National Pistol Brace rule Dropped!

[wired]

I am not a lawyer either, but in a state other than Oregon where a background check in not required for a transfer no 4475 is necessary for private party, so a simple asset assignment worksheet would suffice. It is just OR (and similar states) that are SOL.

Yep. Just UBC states

 

[ilikegunspdx]

I am not a lawyer either, but in a state other than Oregon where a background check in not required for a transfer no 4475 is necessary for private party, so a simple asset assignment worksheet would suffice. It is just OR (and similar states) that are SOL.

I hear what you are saying but I don't think form 4473 is a document that transfers interest (ownership), as far as I can tell. For example that info from the attorney above is from CA where they have to do a 4473 where the individual is on the 4473 in their capacity as officer (or whatever) of the corporation which owns the firearm. I don't know much about it but it doesn't make sense to me that corporations can't own a title 1 firearm just due to the presence of a 4473. Seems like 4473 is the document that records the transaction, provides for tracking etc to an individual, not the document that transfers ownership.

 

[Gypsyman]

I am not a lawyer either, but in a state other than Oregon where a background check in not required for a transfer no 4475 is necessary for private party, so a simple asset assignment worksheet would suffice. It is just OR (and similar states) that are SOL.

This is how I understand it too. By listing it on the assignment sheet for your trust (or schedule “A” depending on your state and trust type) you are essentially gifting it to the trust.

 

[Cerberus Group]

31 Abrams tanks, 50 Bradleys, 90 Strykers.

No clear strategy against a nuclear super power. There's not a lot of preparation you can do for that dirty bomb.

Trade the world's most dangerous arms runner for a basketball player...but make sure you get that AR brace paperwork squared away.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

31 Abrams tanks, 50 Bradleys, 90 Strykers.

No clear strategy against a nuclear super power. There's not a lot of preparation you can do for that dirty bomb.

Trade the world's most dangerous arms runner for a basketball player...but make sure you get that AR brace paperwork squared away.

No way, they are putting braces on abrams tanks now? That's gotta be illegal!

 

[Gbirk]

I hear what you are saying but I don't think form 4473 is a document that transfers interest (ownership), as far as I can tell. For example that info from the attorney above is from CA where they have to do a 4473 where the individual is on the 4473 in their capacity as officer (or whatever) of the corporation which owns the firearm. I don't know much about it but it doesn't make sense to me that corporations can't own a title 1 firearm just due to the presence of a 4473. Seems like 4473 is the document that records the transaction, provides for tracking etc to an individual, not the document that transfers ownership.

This is interesting. It is Maryland law, but I think would apply to basically any state. To me it looks like a person has to buy the firearm, then transfer it to the business.

Purchasing and Acquiring Firearms | Michel & Associates, P.C.

michellawyers.com

 

[Howard1955]

31 Abrams tanks, 50 Bradleys, 90 Strykers.

No clear strategy against a nuclear super power. There's not a lot of preparation you can do for that dirty bomb.

Trade the world's most dangerous arms runner for a basketball player...but make sure you get that AR brace paperwork squared away.

It would be laughable if it weren’t so incredibly dangerous.

If Russia gets pushed into an existential corner, they’re going to use nukes.

 

[Gbirk]

I wonder if this is why so many security guards are required to provide their own gun?

 

[1775usmc]

31 Abrams tanks, 50 Bradleys, 90 Strykers.

No clear strategy against a nuclear super power. There's not a lot of preparation you can do for that dirty bomb.

Trade the world's most dangerous arms runner for a basketball player...but make sure you get that AR brace paperwork squared away.

Hey it was a good trade! Haha

 

[ilikegunspdx]

This is interesting. It is Maryland law, but I think would apply to basically any state. To me it looks like a person has to buy the firearm, then transfer it to the business.

Purchasing and Acquiring Firearms | Michel & Associates, P.C.

michellawyers.com

View attachment 1353951

View attachment 1353952

Good info thx. That's pretty much identical to the language the CA attorney used in the example posted above in post #1319. It looks to me like the proper way to do it is have ffl put a statement in the file along with the 4473 which shows that the gun belongs to the corporation, or trust, etc. That makes sense to me because it is basically just clarifying the record for the benefit of atf.

It seems to me that if a gun trust could not own a title 1 firearm, then the only way one could get an nfa item into a gun trust is after it is already an nfa item (for example a silencer or a sbr). As I understand it if a person already had an nfa item in private ownership, to get it into a gun trust they would need another stamp and form 4 transfer from the private owner to the gun trust.

Surely not every nfa item in a gun trust that started out as a title 1 firearm has had 2 stamps, one for private owner then another for the gun trust? There must be a way to take a privately owned title 1 firearm and transfer to a gun trust, then sbr it (ie one stamp instead of 2)?

Seems to me like that assignment sheet or schedule A would move ownership to the gun trust. The clarifying statement given to the ffl for the file would make the record clear for atf if they ever went back to look at the file. I might ask a gun trust guy about this and see what he says.

 

[JedB]

Good info thx. That's pretty much identical to the language the CA attorney used in the example posted above. It looks to me like the proper way to do it is have ffl put a statement in the file along with the 4473 which shows that the gun belongs to the corporation, or trust, etc. That makes sense to me because it is basically just clarifying the record for the benefit of atf.

It seems to me that if a gun trust could not own a title 1 firearm, then the only way one could get an nfa item into a gun trust is after it is already an nfa item (for example a silencer or a sbr). (1) So if a person already had an nfa item in private ownership to get it into a gun trust they would need another stamp and form 4 transfe from the private owner to the gun trust. (2) Surely not every nfa item in a gun trust that started out as a title 1 firearm has had 2 stamps, one for private owner then another for the gun trust? (3)Thee must be a way to take a privately owned title 1 firearm and transfer to a gun trust, then sbr it (ie one stamp instead of 2)?

To answer your questions (in bold) for my trust.

Question 1 - Yes, you would need to file the form 4 to transfer it directly from NFA private ownership to the NFA trust.

Question 2 - I have SBRs that started as stripped lowers, I applied for and received Form1 stamp approval and at that time they were added to to the trust, then I got them engraved and built up.
I have multiple suppressors (form 4) that were directly added to the trust from Kurt's

Question 3 - To my knowledge, no. If the item is already in NFA private ownership, you need to do the form 4 to transfer it to the trust. (The example that comes to mind is a Fleming Sear sitting in an HK94. It's in NFA Private ownership. To transfer it to the trust, you do the form 4. To then make the HK94 an SBR it would be a 3rd stamp)

 

[The Heretic]

If Russia gets pushed into an existential corner, they’re going to use nukes.

Nobody is pushing them into a corner, they stuck their nose into another country, and now that country is giving them a bloody nose. Russia still has the same 6.6 million sq miles they had before they invaded Ukraine.

 

[sobo]

Nobody is pushing them into a corner, they stuck their nose into another country, and now that country is giving them a bloody nose. Russia still has the same 6.6 million sq miles they had before they invaded Ukraine.

But ya gotta admit, if it weren't so incredibly dangerous, it surely would be laughable, watching them get their nose bloodied by the likes of Ukraine...

 

[Knobgoblin]

Hey it was a good trade! Haha



Billy in 4C



 

[The Heretic]

But ya gotta admit, if it weren't so incredibly dangerous, it surely would be laughable, watching them get their nose bloodied by the likes of Ukraine...

What is laughable is their blustering and tripping over their own feet.

 

[ilikegunspdx]

Is this the wwIII Ukraine thread?

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

Is this the wwIII Ukraine thread?

 

[sobo]

View attachment 1354086

 

[VinnieBoomBah]

View attachment 1354097

OK, just one more while we regroup on the pistol brace thing . . .

 

[GWS]

It would be laughable if it weren’t so incredibly dangerous.

If Russia gets pushed into an existential corner, they’re going to use nukes.

If anyone does that, it'll be China. They would love to get hold of Siberia.