.png)
Yes.
You also mentioned being single, so a Trust wasn't your option. But for other singles it may be.
Example:
Being single, no spouse or kids, some folks have chosen to go the Trust route and named one responsible person in that Trust so that in the event of their death, the named person can safely inherit/take possession of the deceased NFA items when they clean out their home, without risking a felony charge and keep/sell/surrender said NFA item at their own decision to remain in or leave the NFA game (outside the time parameters of the "estate" condition).
With this Final Rule, that named person has to go through all the hoops of fingerprinting, back ground check and notification, as if they themselves are standing at the counter or computer making that purchase/application, even if they have absolutely nothing to do with or are remotely near to the purchase, possession and use of the NFA items on a normal daily basis.
That's a load of crap.
Additional scenario:
Same single person traveling to the named person's residence and bringing NFA items, for all legal purposes, on say, a holiday or vacation, and secures the NFA item in named person's safe when the firearm isn't in use. Then the single person departs the residence to go about daily activities while in town, the named person is in legal possession. The named person, for the simple ability of being in legal possession of an NFA item when the primary owner is not around, has to go through all the hoops when an NFA item is being purchased by the single person at all other times. Even if they don't live in the same zip code, even if they don't talk on a daily basis, this named person has to maintain their proof of eligibility when the single person applies for purchase/build of an NFA item, for the simple fact they are listed in the Trust (which already contains eligibility requirements).
That's a load of crap.
It was a load of crap from the beginning when the comment section was open. It's a load of crap now that the Final Rule has come out.
Totally agree on all points.
And all due to CLEOs refusing individual signoff for eligible persons.
ETA: Well...if it's paranoia, good I guess that the scenario is unrealistic.
