Are you looking to start another topic because this one is not going the way you planned?
To be clear - the trust is not a loophole. Address that issue, and then we'll move on to your next topic.
-
ODT Gun Show this Saturday! - Click here for info and tickets!
41f and Persuant Kerfuffle
- Thread starter rOmiLaYu
- Start date
Are you looking to start another topic because this one is not going the way you planned?
To be clear - the trust is not a loophole. Address that issue, and then we'll move on to your next topic.
No, I'm looked to discredit your position based on the selective nature of your outrage.
It absolutely is....or should I say, "was." It was a way to avoid obtaining a CLEO signoff. A way, you yourself have admitted taking.
I've heard the argument that this makes the process more similar to a 4473, except that is only partially true (background check). Finger prints are not required to purchase a regular 4473, nor is notification to CLEO. This does indeed add additional regulation that wasn't there for members of a trust. This makes it equal to an individual applying for an NFA item, but not equal to a 4473. If you really wanted progress, allow someone else to be in possession of an NFA item legally without the owner being present and eliminate the need for a trust altogether for most people.
You're making an assumption here. I have no idea if CLEO in my area would sign off or not. That was irrelevant and not even part of my consideration for getting a trust. I needed a trust in order for my wife to be in possession of NFA items. I still don't understand why you think this is ok. It was burdensome to the individual and now it's even more burdensome to a trust with X number of trustees, and somehow that's ok just because it's "equal"? The individual requirement was dumb to start with, but the trust requirement is ok because at least it's the same?
Below is a link to the language of the 1934 Act with the important line quoted for you. You want to keep digging this hole for yourself???
"Person. A partnership, company, association, trust, estate, or corporation, as well as a natural person."
Ur correctalbatros43 but that was directed towards Batoncolle. Lol
Oh yeah, I know it was, I was just addressing the issue. This "at least it's the same" logic is a great way to justify background checks on private sales you know...
Go back and read my original post....or any of them since then. I don't think "this is ok." I just simply fail to see the sky falling, as others seem to.
I know exactly what ur saying. Also as u stated I didn't even try to submit a 1 or 4 as an individual because, just like u, I want my wife to be in legal possession of my nfa stuff and to have beneficiaries listed.
Similar threads
