ATF / NFA trust trouble

[Sidewinder]

I'm glad to see we can have a civil discussion.

Sorry but every one I have asked agrees the implication of this statement was that trust transfers were going to be suspended. You then followed it up with generalities about error rates to support the statement. You may not have meant it to mean that but every one I have asked agrees with me on the implied meaning of it.

I really didn't imply anything. Sounds like a few here made assumptions instead. Big difference (read the webster dictionary for meanings).
If anyone needed to know exactly what I meant, a simple "can you explain further ? or "what you are saying" will avoid misunderstandings.
I agree it was a general statement & I made the mistake of thinking people would correctly understand it, my bad.
I have a saying, "if ever in doubt always ask". I do & it avoids needless collisions.

Quote one rumor I have started in my post. There are no new rumors started by me in my post and only addressed past ones.

You essentially are trying to create sensationalism out of nothing and start more bull shit rumors that the NFA community does not need. There is already too many people who believe that ATF has the right to invade your house to check your F4 guns.

Highlighted in red for you.
I'm not creating anything that doesn't exist.
I've personally never heard or read anyone saying ATF can invade our homes to check F4 guns. Not once.
That in itself is a rumor because you never provided proof.
Till then it's only hearsay.

I think the problem dealers need to be dealt with but, how it's done is not for me to say.
I did say what they can do when those dealers fail to follow rules clearly written in black & white.


.

 

[Mongo]

Highlighted in red for you.
I'm not creating anything that doesn't exist.
I've personally never heard or read anyone saying ATF can invade our homes to check F4 guns. Not once.
That in itself is a rumor because you never provide proof.
Till then it's only hearsay.

.

I'm not sure how you can have been in the NFA community or on any NFA board on the internet w/o seeing this rumor 1000 times. This is the oldest rumor concerning NFA ever uttered.

Just Google it, I get at least 5 boards with this in a FAQ in NFA sections.

 

[Sidewinder]

I'm not sure how you can have been in the NFA community or on any NFA board on the internet w/o seeing this rumor 1000 times. This is the oldest rumor concerning NFA ever uttered.

Just Google it, I get at least 5 boards with this in a FAQ in NFA sections.

I don't have the time or inclination to be on every forum on the internet & I don't do gunshows either.
I spend 16 hour days working my farm & running a business.
What little time I may have is spent with family, instead of trying to entertain myself on a computer.
Good for those who can but, my spare time is very limited.
Perhaps that explains why I never heard or read about some of the rumors you speak of.
Oh, & I can't google something I don't know about.
Thanks for the suggestion tho, I may try that.



.

 

[POF-USA]

FWI Mongo is famous in the NFA community basically he's a legion of sorts. I've heard people mention his name (several times actually) on other boards without him even being part of the conversation.
I also know several other things about his tools that I guess I'm not at liberty to discuss but, I'll just say he's faaaaaaaar from a rookie with any of these subjects.

 

[SC-Texas]

POF-USA

Here's few more tid bits I didn't mention in my last post.
Anyone who plans to do trust transfers in the near future should consider getting them done as soon as they can.

Sidewinder,
Thank you for taking your time out of your busy life to join us over here. Whether you meant it to or not . . . this portion of your post insinuated that the ATF is going to stop trust transfers and this is a common urban myth that has been floating around for years. It would take Congress changing the laws to make this happen.

Not saying that teh aTF doesn't like the idea . . . . just saying that it is such a common myth that for you to claim to have never heard it is interesting.

Now, you also stated that possession is 9/10ths of the law. sorrybut that is csimply incorrect.

I have had examiners return form 4s because the item is not listed. I have had examiners return the form 4 because the item is listed. It is examiner dependent. they have no idea what one or the other is doing.

Now, I will take a moment to explain the difference between a right of possession and a right of ownership.

Once you pay for a Suppressor or Machinegun, you or your trust has an ownership interest in it. There is no reason that it not be listed on a schedule A.

Why? Because the trust has paid for the item and ownership has shifted to the trust.

The trust may direct what becomes of the item. It may complete the transfer, it may order the NFA dealer to sell the item to another customer, it may order the NFA dealer to destroy the item and remove it from the registry. Hell, if the NFA dealer refuses to complete the transfer, or destroys the item, the trust or customer, who MAYNOT POSSESS the item, may sue the NFA dealer.

These are all actions that are tide to the right of ownership.

Now, possession . . . . well possession is subject to the NFA.

I believe that once the trust pays for an item, it has established an ownership interest in the item and the item may be added to the schedule of property. In fact, once it is paid for, it must be added to the schedule.

What would let the follow on trustee know that the trust owned a $35,000.00 M-60 transferable if the settlor died before transfer was completed and the item had not been added (assuming the Form 4s were not found)?

Anyway, the simple way to deal with a returned form 4 is to put a THIN line through the offending item on the schedule A and return the SAME schedule A with the offending item lined out to the examiner. That way it is still on the ATF copy albeit lined out, the Bureaucratic NAzi is appeased and you get your item and you have not wasted valuable oxygen explaining the difference between the right of possession and the right of ownership to a bureaucrat in Northern West Virginia.

ANOTHER reason to add the item first, when you purchase it, is because I have had folks come to me a few years after they formed their trust and I find that they have not added all the items to their schedule of property because they forgot, got busy or whatever. Its simpler to do it while you have it on your mind.

 

[SC-Texas]

I don't have the time or inclination to be on every forum on the internet & I don't do gunshows either.
I spend 16 hour days working my farm & running a business.
What little time I may have is spent with family, instead of trying to entertain myself on a computer.
Good for those who can but, my spare time is very limited.
Perhaps that explains why I never heard or read about some of the rumors you speak of.
Oh, & I can't google something I don't know about.
Thanks for the suggestion tho, I may try that.



.

As I said, thank you for taking your time to join us on Texas Gun Talk.

However, I wonder if you heard this from your NFA dealer? there have been several spreding this rumor and rumor it is.

 

[Sidewinder]

Sidewinder,
Thank you for taking your time out of your busy life to join us over here. Whether you meant it to or not . . . this portion of your post insinuated that the ATF is going to stop trust transfers and this is a common urban myth that has been floating around for years. It would take Congress changing the laws to make this happen.

I didn't mean it in the term that Trust transfers would stop.
While we're on the subject, here's something to throw around.
If Trust transfers are still a problem regardless of the reason, maybe the NFA should consider a "trust transfer guidelines manual" for each state or something of that sort.

I guess from now on I need to clarify exactly what I'm saying since others will have their own definition regardless of what I meant.
Learn something new everyday.
I meant in the sense that it takes so long to get transfers done, mostly because of minor problems like the example in the thread starter post.
Hopefully I don't get beat down anymore than was done in posts prior to yours.
As I stated earlier, if ever I'm in doubt I always ask (for clarification) but, I see that others don't do that.

Now, you also stated that possession is 9/10ths of the law. sorrybut that is csimply incorrect.

Once you pay for a Suppressor or Machinegun, you or your trust has an ownership interest in it. There is no reason that it not be listed on a schedule A.

Why? Because the trust has paid for the item and ownership has shifted to the trust.

I believe that once the trust pays for an item, it has established an ownership interest in the item and the item may be added to the schedule of property. In fact, once it is paid for, it must be added to the schedule.

We both know that what we believe or think & what the law says are 2 different things.
Since we had a family gathering for this holiday & my Uncle was around I got his thoughts on the info. you posted.
He has experience that may shed some light on the whole possession-ownership thing.
Here's his take.

Texas Law:
Definition of
§ 1.07.Possession
(a) In this code:
(39) "Possession" means actual care, custody, control, or management

Meaning:
Possession of a tangible item with the ability to move anywhere you wish, by means of a of another object whether by a person
or other object and without restrictions.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Definition of
§ 480 OWNERSHIP
(c) In terms of real property. The right by which a thing belongs to a person or entity, to the exclusion of all other persons

Meaning:
Ownership of a tangible item for which you have a legal right to possession of a thing and have full control over.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________

If possession or ownership is governed by law, whether local, state or federal, the transfer must be completed 100% to comply with the definition of
possession and or ownership, except in cases where more than one person is involved, the limits of each owner should be defined in writing.
In the case of items that are restricted by law, the current owner, whether by title or registration, still possesses and owns the item until the transfer is 100% complete.
In the event of multiple owners by title, registration and in some cases bill of sale, all parties invovlded must mutually agree (written preferred) if moving, disposal,
alteration, transfer to someone else or other actions that involve the item.
In the case that all parties involved can not come to a mutual agreement, litigation is the only recourse.
Unless the item has high value, the latter is not feasible due to cost, but, that's how lawyers make money.
Texas law also provides personal property protection against law suits up to the amount of $20,000. (last known amount).
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________



So unless you have "full control" you really don't own the item.
According to the Texas legal definitions he gave having an interest in something is not the same as possessing or owning it.
Looks to me that possession really is 9/10ths of the law but, I'm no expert on the subject.
Oh well have fun in everything you do, I'm off play with some toys while I take the day off from work.

 

[SC-Texas]

Well Sidewinder, I think you said it best . . . you are no expert on the subject. thanks for playing.

 

[ZX9RCAM]

Well Sidewinder, I think you said it best . . . you are no expert on the subject. thanks for playing.

 

[Sidewinder]

Well Sidewinder, I think you said it best . . . you are no expert on the subject. thanks for playing.

That's what I said alright.
Which is why I asked my Uncle since he has 3 full time paralegals who work for him.
And I'll add that he used Texas law to find the correct definitions instead giving personal opinions.

Much like a few guys who proved that a lawyer isn't needed to create a trust but, that's a different thread I read.

 

[30+GSXR]

wooohoooo - I called today and it has been approved 7 months and a revision of the Schedule A = had to remove the listed item.

 

[Joat]

...he has 3 full time paralegals who work for him.
And I'll add that he used Texas law...

Hey Sean, I guess the 36 weeks of night courses those paralegals took trumps your 1 bar exam!

Joat

 

[SC-Texas]

That's what I said alright.
Which is why I asked my Uncle since he has 3 full time paralegals who work for him.
And I'll add that he used Texas law to find the correct definitions instead giving personal opinions.

Much like a few guys who proved that a lawyer isn't needed to create a trust but, that's a different thread I read.

Sidewinder, the law you quoted does not apply to the matter at hand. Again, not going to argue with you because you are simply wrong.

 

[SC-Texas]

wooohoooo - I called today and it has been approved 7 months and a revision of the Schedule A = had to remove the listed item.

Congratulations.

 

[JustaPhule]

Well, ain't this fun? Just remember - Tilting at windmills has more effect on you, than on the windmill. AND Never wrestle with a pig, it only annoys you, and the pig likes it. I am NOT calling anyone names, just grinding an old saw.

 

[stacyp]

I think this is another case of the government employee rule book is open to personal interpretation. My NFA FFL is a manufacturer of Class 3 items and has a lot of dealing with the ATFE. He has sent many items in for customers and always lists the item on the Schedule A. Never had a kick back for it. I experience this same personal interpretation to the rules with the FAA. Each examiner (FAA or ATFE) will read the rules and come to his own conclusion as to what it "really" means. They are just like all of us, they have a hard time reading all the legal BS and understanding exactly what it really means.

 

[ii]

Good read.

 

[Burt Gummer]

Good info.
My tidbit is to advise people to not see posts on the internet as starting "rumors" etc.
I assume every post I read is bullshit until proven otherwise.
This way it's not seen as rumor, only bullshit.