is text I want to add that I am not trying to be rude. Just hopefully providing statements based on facts.

...if that's how you set up the Trust. The trust truly only adds an added level of protection - much like purchasing a piece of property through an LLC. One individual can be both the Settlor and Trustee, you are by no means required to list beneficiaries or other responsible persons.

You're right, @Ozarker 's message is confusing and he seems to be both correct and incorrect.

" The Trust cannot fire a weapon. The argument then is, can the Trustee be allowed to act for the Trust in an act that another person is restricted from by law? "
Yes, much like an executor of a will

"Use of the Trust asset which is not specifically permitted by the Trust can be a violation of the Trust and such becomes the personal responsibility of that person acting outside the Trust instructions."

From my interpretation of your words...kind of. It is the settlor or trustee's responsibility to ensure that NFA item does not make it into the hands of an unauthorized user (formerly, without their supervision). If someone is using my NFA item, I am liable.

"Then, if the weapon were ever used for any purpose other than as specifically described, say for personal protection of the Trustee or others, such can be in violation of the Trust and therefore its license to own that asset for other uses, which otherwise are restricted by law."

Personal protection of the Trustee or others would be fine as long as the individual using the NFA item is a Trustee. "All lawful purposes' does wonders on a form when signaling intent.

Using words like "licensed" is...wrong in this instance. No one is licensed, only approved.

Trusts absolutely provide protection...it's a legal entity. There are man legal reasons Trusts exist when handing down assets.

 

[BritKLR]

Don't forget about ATF Rule 41 F (Gun Trust Regulation) with background and fingerprint requirment.

Background Checks for Responsible Persons (Final Rule 41F) | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

On January 4, 2016, the Attorney General signed ATF Final Rule 41F, Machineguns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms; Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Trust or Legal Entity With Respect To Making or Transferring a Firearm, amending the regulations regarding the making or...

www.atf.gov

 

[gentimmy]

The ATF has acknowledged they were incorrect in advising that non trustees were ineligible to possess NFA items even with supervision:

ATF website offers incorrect guidance on NFA compliance

bearingarms.com

 

[Ozarker]

The ATF has acknowledged they were incorrect in advising that non trustees were ineligible to possess NFA items even with supervision:

ATF website offers incorrect guidance on NFA compliance

bearingarms.com

You get to go first;
Nothing in that article contradicts the arguments I made, read it carefully as well as my comments. The issue is the ability of a Trustee to act in matter not defined by the Trust documents.

Point was, use that weapon in violation of the Trust instructions and your personal azz is hanging in the wind. I seriously doubt you will pull up junk off the internet to address this specific issue.

A "non trustee" (or any Beneficiary of a Trust) being ineligible to posses a NFA item with supervision pretty well says, such persons may act in the operation of the use of a weapon under supervision.

In reality, what does that mean? If you use that weapon outside the defined uses described by the Trust documents, such use must be under the supervision of an authorized Trustee representing the Trust. The Trust does not list every Tom, ******** and Harry that might come forth to every situation imaginable.

That also depends on the use, are we allowing cadets of some shooting team to fire that weapon or are we killing a home intruder? Big difference!

Frankley, my argument is never to convince those with the mentality of some 1850's cowboy about the use of any weapon, but only those who are understanding of societal norms in 2023. Bucking the system is not a good idea, even if you really believe you are right.

 

[gentimmy]

You get to go first;
Nothing in that article contradicts the arguments I made, read it carefully as well as my comments. The issue is the ability of a Trustee to act in matter not defined by the Trust documents.

Point was, use that weapon in violation of the Trust instructions and your personal azz is hanging in the wind. I seriously doubt you will pull up junk off the internet to address this specific issue.

A "non trustee" (or any Beneficiary of a Trust) being ineligible to posses a NFA item with supervision pretty well says, such persons may act in the operation of the use of a weapon under supervision.

In reality, what does that mean? If you use that weapon outside the defined uses described by the Trust documents, such use must be under the supervision of an authorized Trustee representing the Trust. The Trust does not list every Tom, ******** and Harry that might come forth to every situation imaginable.

That also depends on the use, are we allowing cadets of some shooting team to fire that weapon or are we killing a home intruder? Big difference!

Frankley, my argument is never to convince those with the mentality of some 1850's cowboy about the use of any weapon, but only those who are understanding of societal norms in 2023. Bucking the system is not a good idea, even if you really believe you are right.

The ATF corrected a statement they made that I had referenced so I was providing that context

 

[Ozarker]

Seriously, can't say a man's name being ********, that would be D....I....C....K, Jones, absurd controls here, seriously, my granddaughters could read that! RICHARD, SHORT NAME ********!

...if that's how you set up the Trust. The trust truly only adds an added level of protection - much like purchasing a piece of property through an LLC. One individual can be both the Settlor and Trustee, you are by no means required to list beneficiaries or other responsible persons.

You're right, @Ozarker 's message is confusing and he seems to be both correct and incorrect.

" The Trust cannot fire a weapon. The argument then is, can the Trustee be allowed to act for the Trust in an act that another person is restricted from by law? "
Yes, much like an executor of a will

"Use of the Trust asset which is not specifically permitted by the Trust can be a violation of the Trust and such becomes the personal responsibility of that person acting outside the Trust instructions."

From my interpretation of your words...kind of. It is the settlor or trustee's responsibility to ensure that NFA item does not make it into the hands of an unauthorized user (formerly, without their supervision). If someone is using my NFA item, I am liable.

"Then, if the weapon were ever used for any purpose other than as specifically described, say for personal protection of the Trustee or others, such can be in violation of the Trust and therefore its license to own that asset for other uses, which otherwise are restricted by law."

Personal protection of the Trustee or others would be fine as long as the individual using the NFA item is a Trustee. "All lawful purposes' does wonders on a form when signaling intent.

Using words like "licensed" is...wrong in this instance. No one is licensed, only approved.

Trusts absolutely provide protection...it's a legal entity. There are man legal reasons Trusts exist when handing down assets.

You are under a gross misconception my friend, the Trust does NOT add a level of "protection" as bugaboo attorneys on the internet try to sell you. Get this, THEY SELL TRUSTS!

There are similarities of the fiduciary responsibilities of an Executor or Executrix under a Will but those bequeaths are not living beyond the Estate of a deceased person, a Trust is living beyond the natural life of the Trustor. When the duties of an Executor or Executirix are concluded under the Probate of an estate, then those duties dissolve, not so with a Trustee.

The word "licensed" is an approval to commence with a proposed act or permission to act. If one is "approved" to act, they are licensed to act.

Trusts provide a "shield" against personal lability and in directing wishes of the Trustor in various matters, such as in Estate Planning, Real Estate, Medical wishes and Corporate Finance. These are areas of acceptable practice utilizing Trust Agreements, frankly, off shoot uses such as we are discussing here are hybrid uses and subject to scrutiny.

If you'd like to rely on the perception of Trust ownership of weapons, look to court findings of such use, how they have faired in personal protection or advantages offered by courts. I seriously doubt you'll find favorable rulings.

But, if you have evidence of favorable findings, by all means, post them up!

 

[gentimmy]

Seriously, can't say a man's name being ********, that would be D....I....C....K, Jones, absurd controls here, seriously, my granddaughters could read that! RICHARD, SHORT NAME ********!


You are under a gross misconception my friend, the Trust does NOT add a level of "protection" as bugaboo attorneys on the internet try to sell you. Get this, THEY SELL TRUSTS!

There are similarities of the fiduciary responsibilities of an Executor or Executrix under a Will but those bequeaths are not living beyond the Estate of a deceased person, a Trust is living beyond the natural life of the Trustor. When the duties of an Executor or Executirix are concluded under the Probate of an estate, then those duties dissolve, not so with a Trustee.

The word "licensed" is an approval to commence with a proposed act or permission to act. If one is "approved" to act, they are licensed to act.

Trusts provide a "shield" against personal lability and in directing wishes of the Trustor in various matters, such as in Estate Planning, Real Estate, Medical wishes and Corporate Finance. These are areas of acceptable practice utilizing Trust Agreements, frankly, off shoot uses such as we are discussing here are hybrid uses and subject to scrutiny.

If you'd like to rely on the perception of Trust ownership of weapons, look to court findings of such use, how they have faired in personal protection or advantages offered by courts. I seriously doubt you'll find favorable rulings.

But, if you have evidence of favorable findings, by all means, post them up!

Setting Up a Trust to Protect Your Assets for Estate Planning

There are many types of trusts to protect your assets. Learn more about protecting assets with a trust for estate planning & to define management of assets.

www.merrilledge.com

a trust doesn't protect an action, it protects an asset. You're yelling into the wind.

What Are the Benefits of a Gun Trust? - SilencerCo

It's a common question. So, exactly what does a gun trust do and why should you get one? Find out here!

silencerco.com

Should I pass away, and AR's/suppressors be deemed illegal...they would be transferable to beneficiaries.

 

[Ozarker]

Setting Up a Trust to Protect Your Assets for Estate Planning

There are many types of trusts to protect your assets. Learn more about protecting assets with a trust for estate planning & to define management of assets.

www.merrilledge.com

a trust doesn't protect an action, it protects an asset. You're yelling into the wind.

What Are the Benefits of a Gun Trust? - SilencerCo

It's a common question. So, exactly what does a gun trust do and why should you get one? Find out here!

silencerco.com

Should I pass away, and AR's/suppressors be deemed illegal...they would be transferable to beneficiaries.

I told you they would be out there on line ?

Yes, in that case your otherwise illegal gun may pass to your heirs.

I get the nay sayers, most folks seek what they want, just natural, they really don't want to hear contrary issues about what they are seeking. That will drive them to following those internet crap sellers of what they want. BEWARE!

Just saying, my opinion is just that, an opinion. Consider it or not. I'm not here to argue.

We really won't know an answer to this matter until there has been a legal determination.
We can discuss aspects of theory, a basis for findings, but let's not be so definitive in an opinion that dictates an absolute finding, because no one knows!

I'm all ears for contrary opinions to the aspects set forth, lets attack each on its own merit.

Basically, by bet is that a Trustee can't act outside the instructions of the Trust document and that document can never encompass all the aspects of using a firearm....basically.

edited for brevity.

 

[gentimmy]

I told you they would be out there on line ?

I get the nay sayers, most folks seek what they want, just natural, they really don't want to hear contrary issues about what they are seeking. That will drive them to following those internet crap sellers of what they want. BEWARE!

Just saying, my opinion is just that, an opinion. Consider it or not. I'm not here to argue to dissolve your expectations, desires, wishes or ill-informed notions.

The only hope that I may have on those considering such avenues is to think about alternatives. Then the question becomes, do you really have 30 plus years of legal experience, did you teach aspects of law at the college and doctorial levels of a law school, have you had experience in courts, are you well versed in contract law, OR, are you prone to reading something and interpreting what you read to fit what you believe or want to believe, are you biased in your research or are you really open to other opinions????

We really won't know an answer to this matter until there has been a legal determination.
We can discuss aspects of theory, a basis for findings, but let's not be so definitive in an opinion that dictates an absolute finding, because no one knows!

I'm all ears for contrary opinions to the aspects set forth, lets attack each on its own merit.

Basically, by bet is that a Trustee can't act outside the instructions of the Trust document and that document can never encompass all the aspects of using a firearm....basically.

I could have provided you gun-related articles saying the same but I assumed you'd make the argument of " 60% of their products are sold ot Trust holders". I dunno what you want dude.

(figure assuming LE and Military account for 40% of revenue)

 

[Ozarker]

Seriously, this is what you brought to justify an opinion?

" get a NFA Gun Trust or not to get one. That is a common question. While having an NFA Gun Trust is a fantastic idea, it might not be necessary for everyone. In all realities, though, every responsible gun owner should have one. Let’s focus on why you should have an NFA Gun Trust.

"QUICK NOTE: I’m not an attorney and this article isn’t to be taken as legal advice. You should consult with an attorney in your state of residence, preferably one that is familiar with firearm laws."

Seems I said the same thing, see an attorney, but Nooooo, we want to believe in crap we find on the internet because we really want to believe in what they are praying........and they aren't there to answer any questions!

Like I said, if you screw it up, take the wrong advice, you may be betting years of your life on your "legal interpretations", are you really that good, you bet you know better, you're that sure? Go for it!

 

[gentimmy]

Seriously, this is what you brought to justify an opinion?

" get a NFA Gun Trust or not to get one. That is a common question. While having an NFA Gun Trust is a fantastic idea, it might not be necessary for everyone. In all realities, though, every responsible gun owner should have one. Let’s focus on why you should have an NFA Gun Trust.

"QUICK NOTE: I’m not an attorney and this article isn’t to be taken as legal advice. You should consult with an attorney in your state of residence, preferably one that is familiar with firearm laws."

Seems I said the same thing, see an attorney, but Nooooo, we want to believe in crap we find on the internet because we really want to believe in what they are praying........and they aren't there to answer any questions!

Like I said, if you screw it up, take the wrong advice, you may be betting years of your life on your "legal interpretations", are you really that good, you bet you know better, you're that sure? Go for it!

Man, that’s why I provided the Merrill link… Had I provided an attorney commenting on trusts, they’re also selling the service. I can’t tell if you’re being intentionally obtuse