midtennchip

That section (and the specific wording is at the bottom of Page 19) is talking about the Proposed Rule.  The Final Rule changed what was originally proposed for CLEO signatures.  If you start looking at Page 25, you can see the ATF's analysis of the Proposed Rule and the responses they received to the Proposed Rule.  Page 32, under the Department's Response, it is clear that the ATF is changing from the proposed CLEO certification to a CLEO notice.   Yes, if you don't read federal rule making documents often, they can be hard to follow, particularly when they are 248 pages long.

Just on the Trust issue, there is nothing required for most Trusts before the effective date of the Final Rule.  I posted a couple of things in the NFA section on the issue, though.  Once the Final Rule becomes effective, then there are some things that may need to be done regarding adding or removing Trustees.  As a general rule, if you are willing to provide the Responsible Person information for all of your Trustees, the Trust itself likely does not need to be amended.   The other thing is that, even once the Final Rule is effective, it MIGHT not last that long.  We'll see after the election.  I won't hold my breath waiting, but several candidates are claiming they will undo the Rules being implemented in connection with the Executive Order.  

  Generally, this is a decent review of 41F.  However, I have read several summaries from some pretty good lawyers and, after my full morning of reviewing 41F, I think there's more to the Beneficiary issue than most are explaining.   First, to figure out who is a Responsible Person, you HAVE to look at the provisions of the Trust.  Trustees and Settlors/Grantors are automatically Responsible Persons under the Rule.  However, Beneficiaries may be Responsible Persons, as well.   The key is whether the Beneficiaries have any powers in the Trust.  Most of the basic NFA Trusts I have seen do not give Beneficiaries powers that would make them Responsible Persons.  However, many of the "dynasty trusts" or "perpetual trusts" do give the Beneficiaries enough power to make them Responsible Persons.  To know for sure, you would need to look at the powers granted in the Trust itself.   Second, even with the Responsible Persons form that will be required, it appears that the requirement only applies to Responsible Persons who are involved with the Trust at the time the Form 1 or Form 4 is filed.  Pages 208 - 209 of the Final Rule indicate that the ATF will not review Responsible Persons who are added after the tax stamp is approved.   Third, I think the "effective date" issue is a bit more gray than this particular attorney suggests.  The Final Rule does say the Rule will not be retroactively applied.  But, it does not say that applications filed before the effective date are grandfathered.   What it says is that applications that are in "pending status" before the effective date will be grandfathered.  So, I would suggest not waiting until July to file a Form 1 or Form 4.  I would want to get it in a least a couple of weeks (or more) early to make sure it gets to "pending status" (not just postmarked) before the effective date.

Has anyone watched to show "Cartel Land" on A&E? It stared at 9pm tonight (Central Time). I've only seen one segment, but it shoes the Autodefensas (a paramilitary Org in Mexico that is trying to fight the cartels) being disarmed by the military, but the townspeople come out in force and make the military return the weapons. Really interesting, if it is real (not staged).

As of 5:30 this afternoon, there is an updated report regarding Obama's upcoming executive actions that indicates 41P will be implemented. The report has no details on exactly what the Final Rule will look like, but it appears it will be substantially similar to the Proposed Rule. With this report, I would expect a Final Rule to be published by the end of January. https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/2016/1/4/obama-confident-gun-executive-actions-are-entirely-consistent-with-second-amendment/2 I would think this is both good news and bad news: 1. Obviously, we would prefer 41P not be implemented at all; but 2. Since some Republican presidential candidates are already saying they will overturn the executive actions on guns, there is a better chance to have 41P withdrawn if a Republican is elected. Having 41P tied into other, more high-profile restrictions, can only help get it overturned.

There are a couple of issues here: 1. Zoning is the big issue. Just explaining it to the zoning people won't be enough in most cases. Either it is allowed or it's not. For example, Brentwood has a specific ordinance prohibiting any business dealing with gun powder or explosives in a residential zone. Other municipalities have similar ordinances, so you just have to check your local zoning laws. 2. While the agents you've been talking to might approve a home-based FFL, I am familiar with several people who have applied for home-based FFLs in the last 3 years and been denied solely on the basis of not having a store front. Zoning wasn't the problem with those. It was the PARTICULAR ATF agent involved. Sure, the agent shouldn't have denied it, but did. Those people chose not to fight it. 3. Once you sign a tax return showing that you have a for-profit business, particularly if you are writing off the purchases of guns, you have already admitted that you are buying those guns for resell. The number of guns sold is just an easy way to PROVE that you are in business (and need an FFL). But if they have other proof (like a tax return), they don't need to rely on the number sold. If you want to investigate getting an FFL, do it. Just costs time and a little bit of money. However, if you decide to proceed without an FFL, ask yourself if saving the tax money is worth it. If all you are wanting to do is refinish stocks, there have been several other options suggested that might peak your interest. This is NOT specific legal advice, just some potential issues I would look into if it were me.

It has been a BUSY few weeks, so I am a bit behind on these updates. Many of you already know that the ATF has pushed to action date on 41P to January. However, most industry experts expect 41P to become effective in early 2016. The Prince Law Firm in Pennsylvania is preparing to litigate the issue if 41P is implemented. They are looking for donations. Here's a link to their page: http://firearmsindustryconsultinggroup.com/atf-41p/ To help, our firm will be donating $25 for every NFA Trust we draft through January 31st. If you already have a trust, I would suggest taking a look at the information on the link above and consider making a donation. While 41P will not take away many of the benefits of a trust, it will make filing a tax stamp application more difficult.

Nothing was published today regarding 41P. Rumor has it that the action date is going to be backed up until at least January. However, in trying to confirm that this morning, it appears the ATF's page for 41P status is down. When the page is reposted, hopefully there will be more information available.

The holidays seem to be the preferred time for this Administration to issue new Federal Regulations.  So, this Friday will be the date that they issue many new Final Regs and Proposed Regs.   http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/23/obama-quietly-releases-plans-for-2224-regs-ahead-of-turkey-day/   So, what does that mean for 41P?  We really don't know (yet).  Nothing has changed on the ATF and DOJ website regarding its intent to publish something:   http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201510&RIN=1140-AA43   The Agenda published by the Administration for this coming Friday also still has 41P on it, but there are no details (just a list of items to be published).  So I would anticipate some news about it then.  However, we will not know what (if anything) is "final" until it is actually published in the Federal Register.  There was a proposal voted on by the House (HR 2578) to effectively end 41P, but it appears that proposal never got to the Senate floor for a vote.  So, as of now, it is still in the hands of the Administration.   So, the most up-to-date information is to watch the Federal Register this coming Friday.        

There are several things contributing to the variations. As mentioned above, the sheer number of e-file submissions has a lot to do with it. However, the ATF lawyer who spoke at the NRA convention stated that the ATF has moved examiners around to take care of backlogs on several occasions.

Anybody dealt with K-Var before? I pre-ordered the Scorpion Evo SBR Kit and must have gotten skipped over. After almost 4 months, they didn't get enough kits for all the pre-orders, but supposedly filled orders by order date. I clearly got skipped without a phone call or email. Just wondering if others have had an experience with them.

The Sixth Circuit (which covers Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee) just posted new Pattern Jury Instructions on their website.  I thought some of you would find this information interesting.  If you are not familiar with Pattern Jury Instructions, they are essentially "pre-approved" versions of the instructions that a judge will read to the jury immediately before the jury leaves to deliberate in a case.  These instructions are intended to tell the jury what the law is and how the jurors are supposed to view the evidence.  Unfortunately, there are only a few firearms crimes for which there are Pattern Jury Instructions, so there's not much here for more specific issues, like NFA-related crimes.   The firearms crimes are in Chapter 12 on this page:   http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/internet/crim_jury_insts.htm   You might also look at the Defenses section (Chapter 6), and particularly the instructions on Coercion/Duress, Self-Defense, and Justification.     Keep in mind these only relate to Federal crimes and have no relation to crimes under Tennessee laws.  The "elements" of a crime under Tennessee law are different and the information in these Pattern Jury Instructions may not be applicable in a state court.  However, they might help you understand what the court will require from a prosecutor to prove a particular crime.

This is also posted in the Feedback area, but it probably belongs here.  I am one of the coaches for the Franklin 12U all-star baseball team that won the Tennessee state championship on Tuesday night.  Very proud of the boys, but we are now headed to Live Oak, Florida for the Southeast Regional Tournament.     While I know some of you may have strong feelings about making (or not making) donations for this type of "cause," David indicated that it would be okay for me to post the GoFundMe campaign link.  Just a bit of information about WHY we are even asking for donations:   1.  While most of the families are paying their own way without donations, we have a few families for whom the additional expenses are difficult.  I know, it's Williamson County, but we do have families in Williamson County who can't drop $1,500 or more for a baseball tournament in Florida on a week's notice.   2.  We won the state tournament this past Tuesday and have to be in Florida next Tuesday, so to say it was an unplanned expense is accurate, particularly for the families we are trying to help.   3.  We have several boys who will not be traveling with their parents, either because of the expense and/or because the parents cannot miss work.   4.  While we could do a car wash, yard work, etc., we only have a few days to pull this off.  With the holiday weekend and rain in the forecast all week, we are just trying to piece this together.   The families going on the trip will cover any costs that are incurred, so please don't think any of the boys will not get to go without the donations.  The other families will take care of it, if necessary.  We are just trying to make it a little easier for those who need a little help.  If you feel inclined to help out a little, it would be much appreciated.     gofund.me/yecvtk   Thanks for even looking!!

  Generally, I agree with you.  But this is a VERY quick turnaround.  We won the state tournament on Tuesday night.  We have to be in Florida on Tuesday afternoon.  Saturday, the best day to do a car wash, is the 4th of July.  It is supposed to rain all week before we leave.   Even if we could arrange to do it in 2 days, I doubt we'd have much success.   Our parents are paying around $1,500 (an expense they were not anticipating) per family to go.  Some of us are missing work AND the income that goes with it (I don't bill hours, I don't get paid -- vacation time just means no income).  We have one player who needed to replace a set of expensive glasses (which our team paid for) because they were broken in a previous tournament.  He played without them for 2 weeks.  Another has moved out of Franklin in the last month to save a couple hundred bucks a month on rent.  So, we have some people who legitimately don't have the money, but also don't want to prevent their kids from having this type of opportunity.     The kids didn't get to this point without hard work.  It was a different kind of work than you have in mind, but it has been hard work.  I have personally paid over $3,000 towards the expenses of the team (not my own son's expenses) we've already incurred and didn't ask anyone (including our parents) to pitch in.  I do it for the kids.  If this were a different situation, with a few weeks notice and the ability to advertise a car wash, or yard work, or any other "work," we would do it.  But given the situation, I am just trying to help out a few families who otherwise can't afford the expense.  Most of our families will not receive a dime of the money, so they are not begging for anything.  However, I would like to help a few families that probably wouldn't ask for themselves.   I understand why you feel the way you do and in many cases, I agree with you.  Hope I didn't come across too badly for responding.  For those who might want to help a little, it would be appreciated.   gofund.me/yecvtk

I don't know if this is against the rules or not, so I thought I would check.  My son's baseball team (I help coach) won the Tennessee State Cal Ripken 12U Championship this week and is headed to the Southeast Regional Tournament in Florida.  We have a few parents that need some financial help with the travel expenses, in addition to some other "needs" that our other parents have already helped cover.  We have a fundraising site, but not sure if I can post a link to it on TGO.     Most of our parents are perfectly capable of paying their own way, but we have a few who could use a little help.   Thanks, Chip  

I went to the seminar last Friday. I, too, was a bit surprised by some of the comments. He did make a big deal about fill-in the blank trusts. Glad someone else posted it (I didn't want to come across as being self-serving). Another interesting conversation was how trusts are processed. Generally, the agents handle several hundred a day. If there is a question of validity, they walk it over the one of two (yes, just two) attorneys on staff at the WV office. Bill Ryan (who gave the speech) and another attorney (she was there, but I didn't meet her). Ryan genuinely seemed helpful. Very nice during individual conversations after the seminar. But it does appear that he is in charge of the response to all of the 41P comments. 41P is not dead, but certainly doesn't appear to be moving very fast. There were a number of specific issues raised about 41P and Ryan's answer was esssentially "we have figured that out yet." One very specific issue (seemed to be a hot button issue for Nevada and Arizona lawyers) was how a Responsible Person could possibly get a CLEO signature if he lives in, for example, San Francisco, even if he will NEVER bring the item into the state of California. The example was a trustee living in CA with all the NFA items being held by a second trustee in NV. The answer was "we don't know yet, but we (the ATF) aren't sure the CA CLEO would even be needed." So, I have no idea what the ATF's final position on CLEO signatures will be.

OhShoot and Dave have it right. The issue of showing a gun is complicated. If you are in a situation where pulling th eague stops the threat (or reduces it), shooting is probably going too be too far. However, like very thing else, it depends on exact circumstances.

The short answer is no, there is no definition to point you to other than "reasonable." It depends on the specific circumstances and (hopefully none of us have to get to this point) what the jury BELIEVES was "reasonable" under those circumstances. There are no hard and fast rules. In fact, what someone believes is reasonable right this minute could easily change from time to time. I think with news reports of groups of kids attacking people randomly, more people would find self-defense more reasonable in that situation today than they did just a year or two ago. It is a burden that gun owners must deal with.

The court's opinion is well-written and pretty understandable for most people. If this kind of thing interests you, I recommend reading it. The gist of the opinion is that the added level of an in-state FFL is not "narrowly tailored" to prevent handgun crime. The court specifically points out that the law was written in 1968, before instant background checks. Court siad it didn't believe a second FFL (one in the purchaser's own state) was any better at preventing purchases by dangerous people than any other FFL (including one in another state). This court applied "strict scrutiny" (the highest level) to its analysis. I suspect this will be the main issue on appeal. However, there are other circuits (namely the 4th) that have found that plaintiffs like the ones in this case didn't even have standing to bring the lawsuit. If the 5th circuit falls in line with the 4th, this case could be overturned without even looking at the actual merits of the case. It will be interesting.

I think OhShoot has it right. Theoretically, the case is binding only as to those parties. The reason is that a district court opinion is not binding on any other court (since a district court has no courts below it that are bound by its decisions). I have even seen contradictory opinions in the same district fairly regularly. But even if it was binding within the entire Northern District of Texas, the opinion declares unconstitutional an interstate transaction (by definition, one that would involve people or entities in at least 2 districts). So, no real way to enforce this. The opinion supposedly enjoins the defendants from enforcing the law, so I would guess that the defendants will file an appeal and seek to delay the injunction until the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals rules (probably 6 to 9 months, or longer). I am still reading the opinion, so I will likely post some commentary on the ruling itself later.

I hadn't watched TWD on regular TV until tonight. I picked it up since Christmas and watched all previous episodes on Netflix. Seemed to be ALOT of commercials tonight. At one point, there was less than 4 minutes of show between commercials. Is that normal?

If you like this show, I would also suggest taking the time to watch the John Adams mini series done by HBO several years ago.

I have not filed a claim, but the link below is a claim from from their website.  It does indicate that a receipt is needed, or statement regarding a gift or inheritance.  However, the policy itself (second link) does not mention it.  So, there certainly could be an issue if you don't have a receipt.  However, I would suggest that you video or photograph each gun and accessory that you have scheduled on the policy.  Do so in a manner that will show the serial number.   http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/forms/ArmsCare_ArmsCare_Plus_Claim_Process.pdf     http://www.locktonaffinity.com/nrains/forms/ArmsCare_Plus_Firearms_Liability_Certificate_of_Insurance.pdf

  Ron, no offense intended here.  But PLEASE don't just find a trust book or basic trust and use it for NFA purposes.  That is just asking for problems.  NFA trusts (if done correctly) have provisions that do not exist in many boilerplate forms (and would not be appropriate for many trusts that don't hold NFA items).  NFA items have very specific issues that don't exist when a trust holds real estate, stocks, bonds, etc.   Whether someone wants to use a trust service like the OP asked about or use an attorney, I understand the thought.  But there is a HUGE difference between an individual filing a pro se pleading in court versus completing a trust.  If a pro se litigant files something inappropriately or incorrectly, the court will generally give that person a chance to fix the problem and/or get a lawyer.  With a trust, the damage is already done before anyone ever points out the problem.  In the case of NFA trusts, it could easily be a federal criminal mistake.

No, a lawyer is not required to do a will. However, it is almost shocking how often we see wills that are improperly executed. There are basically two (2) types of wills, a holographic will (meaning one completely in the person's handwriting) and a formal will. A formal will MUST be executed EXACTLY as required by statute. But people either (i) don't know what is required or (ii) take a short cut. When a formal will is used, the court must assume that the will means EXACTLY what it says. The courts do not try to figure out what the person meant. Now, as to the OP, I don't have a referral I can give. Patrick Stegall (used to advertise here, but not sure if he still does) could probably point you in the right direction.