300BlkTalk

Nevada happened, it in fact was orchestrated in order to keep us from having these things.

hardcase wrote:

cdakers wrote:

hardcase wrote:Yes. I am no expert on the legalities but before Trump the previous administration said they were closing a loophole. Now your buddy needs to submit fingerprint cards to ATF to get put on your Trust. Legislation was called "41F".

Not true. You can add as many as you want to the trust at any time. If you submit a new form they would be required to submit photo/prints. The loophole still exists if you know how to work it.

Opps,my mistake. I have not bought any cans or SBRs since 41F.

Correct me if I am wrong. Those on my trust are good to go until such time as I add another NFA item to that trust. I as head trustee I can remove beneficiaries and add beneficiaries. Adding a new NFA item to that trust means the whole lot has to do prints and photos.

Why couldn't I just get a new trust with only me on it or have multiple trusts? Reasons are for estate purposes, not trying to usurp the intent of the law.

theres nothing stopping you from having as many trusts as you want. and think what you're talking about is basically what silencershop is doing with their "single shot trust" for $25




https://www.silencershop.com/single-shot-trust.html

hardcase wrote:

cdakers wrote:

hardcase wrote:Yes. I am no expert on the legalities but before Trump the previous administration said they were closing a loophole. Now your buddy needs to submit fingerprint cards to ATF to get put on your Trust. Legislation was called "41F".

Not true. You can add as many as you want to the trust at any time. If you submit a new form they would be required to submit photo/prints. The loophole still exists if you know how to work it.

Opps,my mistake. I have not bought any cans or SBRs since 41F.

Correct me if I am wrong. Those on my trust are good to go until such time as I add another NFA item to that trust. I as head trustee I can remove beneficiaries and add beneficiaries. Adding a new NFA item to that trust means the whole lot has to do prints and photos.

Why couldn't I just get a new trust with only me on it or have multiple trusts? Reasons are for estate purposes, not trying to usurp the intent of the law.

If Las Vegas had not happened, an Hiliary would have learned about can or at least kept her mouth shut, suppressors most likely could be bought and sold without all the hassles.

Yes, anyone that was on the trust prior to 41F is good to go until you submit another form. I've actually seen one internet lawyer suggesting removing all of the other trustees from the trust, submitting the new form, then adding the trustees back to the trust. On its face, it doesn't seem to be illegal, but I surely see this being challenged if anything would ever end up in court.

Multiple trusts are not an issue. Create as many as you want/need.

From www.keytlaw.com:

Mistake #5: The Gun Trust Agreement allows a Beneficiary Who is Not a Trustee to Use or Possess a Title II Firearm

Most generic living trusts allow beneficiaries to use, possess and receive distributions of trust assets. A properly drafted NFA gun trust prohibits a person who is a mere beneficiary from using or possessing a Title II firearm. Only the trustees of a Gun Trust have the legal right to use or possess Title II firearms owned by the trust.

Concorde wrote:From http://www.keytlaw.com:

Mistake #5: The Gun Trust Agreement allows a Beneficiary Who is Not a Trustee to Use or Possess a Title II Firearm

Most generic living trusts allow beneficiaries to use, possess and receive distributions of trust assets. A properly drafted NFA gun trust prohibits a person who is a mere beneficiary from using or possessing a Title II firearm. Only the trustees of a Gun Trust have the legal right to use or possess Title II firearms owned by the trust.

so #1 your link only goes to the main site.. not the source of this information.

#2 this does not apply to ALL trusts or ALL states.
as i understand it from conversations with my lawyer - beneficiary's being responsible persons (as defined under 41p) are legal in some states and not others.

for example in Michigan according to my trust - drafted by James Markowski, one of the premier 2A lawyers in the state - beneficiary's are responsible persons allowed to posses, however they are not allowed to add items or people to the trust or remove items from the trust. only someone designated as a trustee can add/remove items to my trust.

otherwise why would the BATFE have approved my trust if beneficiary's weren't allowed to posses in violation of some federal law, along with thousands of other trusts.