41P ruling. 1/4/16

[pacnw]

"While the comments of the preamble to the rule give varying interpretations of an RP, the actual language of the rule basically says that an RP is any individual who possesses the power or authority to direct the management and policies of the trust or entity to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the trust or legal entity. The definition goes one step further in defining an RP for a trust, saying that this definition includes any person with the capability to exercise such power and possesses the power or authority to possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the trust.

Boiled down, this refers to grantors and trustees of a trust. The ATF even clarifies that beneficiaries of the trust are not considered to be RPs if they do not have the capability to exercise the powers or authorities specified.

The language addressing RPs in a trust appears to raise the possibility that a class of trustees could be created who have no authority to "direct the management and policies of the trust" but may still have possession of trust assets, which would appear to be similar in rights and powers to lower level employees of a business entity.

If confirmed, this may provide a mechanism to permit possession of NFA weapons by others without having to go through the new application requirements created by the new rule."

I guess I read it differently, in that the trustees have NO authority, so they were NOT subject to the background check.

The last paragraph in the quote was something I thought about. Anyone see a reason this could not be done? I know who is in my trust and they would all pass, but like myself, prefer NOT to be on "lists".

Maybe someone who is associated with making the trusts could respond.

 

[Norm0931]

"While the comments of the preamble to the rule give varying interpretations of an RP, the actual language of the rule basically says that an RP is any individual who possesses the power or authority to direct the management and policies of the trust or entity to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the trust or legal entity. The definition goes one step further in defining an RP for a trust, saying that this definition includes any person with the capability to exercise such power and possesses the power or authority to possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the trust.

Boiled down, this refers to grantors and trustees of a trust. The ATF even clarifies that beneficiaries of the trust are not considered to be RPs if they do not have the capability to exercise the powers or authorities specified.

The language addressing RPs in a trust appears to raise the possibility that a class of trustees could be created who have no authority to "direct the management and policies of the trust" but may still have possession of trust assets, which would appear to be similar in rights and powers to lower level employees of a business entity.

If confirmed, this may provide a mechanism to permit possession of NFA weapons by others without having to go through the new application requirements created by the new rule."

I guess I read it differently, in that the trustees have NO authority, so they were NOT subject to the background check.

The last paragraph in the quote was something I thought about. Anyone see a reason this could not be done? I know who is in my trust and they would all pass, but like myself, prefer NOT to be on "lists".

Maybe someone who is associated with making the trusts could respond.

Every time someone tries to bubblegum with the BATFE it ends badly for them. IMO, do you really want to be the legal test case? Simple solution for this is limit the amount of trustees.