SBR stuff

[Shakeyfly]

I've tried using the search function here, and asking around but to be honest, I'm either getting stuff from a few years ago, to a completely unclear message. So I'm just hoping someone can help me out wade through the muddy waters of Liberal Assachusetts gun laws.

Short Barrelled Rifles. I read a lot on here of people saying put in the paperwork, pay your fee and you're fine.

Others are talking about getting a lawyer, established a FNA? Trust, and the have the trust purchase the gun? Seems complicated and expensive (I could be off on both of those statements) but walking into a store, saying I'm not buying it, my Trust is buying it, seems really weird to me.

So what is the deal on this? Is the paperwork per firearm? Registered it, pay a X amount of dollar fee and the SBR is yours?

Thanks to anyone who takes the time to educate me and fill in the gaps for me on this.

 

[bigblue]

http://blog.princelaw.com/2016/01/05/411-on-the-final-rule-in-relation-to-atf-41p/

 

[pupchow]

https://www.northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/threads/32851-MA-centric-NFA-FAQ

 

[Shakeyfly]

thanks

 

[Shakeyfly]

Can I own an SBR in MA?

Yes, you can! No special license is required to own a short barrel rifle in MA. You need only an FID or LTC, and your approved tax document, to possess one. If the rifle in question meets the MA definition of a low capacity rifle, an FID is all that's required. High capacity rifles will require an LTC-B or better.


The approved tax document... is that a form 4?

 

[soam]

There are two main ways to make and register an NFA item using a Form 1 - as an individual, and as a legal entity (corporation, trust, etc.). Historically trusts have been useful for a variety of reasons, but with the upcoming changes from ATF 41P, some of those reasons will be going away.

Here is how they work NOW:
Individual: You file a Form 1 using your own individual name. On the form you must provide photos, fingerprint cards, and get a signature from your chief of police.
Trust: You establish a trust either through a lawyer you hire or though one of the many services online that generate NFA trusts. Once the trust is established, you can use for any number of NFA items. You file a Form 1 using the trust name, and sign as a trustee of the trust. You do not need to provide photos, fingerprint cards, or get a signature from the chief of police.

Here is how things will work after July 13, 2016 (when the new ATF 41P rule goes into effect):
Both Individual and Trust Form 1s must provide photos and fingerprints. Trusts must provide them for all Responsible Persons on the trust. The requirement for chief of police signature has been eliminated, now you must only notify them.

So as you can see, going the trust route was useful to save the effort of getting photos and fingerprints done, as well as getting signatures from the chief of police. Soon there will be no need for signatures, and you will have to provide photos and fingerprints regardless of whether you file individually or as a trust.

- - - Updated - - -

Can I own an SBR in MA?

Yes, you can! No special license is required to own a short barrel rifle in MA. You need only an FID or LTC, and your approved tax document, to possess one. If the rifle in question meets the MA definition of a low capacity rifle, an FID is all that's required. High capacity rifles will require an LTC-B or better.


The approved tax document... is that a form 4?

Form 4 if you have an existing SBR transferred to you. Form 1 if you are making an SBR yourself.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

There are two main ways to make and register an NFA item using a Form 1 - as an individual, and as a legal entity (corporation, trust, etc.). Historically trusts have been useful for a variety of reasons, but with the upcoming changes from ATF 41P, some of those reasons will be going away.

Here is how they work NOW:
Individual: You file a Form 1 using your own individual name. On the form you must provide photos, fingerprint cards, and get a signature from your chief of police.
Trust: You establish a trust either through a lawyer you hire or though one of the many services online that generate NFA trusts. Once the trust is established, you can use for any number of NFA items. You file a Form 1 using the trust name, and sign as a trustee of the trust. You do not need to provide photos, fingerprint cards, or get a signature from the chief of police.

Here is how things will work after July 13, 2016 (when the new ATF 41P rule goes into effect):
Both Individual and Trust Form 1s must provide photos and fingerprints. Trusts must provide them for all Responsible Persons on the trust. The requirement for chief of police signature has been eliminated, now you must only notify them.

So as you can see, going the trust route was useful to save the effort of getting photos and fingerprints done, as well as getting signatures from the chief of police. Soon there will be no need for signatures, and you will have to provide photos and fingerprints regardless of whether you file individually or as a trust.

- - - Updated - - -



Form 4 if you have an existing SBR transferred to you. Form 1 if you are making an SBR yourself.

Or you can go 07FFL and don't bother with any of that shit. Jack.

 

[pupchow]

Or you can go 07FFL and don't bother with any of that shit. Jack.

But, what about that ITAR shit?

https://johnpierceesq.com/want-to-get-your-manufacturers-ffl-dont-forget-itar/

 

[bigblue]

ITAR kicks in once you start actually manufacturing something to sell.

 

[MAJoe]

ITAR kicks in once you start actually manufacturing something to sell.

Not according to the link posted above, but that's also all I've read on the subject.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Or you can go 07FFL and don't bother with any of that shit. Jack.

You also need to pay the SOT (Special Occupational Tax) if you make any NFA goodies. But, it is the only legal way for a non-LEO to own a silencer in MA and, unlike the AW ban, the "Dealer exemption" is triggered by the FFL, not the MA dealer's license.

 

[bigblue]

Not according to the link posted above, but that's also all I've read on the subject.

I've read the article before.
There are two key phrases here:

"Engaging in business"
"Exporting"

Most people consider the former to mean selling what you manufacture. If you aren't exporting or engaging in the business of manufacturing...

IANAL and there are always multiple interpretations.

 

[one-eyed Jack]

You also need to pay the SOT (Special Occupational Tax) if you make any NFA goodies. But, it is the only legal way for a non-LEO to own a silencer in MA and, unlike the AW ban, the "Dealer exemption" is triggered by the FFL, not the MA dealer's license.

I think that an 07 can have a suppressor in Mass without the SOT but pay the $200 tax. Correct me if I'm wrong. Jack.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I think that an 07 can have a suppressor in Mass without the SOT but pay the $200 tax. Correct me if I'm wrong. Jack.

You would likely know better than I.

The bigger issue is the ITAR registration at a minimum of $2250, although, technically, you might avoid that by being an 07 without making anything. And yes, ITAR registration is required even if you are not exporting.

 

[Shakeyfly]

Thank you everyone for taking the time and explain that to me. Very very helpful.

 

[Jmenton777]

After reading the links posted on 41p I'm a little confused on how people with a trust will now stay compliant.

Can anyone shed some light on this? Do the trust RP's now send in their fingerprints etc, if sbr is older than 24 months?

Going forward it seems clear, any new sbr made, the trustee will need to send in fingerprints etc..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bigblue]

Nothing about this is clear. Once we thought we had 41P all figured out, the ATF then went and shit on it by issuing guidance that conflicts with the written rules.

 

[soam]

After reading the links posted on 41p I'm a little confused on how people with a trust will now stay compliant.

Can anyone shed some light on this? Do the trust RP's now send in their fingerprints etc, if sbr is older than 24 months?

Going forward it seems clear, any new sbr made, the trustee will need to send in fingerprints etc..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You don't need to do anything for existing approved forms. Those are done and overwith, and no additional paperwork is needed.

After June 13th, your first new form on a trust will require fingerprints and photos for all Responsible Persons on the trust. After that form is approved, there is some sort of 24-month period where you won't need to send in new prints and photos, but I'm not sure it's yet been clarified when that period begins (submission date, pending date, approval date?)

 

[71montess]

1st think a new conservative president needs to do, reverse this shit.

 

[Bender]

.

 

[JAD]

1st think a new conservative president needs to do, reverse this shit.

This is actually a very beneficial piece of rule making for us. the vast reason why a majority of people use business entities for the acquisition of NFA regulated firearms is because their CLEO is not will to sign-off. Many of the business entities are, in a sense, alter egos, of the people who established them, purpose created to circumvent an onerous requirement. This rule eliminates that requirement while taking steps to allow local authorities preserve the rule of law and public safety (by notifying them, and allowing them to provide information to NFA branch, for example, if possession would be unlawful, etc...). There are a lot of people who have no clue how a trust works, about the responsibilities of being a trustee, etc... but use trusts to facilitate ownership. Hopefully, this will encourage more people to go the individual route.

The other reason why people use business entities is to facilitate access by multiple persons. This rule, with very minor inconvenience, helps do two things (1) reduce the potential for a business entity to be used as a vehicle to support facially lawful acquisition/ possession of a firearm by r prohibited person and (2) ensures that as many authorized users as possible have been cleared via background check.

 

[ScottS]

This is actually a very beneficial piece of rule making for us. the vast reason why a majority of people use business entities for the acquisition of NFA regulated firearms is because their CLEO is not will to sign-off. Many of the business entities are, in a sense, alter egos, of the people who established them, purpose created to circumvent an onerous requirement. This rule eliminates that requirement while taking steps to allow local authorities preserve the rule of law and public safety (by notifying them, and allowing them to provide information to NFA branch, for example, if possession would be unlawful, etc...). There are a lot of people who have no clue how a trust works, about the responsibilities of being a trustee, etc... but use trusts to facilitate ownership. Hopefully, this will encourage more people to go the individual route.

The other reason why people use business entities is to facilitate access by multiple persons. This rule, with very minor inconvenience, helps do two things (1) reduce the potential for a business entity to be used as a vehicle to support facially lawful acquisition/ possession of a firearm by r prohibited person and (2) ensures that as many authorized users as possible have been cleared via background check.

No, it's not. Please cite your source for "the vast reason why a majority of people use business entities for the acquisition of NFA regulated firearms is because their CLEO is not will to sign-off." Since we seem to be spewing assertions here, let me assert that the vast, vast, vast majority of people set up NFA trusts because they aren't interested in sharing personal info on weapons collections with the local CLEO, sign-off willing or not, and they might want someone else (wife, son/daughter, etc) to have access to the NFA item, as well. In at least one well-regarded NFA lawyer's published opinion, if you own NFA items individually, and your wife has the combination to safe where they are kept, you have granted access to an NFA item illegally. A trust negates any such entanglement.

And WTF nonsense is this? "This rule eliminates that requirement while taking steps to allow local authorities preserve the rule of law and public safety (by notifying them, and allowing them to provide information to NFA branch, for example, if possession would be unlawful, etc...)".

The NFA branch has been running background checks forever without this help, and public safety hasn't been compromised. Perhaps you can list all the times a legal NFA weapon has been used in a crime. Some factual basis for your assertion that this notification is required to "preserve the rule of law and public safety."

The new 41P is a step in the wrong direction. The CLEO change from approval to notification doesn't offset that.

 

[bigblue]

The rule sucks at every level except CLEO sign off and that only impacts a small number of people. For the vast, and I do mean VAST, majority of people, this rule is far more burdensome than the previous situation.

 

[dcmdon]

Its a mixed bag. If you have a trust it adds complexity.

If you don't have a trust, it removes the need for a CLEO sign-off to buy something you might not have been able to buy without forming a trust.

 

[JAD]

No, it's not. Please cite your source for "the vast reason why a majority of people use business entities for the acquisition of NFA regulated firearms is because their CLEO is not will to sign-off." Since we seem to be spewing assertions here, let me assert that the vast, vast, vast majority of people set up NFA trusts because they aren't interested in sharing personal info on weapons collections with the local CLEO, sign-off willing or not, and they might want someone else (wife, son/daughter, etc) to have access to the NFA item, as well. In at least one well-regarded NFA lawyer's published opinion, if you own NFA items individually, and your wife has the combination to safe where they are kept, you have granted access to an NFA item illegally. A trust negates any such entanglement.

And WTF nonsense is this? "This rule eliminates that requirement while taking steps to allow local authorities preserve the rule of law and public safety (by notifying them, and allowing them to provide information to NFA branch, for example, if possession would be unlawful, etc...)".

The NFA branch has been running background checks forever without this help, and public safety hasn't been compromised. Perhaps you can list all the times a legal NFA weapon has been used in a crime. Some factual basis for your assertion that this notification is required to "preserve the rule of law and public safety."

The new 41P is a step in the wrong direction. The CLEO change from approval to notification doesn't offset that.

When trusts took off around 2006 and 2007, the flurry of interest that surrounded them was premised on the fact that they (1) avoided the CLEO sign-off requirement and (2) did not require the associated fees the other business entities (like LLCs and corporations) did. Even in generally pro-gun areas, CLEOs who did not want to participate in the NFA process (for political, moral, or erroneous perceived liability reasons) stood in the way of people who wanted to acquire NFA items. Before that watershed when trusts came to the forefront, there were other options- but the costs and other obligations that some states imposed kept people away. Trusts avoided that. Applications spiked and have since. I was very frequent poster on a class-3 forum around that time. I remember very well what was happening and what people's attitudes were.

That reasoning does resonate with some people. As somebody who lives in a state where my CLEO and State Police are notified every time I buy any gun, I don't get the paranoia. Especially with NFA regulated firearms- which are individually registered with the federal government. Regardless, that reasoning tends (in what I have seen) to be a minority opinion that has gotten more popular recently- especially since trusts are seen as the default vehicle for NFA by so many.

That's a true statement. And that reason to is becoming more popular. That said, I didn't see that reasoning really coming to light until several years after trusts got popular. That said, as many times as there are people who set trusts up to allow different people to possess the firearm on behalf of the trust, there are also a lot of people whose trusts include a singular trustee.

The CLEO may have information that a criminal history check may not have. A CLEO, via local records, may have information that an individual is statutorily prohibited from possessing a firearm despite lack of a record. For example, an individual may never have been arrested or convicted of a drug crime, but may be known to police as an unlawful user of controlled substances. Similarly, local police may also have information about mental health disqualifications that have not been reported to the feds by relevant state agencies. Also, a CLEO may have knowledge of pending investigations that may be applicable to the approval process (e.g. knowledge which would suggest likely unlawful use)

 

[dcmdon]

I agree.

In CT, I helped a number of people get set up with a trust after their CLEO refused.

Most of these people wanted to own a silencer or a SBR. Both relatively low value items. (An SBR'd lower nearly worthless)

The more serious collectors, those with MGs or other items of serious value, a trust is a necessity because of potential bequeathment issues.

 

[ScottS]

When trusts took off around 2006 and 2007, the flurry of interest that surrounded them was premised on the fact that they (1) avoided the CLEO sign-off requirement and (2) did not require the associated fees the other business entities (like LLCs and corporations) did. Even in generally pro-gun areas, CLEOs who did not want to participate in the NFA process (for political, moral, or erroneous perceived liability reasons) stood in the way of people who wanted to acquire NFA items. Before that watershed when trusts came to the forefront, there were other options- but the costs and other obligations that some states imposed kept people away. Trusts avoided that. Applications spiked and have since. I was very frequent poster on a class-3 forum around that time. I remember very well what was happening and what people's attitudes were.

That reasoning does resonate with some people. As somebody who lives in a state where my CLEO and State Police are notified every time I buy any gun, I don't get the paranoia. Especially with NFA regulated firearms- which are individually registered with the federal government. Regardless, that reasoning tends (in what I have seen) to be a minority opinion that has gotten more popular recently- especially since trusts are seen as the default vehicle for NFA by so many.

That's a true statement. And that reason to is becoming more popular. That said, I didn't see that reasoning really coming to light until several years after trusts got popular. That said, as many times as there are people who set trusts up to allow different people to possess the firearm on behalf of the trust, there are also a lot of people whose trusts include a singular trustee.

The CLEO may have information that a criminal history check may not have. A CLEO, via local records, may have information that an individual is statutorily prohibited from possessing a firearm despite lack of a record. For example, an individual may never have been arrested or convicted of a drug crime, but may be known to police as an unlawful user of controlled substances. Similarly, local police may also have information about mental health disqualifications that have not been reported to the feds by relevant state agencies. Also, a CLEO may have knowledge of pending investigations that may be applicable to the approval process (e.g. knowledge which would suggest likely unlawful use)

Four things.

1. WTF is with the colors? They don't even display on my iPad, and those that do actually hurt to look at.
2. Anecdotal evidence (at best) doesn't support a statement establishing the motive of the "vast majority" of NFA Trust owners.
3. NFA Trusts have been around since the NFA was established in 1934. There is no documented "problem" with CLEOs not knowing trustee names/identities. Having the ATF know what my registered NFA weapons are and having some locally-elected possible buffoon know them are two wildly different things.
4. Last, and this is probably me just being petulant, but I've decided my new policy from now on is to ignore any comments by non-green contributors. If you don't care enough about the site to support it, "I got nothing for you."

 

[JAD]

I agree.

In CT, I helped a number of people get set up with a trust after their CLEO refused.

Most of these people wanted to own a silencer or a SBR. Both relatively low value items. (An SBR'd lower nearly worthless)

The more serious collectors, those with MGs or other items of serious value, a trust is a necessity because of potential bequeathment issues.

Without giving legal advice- a properly drafted will could be used as a tool for estate planning with respect to individually owned property. A serious collector looking to protect truly high value items would want to have a good sit-down with a lawyer to discuss benefits and concerns of different vehicles and make an informed decision about what is best for their specific situation.

 

[MAJoe]

1. WTF is with the colors? They don't even display on my iPad, and those that do actually hurt to look at.

His colored responses match to the color he added to the quote.

 

[JAD]

Four things.

1. WTF is with the colors? They don't even display on my iPad, and those that do actually hurt to look at.
2. Anecdotal evidence (at best) doesn't support a statement establishing the motive of the "vast majority" of NFA Trust owners.
3. NFA Trusts have been around since the NFA was established in 1934. There is no documented "problem" with CLEOs not knowing trustee names/identities. Having the ATF know what my registered NFA weapons are and having some locally-elected possible buffoon know them are two wildly different things.


4. Last, and this is probably me just being petulant, but I've decided my new policy from now on is to ignore any comments by non-green contributors. If you don't care enough about the site to support it, "I got nothing for you."

In response to point 3:

Despite trusts being a legal option since 1934, business entity registrations (of all types) were were fairly uncommon through the year 2000. In 2000, approximately 1/8 of forms 1 or 4 were to corporations or other business entities. Before trusts many SOTs would encourage their customers who could not get a sign-off to form an LLC. Until Atty. Bob Howell's research on the use of revocable living trusts became well known in early to mid 2006, they were pretty much not in use for NFA purposes. As Bob Howell described in an article published in Small Arms Review (a well known NFA enthusiast publication) in 2007, a major drawback to LLCs and CORPs for residents of many states are the filing fees and taxes that go along with them (he, for example, described somebody who was paying $150 per year to maintain a corporation that owned a simple suppressor). While NFA registrations to business entities picked up greatly after the year 2000, the real spike came after the discovery and confirmation regarding the acceptability of trusts that Howell did. In recent years, about 1/3 of form 1 and 4 registrations were to corporations or other business entities, mostly trusts.