Once again, the press says it’s a loophole allows you to do something they think should be illegal
And is wrong.
The Most Busted Name In News is going on about how the law allows companies and trusts to purchase NFA weapons without chief law enforcement officer sign off. At least I think so. They seem to be conflating background checks and CLEO sign off. Regardless, they’re very concerned that you can by safety devices without getting permission from the local sheriff. Or, more likely, that you can get them at all.
Any way, their piece is so conflated and full of misinformation that it’s mostly useless. And I honestly cannot tell if the reporters are just stupid and lazy or if someone fed them the wrong info.
Someone should ask this guy.
May 27th, 2011 at 1:30 pm
Actually, getting rid of the CLEO signoff will likely INCREASE the number of background checks done as it will limit the number of people who feel driven to create trusts. Contrary to what the article asserts, the majority of the CLEO rejections were from areas where the CLEO was less likely to have any personal knowledge of an applicant’s background or character (larger population centers) and in almost all cases no actual investigations were conducted, so the claim that the CLEO signoff made for an added level of scrutiny is specious. In reality, ATF has agreed with the NFATCA that the CLEO signoff has actually increasingly become an impediment to background checks and, according to the NFATCA guy we talked to at the NRA Metting, the change is already under review by the DOJ and will likely be accepted.
They will need to reform NFA laws even more to really make trusts unattractive as having one also allows an individual to grant access to NFA items to multiple persons. Take my buddy’s case for example: he owns a bunch of NFA items and has three sons in their teens. They boys all enjoy shooting and already have better muzzle/trigger discipline than most adults. As they grow older, it is not inconceivable that they will want to use some of their father’s firearms (they have a 300 acre farm, a 500-yard range, and we are currently clearing to build berms for some shooting pits) and they will not be able to use any of the NFA items…unless he creates a trust, names them in that trust, and either places new purchases in the trust or transfers items there.
Also, items in a trust are protected from legal issues. Consider a case where an individual who owns NFA items becomes involved in drug or alcohol abuse or is accused, rightly or wrongly, of domestic abuse. Title I weapons could be given to family members or otherwise secured where they are not accessible to the individual and liquidated if necessary. This is strictly forbidden with NFA items as the must at ALL times be accessible or in the control of the named individual ONLY. If the items are not in a trust they can be confiscated IMMEDIATELY and destroyed with no compensation, whereas items in a trust could be administrated by other members of the trust who would simply have to move to deny access to that person.
Basically, anyone who doesn’t already have a significant investment in NFA items or who plans on buying more than a few in the future has almost no reason NOT to create a trust due to the draconian and unreasonable restrictions and punitive nature of the NFA rules. This isn’t a problem created by NFA owners, it was created by Congress and ATF…owners as simply trying to protect their investments.