http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016 ... ive-action

It’s a loophole people didn’t understand,” said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. “Once they understood it and it spread on the internet and in gun culture, they started using it. It’s not about intra-family transfers. It’s a way for individuals to avoid a background check and has been used to buy automatic weapons. The gun lobby will exploit every possible hole. It started as a really small project, then it exploded."

Chelsea Parsons, vice-president of guns and crime policy at the Center for American Progress, added: “We know this is a way for guns to be transferred without a background check, and these are the most highly regulated weapons in circulation. The fact there has been such a substantial increase in trusts to transfer these weapons suggests it was being taken advantage of and posed a substantial risk.”

Um... say what? Every SBR and SBS I put on my trust required reams of paperwork and ATF checks. Not to mention an extended waiting period. I never used my trust to ACQUIRE new firearms and frankly didn't know one could do so, but I am extremely skeptical that it could be accomplished without a check of some kind.

How disappointing...

Somehow I think it's not as odious as the Guardian is saying, though I'm not up to date on what NFA trusts can do. They make it sound like something so shady is going on, as if the mafia is using NFA trusts to acquire dangerous things (hint: the mafia's cans I'm pretty sure are acquired "off the books", not through NFA trusts!). Perhaps they'd like to spell out the number of times NFA items have been used in crimes (hint: it's probably so low it can be counted on one hand).

Technically speaking, as a guy with a C&R license, I purchased multiple firearms without a BG check. Yes, I did have to go through a check to acquire the license, but that was one time only (probably the same as an NFA trust, I imagine). After that, hell, companies just mail me long guns to my house, some of them "high-powered rifles" too!

Maybe next week I should expect an article about the woefully dangerous C&R loophole? Though I admit, Mosin fireballs can be pretty deadly.

pdoggeth wrote:Somehow I think it's not as odious as the Guardian is saying, though I'm not up to date on what NFA trusts can do. They make it sound like something so shady is going on, as if the mafia is using NFA trusts to acquire dangerous things (hint: the mafia's cans I'm pretty sure are acquired "off the books", not through NFA trusts!). Perhaps they'd like to spell out the number of times NFA items have been used in crimes (hint: it's probably so low it can be counted on one hand).

Technically speaking, as a guy with a C&R license, I purchased multiple firearms without a BG check. Yes, I did have to go through a check to acquire the license, but that was one time only (probably the same as an NFA trust, I imagine). After that, hell, companies just mail me long guns to my house, some of them "high-powered rifles" too!

Maybe next week I should expect an article about the woefully dangerous C&R loophole? Though I admit, Mosin fireballs can be pretty deadly.

Give it time. Even after Obama's 2013 EA regarding NFA trust purchases, NFA trusts did not end up on the radar of the gun prohibitionist horde. Now they're a target and without the slightest consideration given to how few NFA items purchased through a trust are likely used in shootings. Once someone explains C&Rs to the gun restrictionists who have Obama's, or later Hillary's, ear, an EA/EO will emerge to close what disarmament enthusiasts probably will call the dangerous military relic loophole. At that point you will hear Obama apologists for this last round suddenly less happy after having their C&R licenses or processes changed by the president for no other purpose than to mete out some punishment to yet another subset of gun owners.

Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence wrote:It’s not about intra-family transfers.

This is the most obvious reason for a trust--to allow multiple trustees legal access to the NFA items purchased through that trust. So if our trust buys an SBR (or the makings thereof and registers the rifle as an SBR) my wife, as a trustee, could take the SBR to the range without me being present. Same with adult children who are trustees.

The Guardian article authors wrote:This loophole...

No bias there.

But members of gun trusts, as they are known, claim they are merely seeking to share firearms with their families and being unfairly targeted by a hostile president looking for a scapegoat.

Yep.

DispositionMatrix wrote:

pdoggeth wrote:Somehow I think it's not as odious as the Guardian is saying, though I'm not up to date on what NFA trusts can do. They make it sound like something so shady is going on, as if the mafia is using NFA trusts to acquire dangerous things (hint: the mafia's cans I'm pretty sure are acquired "off the books", not through NFA trusts!). Perhaps they'd like to spell out the number of times NFA items have been used in crimes (hint: it's probably so low it can be counted on one hand).

Technically speaking, as a guy with a C&R license, I purchased multiple firearms without a BG check. Yes, I did have to go through a check to acquire the license, but that was one time only (probably the same as an NFA trust, I imagine). After that, hell, companies just mail me long guns to my house, some of them "high-powered rifles" too!

Maybe next week I should expect an article about the woefully dangerous C&R loophole? Though I admit, Mosin fireballs can be pretty deadly.

Give it time. Even after Obama's 2013 EA regarding NFA trust purchases, NFA trusts did not end up on the radar of the gun prohibitionist horde. Now they're a target and without the slightest consideration given to how few NFA items purchased through a trust are likely used in shootings. Once someone explains C&Rs to the gun restrictionists who have Obama's, or later Hillary's, ear, an EA/EO will emerge to close what disarmament enthusiasts probably will call the dangerous military relic loophole. At that point you will hear Obama apologists for this last round suddenly less happy after having their C&R licenses or processes changed by the president for no other purpose than to mete out some punishment to yet another subset of gun owners.

I have never figured out why the Anti's have not gone after slidefire/bumpfire stocks.

GeorgiaRN wrote:

DispositionMatrix wrote:

pdoggeth wrote:Somehow I think it's not as odious as the Guardian is saying, though I'm not up to date on what NFA trusts can do. They make it sound like something so shady is going on, as if the mafia is using NFA trusts to acquire dangerous things (hint: the mafia's cans I'm pretty sure are acquired "off the books", not through NFA trusts!). Perhaps they'd like to spell out the number of times NFA items have been used in crimes (hint: it's probably so low it can be counted on one hand).

Technically speaking, as a guy with a C&R license, I purchased multiple firearms without a BG check. Yes, I did have to go through a check to acquire the license, but that was one time only (probably the same as an NFA trust, I imagine). After that, hell, companies just mail me long guns to my house, some of them "high-powered rifles" too!

Maybe next week I should expect an article about the woefully dangerous C&R loophole? Though I admit, Mosin fireballs can be pretty deadly.

Give it time. Even after Obama's 2013 EA regarding NFA trust purchases, NFA trusts did not end up on the radar of the gun prohibitionist horde. Now they're a target and without the slightest consideration given to how few NFA items purchased through a trust are likely used in shootings. Once someone explains C&Rs to the gun restrictionists who have Obama's, or later Hillary's, ear, an EA/EO will emerge to close what disarmament enthusiasts probably will call the dangerous military relic loophole. At that point you will hear Obama apologists for this last round suddenly less happy after having their C&R licenses or processes changed by the president for no other purpose than to mete out some punishment to yet another subset of gun owners.

I have never figured out why the Anti's have not gone after slidefire/bumpfire stocks.

My guess is ATF is going to quietly forbid those via a rule change, kind of like the AR pistol brace letter.

C&R is much better red meat for disarmament enthusiast groups like the CSGV (sorry) and Everytown/MDA. In fact it would be a dream of a propaganda campaign to put together:

Did you know gun bullies are getting military weapons of war delivered to their doors? And it is all legal! It could be someone on your block or your next door neighbor. Military weapons that are only for killing people are being dropped on your terroristic neighbors' doorsteps, perhaps in sight of your children. Tell President Obama we need to close the dangerous military weapon home delivery loophole--because no one needs a dangerous military weapons of war delivered to his home. #CloseTheMilitaryWeaponHomeDeliveryLoophole

Trusts still maintain chain of custody if you have no legal heirs.

You know Dispo, when I was writing about the C&R loophole, I was just being snide and ironic because the Guardian was going all sky-is-falling over the nothingburger process that gun geeks go through to get suppressors and SBRs. But now that you've chimed in, I'm actually depressed and worried that perhaps going after C&R licensees/guns could be the next step. Thanks a lot =(

This doesn't obviate the trusts. It does add additional requirements to the trustees. I sense an enforcement challenge.

pdoggeth wrote:You know Dispo, when I was writing about the C&R loophole, I was just being snide and ironic because the Guardian was going all sky-is-falling over the nothingburger process that gun geeks go through to get suppressors and SBRs. But now that you've chimed in, I'm actually depressed and worried that perhaps going after C&R licensees/guns could be the next step. Thanks a lot =(

Just doing my part.

This doesn't obviate the trusts. It does add additional requirements to the trustees. I sense an enforcement challenge.

This is true. And 180 days (less now) until it goes into effect. And it could be easily reversed by the President's successor, etc.

But Trusts are being described as a means to 'get away' with questionable activities, and the hyperbole is used to whip up emotions and sway opinion. A co-worker already asked me why I would use a "backdoor way to illegally get a silencer"

And I agree that it portends possible additional restrictions such as impacts on C&R. "Why does anyone NEED a 50+ year old Chinese Type 56 weapon of war??"

GeorgiaRN wrote:I have never figured out why the Anti's have not gone after slidefire/bumpfire stocks.

Urr not frum 'round Cally-forn-i-a __ R - U?

Already illegal here.