Jump to content

midtennchip

Members
  • Content Count

    629
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Feedback

    100%

Community Reputation

210 Excellent

About midtennchip

  • Rank
    TGO Member
  • Birthday 12/01/1970

Profile Information

  • Location
    Franklin,TN
  • Occupation
    Attorney

Miscellaneous

  • Carry Weapon #1
    Kahr PM9
  • Carry Weapon #2
    HK P30

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Dave's situation is pretty common, actually. If you know you don't have a disqualifying conviction, it is typically one of two things: (i) a charge that is not showing a disposition (like Dave's) or (ii) someone with a similar name is popping up on your record. The first is much more common, particularly if an arrest occurred many years ago. As many states began computerized reporting, they spent time entering old records and mistakes in entries became pretty common. On a similar note, I have seen several instances where someone was involuntarily committed for a mental evaluation at some point in the past. Sometimes those show up with a teenage who was having trouble at home, other times it is more serious. However, after the Virginia Tech shooting, those things started getting reported to the FBI too. Errors showed up in those records, as well. In both cases, you HAVE to deal with the problem in the court where the charge/entry occurred. I get several calls a month from people wanting to fix the issue in TN, even though the charge/entry is from another state. TN courts have no authority to fix any of that stuff unless it is in TN. Unfortunately, even when it is a TN charge/entry, TN's laws for fixing some of these issues are not great and can't be dealt with as easily as other states (for example, Washington state and Ohio - among others - that have specific laws allowing corrections, expungements, or restoration of rights). If your issue does not actually prohibit you and cannot be fixed otherwise (like someone else's record showing up on your record), there is a federal program (called the Voluntary Appeal File or VAF) that will set up a unique identifier number (sort of a SSN for firearms purposes). Those typically resolve these issues when nothing else will.
  2. I don't post much anymore, but I will add my 2 cents on this. First, I am affiliated with both ACLDN and USCCA, so take it for what it's worth. 1. I know that ACLDN has not had any claims. I am not sure if USCCA has paid any claims or not. However, there are two (possibly more) explanations: (i) people who would purchase this type of coverage are much less likely to get into a situation that would require coverage; and (ii) the number of prosecutions for true self-defense shootings are very small. So, most people looking into this coverage (or actually purchasing it) are very unlikely to need it. However, if you do ever need it, just like any other insurance coverage. We buy all kinds of insurance that would rarely be used. 2. The biggest differences in these coverages are (i) coverage for civil liability and (ii) payment of "compensation while in court." Some of the lower cost coverages provide cost of civil defense, but not for a judgment. If the civil judgment coverage is important to you, you should probably check with your homeowners and/or umbrella policy insurer to see if you already have coverage on that. Many of those insurers exclude such coverage, but not all do (particularly if the shooting is just "negligent" or accidental). Virtually no coverage will cover intentional act and you'll likely be in jail, anyway. The only other major difference is expert witnesses and their fees. Experts will be expensive. I've never had an expert witness in any case that cost less than $15k. Getting access to the "best" experts would also be a big plus. Some of those coverages advertise having access to certain experts.
  3. Couple of things:   1. 41P and 41F are one in the same.  The "P" designation is the Proposed regulation and it changes to "F" once the regulation becomes Final.  In this case, 41F is slightly different than 41P, but when people refer to them, they are really talking about the same thing.  Attorneys refer to 41F now because that is the text that matters.   2.  The 2-year lookback period refers to subsection ( c ) of the Final Rule.  Under subsection ( c ), there is an exception to the need to file fingerprints and photos with a trust.  The exception was this:        Once a trust obtained a tax stamp under the new Final Rule (i.e., by providing the fingerprints and photos), the trust would not have to re-submit fingerprints and photos for any additional tax stamp application submitted within 2 years of the date of the approval IF THE RESPONSIBLE PERSONS HAD NOT CHANGED.  The idea being that a person's fingerprints and photo is not likely to change significantly in a 2-year period.   What is being referred to in the Prince Law article is that the ATF appears to be taking the position that the exception really doesn't mean anything and that trusts would have to provide fingerprints and photos every time.  The Final Rule itself doesn't say that, though.   Bottom Line:   1.  if you have a trust, you MUST provide fingerprints and photos for each Responsible Person with the first tax stamp application you submit on or after July 13, 2016. 2.  If 41F is actually followed, the trust would not have to provide fingerprints and photos more than once every 2 years (regardless of how many tax stamps it obtains in that 2-year period). 3.  If 41F is NOT followed (which is what the article says), the trust would have to provide fingerprints and photos with every tax stamp application, regardless of whether or not the trust had been changed in the past 2 years.   Until July 13th, there still is no reason to submit fingerprints or photos.  If a trust NEVER applies for another tax stamp on or after July 13, 2016, the trust will NOT have to go back and submit fingerprints and photos for tax stamps already in process or approved before July 13th.   Hope that helps.
  4. That is true, in and of itself. However, I would point out that the NFA action (41P) is binding law because it was an actual Regulation change, not just guidance. He also directed the Social Security Administration to change its regulations regarding reporting of disqualifying conditions to the FBI. Once the SSA goes through the rule publishing requirements, that would also become law. However, those do appear to be the only binding changes in Obama's actions. All others, including the FFL guidance, are not binding.
  5. Sam, be aware that you will need different adapters for a fixed barrel gun (like the mp5) and a tilt barrel gun (like most semi-auto handguns). Many suppressor a only come with a recoil booster adapter (for tilt barrel guns). You would have to buy an adapter for the fixed barrel gun. See this blog entry that explains adapters: http://blog.silencershop.com/mounting-pistolcaliber-suppressors/ I agree with the above that buying online doesn't save that much money and may take a slight bit longer. If a local shop has the model you want in stock for a similar price, probably a good idea to buy it local.
  6. From all I have seen, these FFL "clarifications" will not affect the average gun owner.  If you have a gun in your own collection that you decide you don't want, there should be no reason you cannot still sell that gun without having to conduct a background check.  Same as it has been for years.  Most of us have nothing to worry about.   However, the things that do concern me are the AG's statements regarding the Justice Department's intent to prosecute some "marginal cases" (in the words of the AG).  I would expect somewhere in the next 12 months to see some guy arrested and charged who has sold a few guns at a gun show (or multiple gun shows) or has posted multiple guns for sale on the internet (since that seems to be a big issue for this Administration).  I suspect the AG intends to push the limit of this and make an example of somebody.     Ultimately, it is the "facts and circumstances" issue.  Very similar to trying to define justified self-defense.  There is no bright line.  The closer you get to the gray area, the more risk you take.  The more guns you sell, the worse it looks.  The more times to sell (i.e., you sold gun or guns at multiple gun shows), the worse it looks.  Best bet is to stay away from that gray area as best you can.  One gun here and there shouldn't be an issue.
  7. It has to be in "pending status," whatever that means, by the effective date. It does not have to be approved by the effective date. If you file a Form 1 thru efile, the system shows you if the application is in pending status or not, but there is no clear criteria for it. Generally, it appears that once the ATF receives the Form 1 or Form 4 and enters it into their system, it is "pending."
  8.   Not sure I agree with that.  Co-Trustees generally have the power to possess the NFA items in an NFA Trust (certainly in every one I have ever seen).  The Final Rule states that for a trust, a Responsible Person includes "any person who has the capacity to exercise such power and possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority . . . to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm . . ."     Maybe his client gets away with not sending in the Form, fingerprints, and photos on a co-trustee, but I really don't think that's how the ATF will view it.   He seems to think that "direct the management and policies" of the trust is going to avoid almost all of the issues with 41F.  From his point of view, there appears to be no downside to 41P, other than the CLEO notice.  However, I just don't think that is correct, given the text of the Rule and the intended purpose (i.e., to require background checks).
  9. 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.
  10. 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.  
  11.   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.
  12. 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).
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.

The Fine Print

Tennessee Gun Owners (TNGunOwners.com) is the premier Community and Discussion Forum for gun owners, firearm enthusiasts, sportsmen and Second Amendment proponents in the state of Tennessee and surrounding region.

TNGunOwners.com (TGO) is a presentation of Enthusiast Productions. The TGO state flag logo and the TGO tri-hole "icon" logo are trademarks of Tennessee Gun Owners. The TGO logos and all content presented on this site may not be reproduced in any form without express written permission. The opinions expressed on TGO are those of their authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the site's owners or staff.

Before engaging in any transaction of goods or services on TGO, all parties involved must know and follow the local, state and Federal laws regarding those transactions. TGO makes no claims, guarantees or assurances regarding any such transactions.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to the following.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Guidelines