National Pistol Brace Rule Compliance - How to

[Gypsyman]

Read a rumor somewhere that approvals have been slow-walked to pretty much halted because of lawsuits... someone posted they got approved a few days ago so it seems like yes the approvals are still going. I haven't heard anything from ATF regarding a submission I made.. no progress from "submitted" status.

Not much help but there are a lot of guys posting approvals in the ARFCOM eForm 1 tracking thread. Looks like it running about 5 weeks for mid-January submissions.

 

[wired]

Yeah; Jan 20th was when I submitted and they have gotten my cover sheet and fingerprint cards.

Do they usually email people that their background checks went through and assign examiner or is that usually when approved at the end or disapproved or whatever? Like an email informing the person that they've been denied for whatever reason, try again or something?

You get nothing until it's approved or denied

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Not much help but there are a lot of guys posting approvals in the ARFCOM eForm 1 tracking thread. Looks like it running about 5 weeks for mid-January submissions.

If you see any recent "I was approved" posts it may be helpful to post their application numbers (maybe they are called confirmation numbers I don't recall) on here. That gives poeple a gauge of how far away they are (possibly, any way).

 

[Gypsyman]

I haven't seen any application numbers posted in that particular thread.

 

[CamoDeafie]

You get nothing until it's approved or denied

Why am I visualizing Willy Wonka (Gene Wilder) saying "you get nothing! Nothing! Good day!"

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

There is a young guy putting them out and they are simply fear mongeting

Hard to get money from people while your telling them that everything is copacetic.

 

[Yarome]

The one that attempted to do so violated ATF's rule (which is stated no less than four times in the application) that has to be owned by the trust prior to jan 31. The one that didn't go through the trust did not own prior to jan 31. So his video is quite misleading this time, most of the time they are pretty darn accurate.

I dunno that it was misleading. He was talking about "under current conditions" can you transfer to a trust for the purpose of compliance.... or did I miss something?

The revisiting of facts was really on the status of your title 1's when you simply add them to your schedule 1 for estate planning purposes... vs... how the alphabet views "ownership" or not by a private trust entity... without any offical papertrail actually showing an "ownership transfer". That is still true for actual title I's with no relation to the compliance braced pistols issue.

If it was misleading... I would say that's probably in even suggesting it's a possibility of trying to transfer a now "title II" firearm... so it doesn't matter in the traditional sense of the question. The example though may be cherry picked, but I believe it was simply illustrating an example of "no, you can't".

The Jan 13th misreporting... yeah. I get it. A lot of pro gun info providers where also confused and reporting the same date.... because that's what the alphabets said.... and when quoting a seemingly accurate date, and given 2 dates, it's always prudent to quote the earliest "known" date than the later... only to find out later... the earlier date was correct.

Fault of the content providers or is that the fault of the alphaabet for stating an incorrect date(?) I don't believe you can fault people too harshly for reporting "what the alphabets are saying right now is..."

 

[Yarome]

Imo some Goa videos are complete garbage. There is a young guy putting them out and they are simply fear mongeting as you said. On the other hand some GOA info is really accurate (such as the info coming from higher ups and those directly involved in the lawsuits).

I think Goa is so big now that some of these young guys that say they are from Goa are just loose cannons. I gave to Goa because they stopped m114 cold in Harney county. They used a tactic that was effective. I'm all about effectiveness and will ignore the young bucks fear mongering to get views. Just my perspective, nobody has to agree with it. If they are effective even though i don't agree with all those in the organization, that's who I'm supporting.

Every video I've seen from this guy are hype and fear mongering and very innacurate fwiw.

View attachment 1367253

I didn't even know GOA "had" a YT channel.

Like some, I only know what I see. GOA was the only org to effectively shut down the ninny woke... I really don't care about their propoganda efforts... so they get money from me. I help fund what's an effective and ongoing battle... simple as that.

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

I'm confused as to why this is so confusing to anyone. Yes, the date did change from "when the rule droppedsic" to "When The rule is published" but that was one change just once. So if the braced firearm (or whatever you want to call it) was assigned to the trust prior to the date that the rule was published than you can apply under the trust. If you tried to assign it to the trust AFTER the date the rule was published you can not.

I mean, that's it. That entire video should have been 30 seconds, and that is if he stuttered

 

[wired]

I'm confused as to why this is so confusing to anyone. Yes, the date did change from "when the rule droppedsic" to When The rule is published" but that was one change just once. So if the braced firearm (or whatever you want to call it) was assigned to the trust prior to the date that the rule was published than you can apply under the trust. If you tried to assign it to the trust AFTER the date the rule was published you can not.

I mean, that's it. That entire video should have been 30 seconds, and that is if he stuttered

I know this came up before but I think theres maybe a misunderstanding of the trust transfer process for NFA items. It has nothing to do with trust requirements for title transfer . There is no title transfer of a title 1 gun . A 4473 is not a title transfer. It has everything to do with ATF requirements for NFA transfers. After the 31st of January the gun is an SBR whether anyone likes that or not, An SBR , which they are now, cannot be transferred without an approved form 4. Sure , you could take the stock off and transfer it in as a pistol but since this is only for Braced pistols that existed on Jan 31 it would be pointless.

 

[Yarome]

I'm confused as to why this is so confusing to anyone. Yes, the date did change from "when the rule droppedsic" to When The rule is published" but that was one change just once. So if the braced firearm (or whatever you want to call it) was assigned to the trust prior to the date that the rule was published than you can apply under the trust. If you tried to assign it to the trust AFTER the date the rule was published you can not.

I mean, that's it. That entire video should have been 30 seconds, and that is if he stuttered

The reason being.... it is not an established fact... no matter how many times it's repeated that you can... because that's how you want it to be.

The salient point is not only the effective date but documenting proof of transfer of ownership to the trust. Applications were not auto denied for those that were listed on a scheule prior to the effective date so it's yet to be seen if they will be successfully processed in those states that do in fact require a 4473 to transfer ownership.

Technically, no transfer has taken place so they exist in a trust for estate planning purposes only. The alphabet "may" accept them without proof, but we don't know that yet. It's a very valid argument that they will not differentiate applications based on individual state laws. They very well might allow it. "Technically" though... their rules prohibit it and it's just as much a possibility that they might apply individual state laws and ultimately deny applications due to a lack of proof of the firearm transfer to a trust.

We'll see!

 

[Yarome]

I know this came up before but I think theres maybe a misunderstanding of the trust transfer process for NFA items. It has nothing to do with trust requirements for title transfer . There is no title transfer of a title 1 gun . A 4473 is not a title transfer. It has everything to do with ATF requirements for NFA transfers. After the 31st of January the gun is an SBR whether anyone likes that or not, An SBR , which they are now, cannot be transferred without an approved form 4. Sure , you could take the stock off and transfer it in as a pistol but since this is only for Braced pistols that existed on Jan 31 it would be pointless.

As conditions are now.... post enactment... that's entirely true. It would have to be registered as an indivdual and then transferred to a trust as an NFA via a form 4.

The other topic in play though was the pre-enactment title I's... or moving forward... firearms that are still title I's and a person wants to "transfer" them to their trust. In states that require a 4473... no "established" proof can be provided (for federal purposes) to show a transfer took place. In states that don't require a 4473 for private transfers... simply adding it to your trust acts in the same way as a "bill of sale" would. The trust does in fact now "own" the title I.

I say "established", because there are folks trying to "work" the system and attempting transfers under the business provisions of the 4473 form, which might give a guy a good argument that a transfer took place... in a court of law... but that's yet to be challenged or established as case law yet. It boils down to, "let's try it and see if we can get away with it". I really hope it works! Or... failing that... the alphabet get's with the program and changes the 4473 to include trusts (as form 1 and form 4 do).

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

because that's how you want it to be.

Trust me, nothing about this is how I want it to be, but it is how the ATF says it is.

 

[wired]

The reason being.... it is not an established fact... no matter how many times it's repeated that you can... because that's how you want it to be.

The salient point is not only the effective date but documenting proof of transfer of ownership to the trust. Applications were not auto denied for those that were listed on a scheule prior to the effective date so it's yet to be seen if they will be successfully processed in those states that do in fact require a 4473 to transfer ownership.

Technically, no transfer has taken place so they exist in a trust for estate planning purposes only. The alphabet "may" accept them without proof, but we don't know that yet. It's a very valid argument that they will not differentiate applications based on individual state laws. They very well might allow it. "Technically" though... their rules prohibit it and it's just as much a possibility that they might apply individual state laws and ultimately deny applications due to a lack of proof of the firearm transfer to a trust.

We'll see

As conditions are now.... post enactment... that's entirely true. It would have to be registered as an indivdual and then transferred to a trust as an NFA via a form 4.

The other topic in play though was the pre-enactment title I's... or moving forward... firearms that are still title I's and a person wants to "transfer" them to their trust. In states that require a 4473... no "established" proof can be provided (for federal purposes) to show a transfer took place. In states that don't require a 4473 for private transfers... simply adding it to your trust acts in the same way as a "bill of sale" would. The trust does in fact now "own" the title I.

I say "established", because there are folks trying to "work" the system and attempting transfers under the business provisions of the 4473 form, which might give a guy a good argument that a transfer took place... in a court of law... but that's yet to be challenged or established as case law yet. It boils down to, "let's try it and see if we can get away with it". I really hope it works! Or... failing that... the alphabet get's with the program and changes the 4473 to include trusts (as form 1 and form 4 do).

Those would be arcane and arguable of a small number of state requirements not federal requirements. There is no federal requirement for transfer of title to trust of anything . A grantor/trustee just assigns ownership. The schedule A is a document the trustee provides to show ownership. The NFA transfer is different because of the peculiarities of the NFA process.

 

[Yarome]

Those would be arcane and arguable of a small number of state requirements not federal requirements. There is no federal requirement for transfer of title to trust of anything . A grantor/trustee just assigns ownership. The schedule A is a document the trustee provides to show ownership. The NFA transfer is different because of the peculiarities of the NFA process.

That would be all fine and good... IF... trusts where governed and regulated by federal law. They quite simply are not. They are bound by the trust laws of the state in which they are formed/exist. If your state (OR, WA to name a couple... and applicable to the majority of NWFA members) requires a 4473 to transfer ownership of a firearm, a trust is not a giftable or freely transferrable entity.

A trustee plays no part in assignig ownership.... it's the individual "owner"... transferring "ownership" to the trust. For estate planning purposes... control of simple property is allowed... under the trust laws and when it applies to disposition of simple property. Where the problem lies is in the disposition of "ownership" under the firearm laws... which are in conflict with the trust laws, but no less applicable when considering what is and what is not a "legal firearm transfer" under state firearm laws.

You can say it's not valid and allowable because it only applies to "a small number of states"... but it just so happens to be the state laws most of "us" live under. Just as you can't say it's perfectly legal to get a tax stamp for an SBR, because the feds allow you to, in a state where SBR's are illegal. Your application will, in fact, be ultimately denied and may likely be reported to your local LE jurisdiction for possible legal action against you.

The continuing argument that you can is a moot point when we are, in fact, talking about legal transfer of a firearm/s in a state/s that do, in fact, require a 4473 for all title I firearm transfers.

It "should" make sense that you can transfer a firearm to a trust just like a business entity. I'm not arguing that. The fact of the matter is that the federal form 4473 currently excludes trusts... or rather... does not expressly allow it. "Wanting" it to, or because other states don't require a 4473, doesn't change anything.

 

[wired]

That would be all fine and good... IF... trusts where governed and regulated by federal law. They quite simply are not. They are bound by the trust laws of the state in which they are formed/exist. If your state (OR, WA to name a couple... and applicable to the majority of NWFA members) requires a 4473 to transfer ownership of a firearm, a trust is not a giftable or freely transferrable entity.

A trustee plays no part in assignig ownership.... it's the individual "owner"... transferring "ownership" to the trust. For estate planning purposes... control of simple property is allowed... under the trust laws and when it applies to disposition of simple property. Where the problem lies is in the disposition of "ownership" under the firearm laws... which are in conflict with the trust laws, but no less applicable when considering what is and what is not a "legal firearm transfer" under state firearm laws.

You can say it's not valid and allowable because it only applies to "a small number of states"... but it just so happens to be the state laws most of "us" live under. Just as you can't say it's perfectly legal to get a tax stamp for an SBR, because the feds allow you to, in a state where SBR's are illegal. Your application will, in fact, be ultimately denied and may likely be reported to your local LE jurisdiction for possible legal action against you.

The continuing argument that you can is a moot point when we are, in fact, talking about legal transfer of a firearm/s in a state/s that do, in fact, require a 4473 for all title I firearm transfers.

It "should" make sense that you can transfer a firearm to a trust just like a business entity. I'm not arguing that. The fact of the matter is that the federal form 4473 currently excludes trusts... or rather... does not expressly allow it. "Wanting" it to, or because other states don't require a 4473, doesn't change anything.

You are basing that on one very inflammatory attorney's opinion. Can we agree on that? To my knowledge the ATF has never turned down the transfer of a title 1 firearm to a trust then onward to SBR status. Can we also agree on that? You are of the opinion that a 4473 applies to trusts . Thats nice but I have seen no case law to back that up, unless you have something to back that up?
I'll go as far as to say that if you submit a title one firearm as trust property for conversion to SBR to the ATF even if you live in OR or WA that the ATF WILL approve it. I have not seen anything to suggest otherwise other than one crackpot attorney's opinion. Its not the same thing as filing for a SBR in a state that does not allow SBR's. Not by a longshot.

 

[CamoDeafie]

@wired one cannot transfer a firearm in Oregon without doing a BG check at a FFL or at a Gun show thanks to SB941, the only exceptions I could find were for family, "temporary" transfers (shooting ranges for example), or to sell through FFLs (consignment). The only thing relating to "trusts" are those for deceased persons through wills, again, family. Nothing about being allowed to transfer a NFA item to a NFA gun trust without doing a 4473.

Oregon State Laws and Published Ordinances - ATF https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/oregon-firearms-statutes-and-codes/download

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

one crackpot clickbait attorney's opinion.

Tomato, tomato

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Nothing about being allowed to transfer a NFA item to a NFA gun trust without doing a 4473.

OK, so you ARE NOT transferring a NFA item to a NFA gun trust, you would have had to transfer/assign a Title 1 item to a NFA gun trust prior to the publication date.

You are right about transferring a NFA item to a NFA gun trust, but because that isn't what is happening it really doesn't matter

 

[wired]

@wired one cannot transfer a firearm in Oregon without doing a BG check at a FFL or at a Gun show thanks to SB941, the only exceptions I could find were for family, "temporary" transfers (shooting ranges for example), or to sell through FFLs (consignment). The only thing relating to "trusts" are those for deceased persons through wills, again, family. Nothing about being allowed to transfer a NFA item to a NFA gun trust without doing a 4473.

Oregon State Laws and Published Ordinances - ATF https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/guide/oregon-firearms-statutes-and-codes/download

I understand that is an interpretation but given the trustee is the RP to the feds who is the party that will approve the SBR . until I see case law to support that theory I am not terribly compelled to believe it. Show me instances where the ATF has disapproved Form 1s based on a 4473 less transfer to a trust. Should be easy right?