midtennchip

It depends on what you mean by "good after death." Trusts come in several different varies, but the vast majority of clients are only trying to do the minimum to comply with ATF regulations. In those cases, $2000 is way out of the ballpark. If you are trying to protect the trust assets from creditors, create a "perpetual" trust, or address any number of other true estate planning issues, then $2000 is probably a good starting point.

Unfortunately, it does not work that way. It is not the timing of the creation of the trust that is important, it is the date of the filing of the Form 1 or Form 4. Each Form is evaluated individually, so getting the trust completed AND filing the Form 1 or Form 4 is what is important. If the proposed regulations actually go into effect, those Forms that were filed before the effective date may be grandfathered in (although there is no guarantee of that). In any event, if someone wants to set up a trust and submit a Form 1 or Form 4, getting started sooner rather than later is probably a good idea.

My brother-in-law sent my young kids gift cards for Christmas. He also included second gift cards for each kid to give away. He asked that each kid write him a letter to tell him about their encounter when they gave it away. Great lesson for the kids and they really enjoyed it. Just let people enjoy the act of giving. If you haven't made a decision yet, there's always the layaway angel idea. Just pay the money on someone's account.

Contact Vortex. They have great customer service. If there is something wrong with it, they can typically pinpoint the issue. Over the phone. If you end up having to send it to them, I a sure they will take care of you.

Generally, yes. It is common in the regulatory world. "Close enough for government work," I guess.

The "00" indicates the month of June (ie: an unspecified date in June). Yes, it has been there a little while.

I haven't seen this posted yet, but I have not been on the forum much lately. In any event, the proposed regulation changes regarding NFA trusts has been updated. Specifically, the "final action" target date has been posted. This is not a hard and fast date, but it does indicate that the BATFE is not moving quite as fast as some of us feared. Whether or not the date stays as June is anybody's guess. http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201310&RIN=1140-AA43

The ATF hired several new examiners and made some other moves in the West Virginia office. We were not seeing these issues before the new hires started working trust applications. My opinion is that a number of these problems stem from new examiners who just are not familiar with trusts. Different states have different terminology for legal documents and trusts are no exception. The term "declaration of trust" is just another name for the trust document. We just don't typically use that title in Tennessee. But if an examiner has been looking at "declarations of trust" and then sees one without that title, there's a good chance of a problem popping up simply because of inexperience. Add to that the current negative environment within the ATF.

You are going to need some legal help, so I would suggest contacting the legal plan and see what they can offer. First, your mother does not have the ability (yet) to deed the property to you. She does not have the deed in her name. That needs to be handled first. Then you can look into her deeding the property to you. You are probably talking about a quit claim deed. Not really sure what "protections" you are thinking about, though. If you become the owner, you would be responsible for taxes. Depending on where the property is, that could be several levels of taxes (city, county, etc.). Beyond that, you would be responsible for upkeep if you have a tenant. But that begs many questions regarding whether you charge rent, whether mom keeps a life estate, or any other methods of dealing with the tenant issue. This is NOT something a real estate agent is going to be able to work through. You need to contact an attorney and, at a minimum, need to get the deed into your mother's name.

Not sure if you are talking about Williamson County Schools or Franklin Special School District. The FAQ for WCS covers it: http://www.wcs.edu/transportation/faq.htm Doesn't appear to be such a requirement. FSSD does not appear to mention it at all: http://www.fssd.org/images/stories/pdfs/Forms/Transportation/Bus_Rules_Regulations.pdf

I realize this thread is really about Obamacare, but there appears to be some misunderstandings about how employer health coverage is priced. This is an area I have practiced in for many years, even ran several big employers' self-funded plans for several years. If you have coverage through an employer that is larger than 100-200 employees, the likelihood that Obamacare has much effect on your rates this year is very small. Employers of any real size get pricing that is mostly driven by the amount of healthcare claims paid on members of its group. Every year, the employer actually sees what its claims are (broken down in GREAT detail) and how those claims compare to the prior year's claims. From there, it is a simple mathematical exercise. Yes, that is pretty simplistic, but that is it in a nutshell. There are differences in profit margins, administrative expenses, and provider discounts from one carrier to another, but claims (and more appropriately, expected claims in the future) is the ultimate driver of premiums. The other factor is the amount of the premium paid by the employer. If the employer reduces its contribution (or doesn't increase it to cover the higher premiums), you have that adding to your own cost.

The details of the Tennessee statute are in the opinion linked above. Look at pages 11-12. It starts around that point. However, I think the dissent at the end of the opinion could be the reason the SCOTUS took the case.

According to both the Federal District Court for Western Tennessee and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, Tennessee's misdemeanor domestic assault statute "is not categorically a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" that rises to the level of violence necessary to prohibit gun possession. There is another Sixth Circuit case, United States v. McMurray, that found that Tennessee's aggravated assault statute also did not rise to the level of violence necessary, either. In essence, the Courts are saying that these Tennessee statutes criminalize very low level "physical force" that was not intended to be a gun prohibition conviction under Federal law. Tennessee allows conviction for simple touching that causes injury, without using "strong physical force." Basically, there appears to be a difference between what the federal law calls "violent" and what Tennessee calls "violent." Here's the Sixth Circuit opinion: http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/12a0344p-06.pdf

Yes, State Farm is doing it, as well.

Unfortunately, not correct. An unlicensed person (namely, the friend from Michigan) can only sell to another unlicensed person if that unlicensed person is a resident of the same state. Read BOTH of the first two answers from the Q&A below: http://www.atf.gov/content/firearms-frequently-asked-questions-unlicensed-persons#gca-unlicensed-acquire

I have an '87 Grand Wagoneer, if that counts. Intended as a suburban queen, but we haven't dedicated the resources to fix it up. Probably need to sell it to someone interested in a nice project, but haven't put the resources (time) into selling it, either.

I am in for one.

Having argued legislative intent in the Tennessee Court of Appeals recently (and won, thankfully), I will try to explain. Wheelgunner is essentially correct. Where a statute is clear on its face, there is no need to look to legislative intent. Where a statute is not clear, then the courts will look to legislative intent. Problem with legislative intent is that you can't get the "intent" of a big body of people. What individual legislators say only helps define what the legislature was arguing about during the passing of the statute. As a result, I usually just helps the courts eliminate possible interpretations. Essentially, it becomes a process of elimination when using legislative intent. If you need some reading to put you to sleep, here's the opinion I won recently. The discussion on legislative intent starts on Page 6: http://www.tncourts.gov/sites/default/files/sparksml_opn.pdf

Having read through this thread, it appears that few people realize that it is, at least on its face, illegal for Walmart to fire employees who go on strike. Whether or not the employees belong to a union, "concerted activity" regarding wages, benefits and working conditions are "protected activity" under the National Labor Relations Act. Walmart has already fired some of the workers, but those firings are already being challenged legally.

Maybe I just have different critters. I am not entirely sure what I have in the yard. I haven't seen one of them yet.

Interesting. We moved into a new house in April and we have a significant mole problem. However, Ihave sprayed the yard with Sweeney's Mole & Gopher repellent. You have to reapply every month or so, but it got the tunnels stopped. I get a hill every now and then, but I just use the loose dirt to fill in low spots. Seems to do the trick for us.

  True on a number of fronts.  I have been concerned for years that churches who rent out their buildings would be caught up in this mess.  Many churches have stopped renting out their buildings because of this.    However, I disagree (to a point) that the New Mexico law would necessarily be struck down on Commerce Clause issues.  States have always regulated businesses in their own states.  Licensing of professions, zoning, building codes, etc. have existed for many, many years and they certainly have an effect on interstate commerce (at least based on current caselaw interpretation).  Further, states have also instituted state discrimination laws for many years that extend protections well beyond those provided by federal law (the Tennessee pregnancy act comes to mind).  Those have never been struck down on Commerce Clause issues.   Make no mistake.  I do NOT like this NM decision and believe it SHOULD be struck down.  But I also cannot see, given the direction the courts have taken over the years, how that will occur. 

  Hopefully, this will help.  First, Obamacare is a federal law (not state law), so the analysis (while similiar) is not exactly the same.  Second, teh "no shoes, no shirt, no service" issue does not reach illegal discrimination.  No business has unfettered discretion to refuse service to anyone (ie:  age, race, nationality, religion, etc).  Things like the Americans with Disabilities Act and similar statutes prohibit businesses from discriminating against certain protected groups.  While a business may THINK it can refuse service to "anyone," it cannot.   As for the Obamacare issues, there are two (2) groups who have challenged it on religious grounds.  First, actual religious non-profits (i.e., churches, charities, hospitals, etc.).  They now have a specific exemption under Obamacare and, therefore, the analysis is not applicable here.  The second group are for-profit businesses, such as Hobby Lobby.  That group is interesting, but still not exactly similar to this New Mexico case for several reasons.  First, the case is really about the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act ("RFRA").  Hobby Lobby's best arguments (and the ones accepted by the Appeals Court) were based on the RFRA.  The RFRA does not apply to state and local governments (see City of Boerne v. Flores).  Second, Obamacare has exemptions for many other entities (including non-profit religious entities and other entities who are "grandfathered" or obtained a waiver).  So, the Appeals Court said that the government did not have a compelling reason to apply the contraception provisions of Obamacare to Hobby Lobby.  Finally, the Hobby Lobby case is FAR from over.  Hobby Lobby has only won a preliminary injunction from the penalties.  It has not actually won its case yet.

They already have. The lawyer defending the photographer specializes in this type of law and has been involved for years in this case. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a reversal at the SCOTUS. This court has already held that the involvement in commerce gives government the right to regulate that commerce. This will essentially be viewed by the Court the same way it views discrimination in the workplace or at any other business. For example, if the NM law can legally prohibit McDonald's from denying service to gays or an employer from firing someone for being gay, then I would not be surprised if the Court upholds this. This is the proverbial "slippery slope" we attorneys talk about. Once you say (I) government can regulate anything in commerce and (II) gays have rights equal to race, religion, etc., this is the logical result as you go down that "slippery slope."

I have been following this for a while, but the New Mexico Supreme Court has ruled on it. http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/nm-court-says-christian-photographers-must-compromise-beliefs.html In essence, if a person goes into commerce, that person forgoes his or her constitutional rights (at least according to NM law). In this case, a photographer was held to be in violation of the NM civil rights act for declining to photograph a gay couple's wedding on religious grounds.