Suppressor question

[richard]

Let's recap here. You were given information from the lawyer who drafted your trust. You were given contradictory information by an employee at a gun shop. Given the contradictory information, you decided to ask strangers on the internet. One of the strangers turned out to be the retailer who sells the most suppressors in the state. He provided you the same information the lawyer provided. Your reply to his post is that, apparently, both the lawyer and the retailer, who also happens to be a lawyer, are incorrect. But you chose to not provide any source to your statement.

Is your goal to make friends on here?

Make friends here. I don’t need a friend on here especially the ones that think they know everything. Guess you feel really smart now.

 

[richard]

He is a beneficiary but not a trustee. He cannot be in possession or use them out of your (or another trustee) presence until he turns 21. He can possess/use/shoot them in your presence now.

You can make him a trustee at 21, and he can possess/use them alone. Doing it now, he could access them as part of the trust when he turns 21 should something happen to your and or trustees.

Please research before making falsified post. I asked a serious question and everyone knew the answer and apparently no one knew the correct answer. I clearly asked a serious question but popcorn eaters knew it all. Glad no one on this page drew up my trust because i would be sitting here with incorrect information.
Thanks for your incorrect input.

 

[Cheesy Lasagna]

Nice.

 

[richard]

I don’t think he’s trolling. I think he’s trying to reassure himself that what he has on his trust is correct.

What he is referring to is based upon something that another attorney who is a friend of mine reached out for me to look at this morning. However, I’ve known about this FAQ for years and have discussed it at length with other dealers, attorneys, and ATF staff.

How old to I have to be to make or own an NFA firearm? | Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives

The National Firearms Act (NFA) contains no minimum age in regard to the possession of NFA firearms. Regardless, federal firearms law prohibits a licensed importer, manufacturer, dealer or collector (i.e., licensees) from selling or delivering any firearm or ammunition to any individual that the...

www.atf.gov

Unfortunately, it doesn’t change my opinion. Here’s why.

First, there is a running joke that if you ask three IOIs a question you will get four answers. This isn’t to disparage IOIs but even they don’t always have a firm grasp of the ever changing regulations and positions their agency takes on all issues—-particularly in NFA.

By way of example, I currently hold three FFLs and have been dealing with the ATF for more than a decade. During my first audit (pre 41-F) , I was cited for not running background checks on trustees when they picked up NFA items. I printed up a copy of an ATF bulletin FAQ that explicitly said you did not have to (much more clearly than what is above, literally “No, you do not have to run a background check on trustees.”) The IOI looked at it and tossed it back across the table at me and said that has been changed. I was never given a published copy of that directive, but the only discipline was a letter, so I rolled over. Now, in this post 41-F environment, we are back to not running background checks on NFA items. Go figure.

Second, my clients don’t want problems. They don’t want to be test cases. There is plenty of gray area in both the law and regulations regarding NFA items and we stay the hell away from that.

For instance, I know of no example of anyone ever being arrested or prosecuted for crossing state lines with an SBR without filing a 5320.20. I don’t even know anyone that has been asked for a copy of that form. Further, I can show you a white paper by Prince Law Group arguing that a 5320.20 is not required for the temporary interstate transport of NFA items. I still emphatically recommend my clients use them when crossing state lines temporarily with an SBR, SBS, MG, or DD (silencers and AOWs are exempted). It’s too easy to stay away from what could become a life changing problem.

Now, I know being a Responsible Person on a trust at 21 is legal. 100%. Let’s look at the possibilities of an 18 year old as a Responsible Person.

If some game warden with a hard on grabs your 18 year old out of the stand and hooks him up because he is in “illegal” possession of an NFA item, you may have an argument you can make saying there are no age restrictions in the NFA (there were no age restrictions at all on firearm acquisition at the time the NFA was passed) and maybe, after tens (hundreds) of thousands in attorneys fees and years of your life, you win that argument. At that point, the feds pat you on the ass and tell you congrats and you are free to go, but no one gives you back that money or time. Maybe it doesn’t go that way and your kid ends up a felon.

I think good judgment requires us to weigh both the possibility and the severity of the “bad thing” happening. If the “bad thing” is really bad (this is) even if the possibility is low, if said possibility can be easily mitigated, it must be mitigated. So, I won’t put anyone under 21 on a trust. I’ve had insistent clients and told them I won’t do it.

I can clearly stand on the fact that 21 is legal and unfortunately I have seen nothing that clearly states 18 is legal. I’ve spoken to IOIs and some very high up folks in NFA branch over the years about this and they acknowledge the gray are and the consensus has always been 21.

For the record, I cannot wait for the day the whole damn gun control system crumbles and
I think that may be a real possibility under Bruen. But until then, I need to stand on what I KNOW won’t get anyone in trouble and that is minimum age of 21 to be an RP on a trust.

Thanks for your opinion but it’s incorrect. And what you know is incorrect also. Do as i do research and ask questions before putting incorrect information out there.

 

[thperez1972]

Make friends here. I don’t need a friend on here especially the ones that think they know everything. Guess you feel really smart now.

I never gave an answer. I never said you were right or wrong. I simply said you asked a question, got an answer, then said the answer you got was apparently wrong without providing anything to show that you actually knew the answer that you didn't know the day before.

If you did the research and got the right answer, was your question a test to see if others would also know the right answer? Or if you didn't know the answer and wanted the opinion of strangers on the internet, why didn't you believe their answers? It almost sounds like you didn't want the opinion of others, you really only wanted confirmation that what you wanted the answer to be was the right answer. I'm happy you go the answer you were looking for.

 

[AdvancedLaser]

Well
For all the know it alls. It was a serious question. But i guess everyone is a ATF agent. Well for all you know it all clowns i contacted Silencer shop and it is correct a 18 year old can possess any item that is on the trust as long as they are a trustee. So thanks for all the don’t know a thing know it all clowns. A bunch of clowns on this site.

When someone starts calling names, they know they lost the argument.

Dont call Silencer Shop. Ask them for it in writing, and then make them sell your 18 year old a suppressor. I am betting you get neither of the two.

 

[AdvancedLaser]

Apparently they were correct but you know it all i guess
Rolling my eyes

But they arent. You are wanting your answer to the correct one, yet two attorneys who deal in NFA, and another FFL have all told you you are wrong, yet you chose to believe some guy who is employed at a gun store. Your confirmation bias is overwhelming all common sense.