Suppressor wait times

[MikeDeltaFoxtrot]

Those would be misleading at best. I had one disapproved due to the examiner reading the trust incorrectly/inconsistently. Nothing wrong with me, but a rejection, then resubmitted.

I've always wanted to file a complaint with the WV state bar that those guys are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. I am a lawyer licensed in two states, and I have had a couple of debates over the years with some GS-5 examiner over his view of trust law. It is even more ridiculous since trust law varies state to state.

I just submit mine as an individual now. It is usually faster, and there is not much advantage to a trust anymore.

 

[WestTN2288]

I've always wanted to file a complaint with the WV state bar that those guys are engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. I am a lawyer licensed in two states, and I have had a couple of debates over the years with some GS-5 examiner over his view of trust law. It is even more ridiculous since trust law varies state to state.

I just submit mine as an individual now. It is usually faster, and there is not much advantage to a trust anymore.

Can you explain “there is not much advantage to a trust anymore” to someone without a law degree (aka: me)

 

[SteveAndTheCrigBoys]

Submitted 8/9/2023
Approved 1/31/2024
TBAC 22 Take Down
175 days

My second suppressor. First one took 233 days. Told my coworker I was thinking about calling just yesterday. The FBI agent that monitors my phone must have made the call for me.

 

[Jeremyc_1999]

Submitted 8/9/2023
Approved 1/31/2024
TBAC 22 Take Down
175 days

My second suppressor. First one took 233 days. Told my coworker I was thinking about calling just yesterday. The FBI agent that monitors my phone must have made the call for me.

Maybe I need to do the same. Mine was submitted the same day but no approval yet

 

[Matt5266]

this. I just got mine and went and picked it up day after. They just pulled it off the shelf and I filling out the paperwork and left

 

[hardincobucks]

A few months ago I picked up my Silencerco Sparrow and my Thunderbeast Ultra 5 within a week of each other. My wait on the sparrow was 81 days, Ultra 5 was 195 days.

 

[Cynoscion]

2 submitted on 2/21/23

Both approved on 1/30/24

Picked them up today

 

[FLShooter293]

Down the rabbit hole again. Ordered a TB Ultra 7 for my hunting rifle. 10 weeks lead just for TB to make and ship the can then off to jail.

 

[wind gypsy]

So next question - how long after approval did you hear from your dealer and were able to pick it up. I’m still waiting on another approval but I got the email on 1/26 but LGS said they don’t have their paperwork ready yet.

I don't now what "their paperwork" is unless they are doing the CLEO notification for you?

When i had a local shop do one it was just a matter of doing a 4473 form when I picked it up and walking out 20 minutes later with the can after it cleared.

The 2 i just had clear form 4 that were bought online from capitol armory are on hold because I had to fill out a 4473 and capitol armory had to send the notice to the CLEO, wait 7 days after certified mail was delivered to CLEO, and then they are safe to ship it. With a local shop i'd think one would get the CLEO notification out prior to form 4 clearing with the ATF?

 

[MikeDeltaFoxtrot]

Can you explain “there is not much advantage to a trust anymore” to someone without a law degree (aka: me)

I have been buying cans since 2004. Back then, the main reason to own your NFA items via a trust was to get around the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) signature requirement. In order to get a form approved as an individual, you had to obtain the signature of the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction in which you reside on a certification that he had no information you intended to use the item for unlawful purposes. In many urban and suburban jurisdictions, sheriffs and police chiefs would just refuse to sign.

If the transfer was to a corporation, trust, or other business entity, then the CLEO signature requirement did not apply. Corporations and LLCs require annual filings and fees with the state, which is a hassle if you don't need the entity for some other reason. Trusts are generally private between the parties with no filings required ( a few states require registration I think), so that was easier. Lots of guys started creating trusts so they could get SBR's and cans and avoid the CLEO signature requirement.

A few years back, ATF changed the rules in the CFR to replace the CLEO signature requirement with the notification requirement. You just mail a copy of the form to the police chief or sheriff, but he doesn't have to sign. So, a trust no longer has an advantage in this regard.

The other perceived advantage of a trust owning the NFA item is that multiple people can possess the item. This has never been tested in court and is somewhat theoretical. Normally, if I hand you my can, and you drive off with it, unless we have an approved form 4, we have both committed a felony.

If we take the case of a corporation, obviously it is an artificial person, and it must possess property via one or more agents. This is where the 'responsible person' certification stuff comes in. If you have a corporation that has an FFL and runs a gun shop, one or more RP's have to submit fingerprints and be responsible for the firearms.

When I first created an NFA trust back in 2006, there was no RP requirement for trusts. My trust said that any of the beneficiaries were entitled to possess the trust property at the discretion of the trustee, and I listed all my close friends and family as beneficiaries. ATF used to approve transfer to that trust with no problem.

They have since changed their tune, and eventually they told me that I had to submit RP paperwork, prints, and photos, for each of those people for every transfer. So, I amended the trust to remove that language.

This is not say that the idea of a trust letting multiple people possess the NFA items is completely dead, but it has become a headache. I personally don't care to push the envelope. For a lot less than you can pay lawyers to defend you, you can just buy another can or two for your friend or family member.

So, based on all that, I have decided to just do my transfers to me as an individual. Plus, I get a tax-free transfer to my heirs when I die.

 

[mt terry d]

you had to obtain the signature of the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction in which you reside on a certification that he had no information you intended to use the item for unlawful purposes

In other words: Prove your innocence
Thank God the Constitution guarantees our God-given rights.

carry on.

 

[WestTN2288]

I have been buying cans since 2004. Back then, the main reason to own your NFA items via a trust was to get around the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) signature requirement. In order to get a form approved as an individual, you had to obtain the signature of the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction in which you reside on a certification that he had no information you intended to use the item for unlawful purposes. In many urban and suburban jurisdictions, sheriffs and police chiefs would just refuse to sign.

If the transfer was to a corporation, trust, or other business entity, then the CLEO signature requirement did not apply. Corporations and LLCs require annual filings and fees with the state, which is a hassle if you don't need the entity for some other reason. Trusts are generally private between the parties with no filings required ( a few states require registration I think), so that was easier. Lots of guys started creating trusts so they could get SBR's and cans and avoid the CLEO signature requirement.

A few years back, ATF changed the rules in the CFR to replace the CLEO signature requirement with the notification requirement. You just mail a copy of the form to the police chief or sheriff, but he doesn't have to sign. So, a trust no longer has an advantage in this regard.

The other perceived advantage of a trust owning the NFA item is that multiple people can possess the item. This has never been tested in court and is somewhat theoretical. Normally, if I hand you my can, and you drive off with it, unless we have an approved form 4, we have both committed a felony.

If we take the case of a corporation, obviously it is an artificial person, and it must possess property via one or more agents. This is where the 'responsible person' certification stuff comes in. If you have a corporation that has an FFL and runs a gun shop, one or more RP's have to submit fingerprints and be responsible for the firearms.

When I first created an NFA trust back in 2006, there was no RP requirement for trusts. My trust said that any of the beneficiaries were entitled to possess the trust property at the discretion of the trustee, and I listed all my close friends and family as beneficiaries. ATF used to approve transfer to that trust with no problem.

They have since changed their tune, and eventually they told me that I had to submit RP paperwork, prints, and photos, for each of those people for every transfer. So, I amended the trust to remove that language.

This is not say that the idea of a trust letting multiple people possess the NFA items is completely dead, but it has become a headache. I personally don't care to push the envelope. For a lot less than you can pay lawyers to defend you, you can just buy another can or two for your friend or family member.

So, based on all that, I have decided to just do my transfers to me as an individual. Plus, I get a tax-free transfer to my heirs when I die.

Thank you for taking the time to respond fully. Extremely helpful to me

 

[atmat]

IThey have since changed their tune, and eventually they told me that I had to submit RP paperwork, prints, and photos, for each of those people for every transfer. So, I amended the trust to remove that language.

Can’t you just amend a trust to remove trustees every time you apply for a can, and then amend again to add them following receipt of the can?

Plus, I get a tax-free transfer to my heirs when I die.

Are trust beneficiaries not a free transfer?

 

[MikeDeltaFoxtrot]

Can’t you just amend a trust to remove trustees every time you apply for a can, and then amend again to add them following receipt of the can?


Are trust beneficiaries not a free transfer?

On the first question, yes, in theory you can. If you do many transfers it will make for an awfully complex trust document with many amendments. It is also liable to put you in the crosshairs of the ATF if you ever come to their attention. They have a policy and enforcement goal of having prints, photos, and background checks on everybody who has access to an NFA item. If you are actively working to subvert that, you may find yourself getting unwanted attention. I would never advise a client to take this approach. Imagine how it would sound to a judge or jury who are not gun enthusiasts.

On the second question, I have never dealt with the question of whether the transfer from an NFA trust to a beneficiary is tax free, so I am not sure. You would not necessarily have to be dead for the trust to distribute property to beneficiaries. That is a common arrangement, but it is not required. Given that, I am not sure how the ATF would regard such a transfer for tax purposes. Maybe someone here knows. I'll try to look into when I get a chance and report back.

 

[atmat]

On the first question, yes, in theory you can. If you do many transfers it will make for an awfully complex trust document with many amendments. It is also liable to put you in the crosshairs of the ATF if you ever come to their attention. They have a policy and enforcement goal of having prints, photos, and background checks on everybody who has access to an NFA item. If you are actively working to subvert that, you may find yourself getting unwanted attention.

Yeah, I’m not saying it’s an awesome idea - just that it’s feasible. Doing it multiple times surely looks incredibly suspicious. Most of the guys I know buy all the suppressors they want, and then add their trustees later.

Given that, I am not sure how the ATF would regard such a transfer for tax purposes. Maybe someone here knows. I'll try to look into when I get a chance and report back.

Thanks! This isn’t an area I’m super well versed in.

 

[Kimber7man]

TBAC Magnus purchased 7/13/23
Took about 2 weeks to get eforms submitted I think.
Silencershop single shot trust
Just got the email yesterday
Approved 2/2/24

 

[WannaBeRambo]

I have been buying cans since 2004. Back then, the main reason to own your NFA items via a trust was to get around the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) signature requirement. In order to get a form approved as an individual, you had to obtain the signature of the chief law enforcement officer of the jurisdiction in which you reside on a certification that he had no information you intended to use the item for unlawful purposes. In many urban and suburban jurisdictions, sheriffs and police chiefs would just refuse to sign.

If the transfer was to a corporation, trust, or other business entity, then the CLEO signature requirement did not apply. Corporations and LLCs require annual filings and fees with the state, which is a hassle if you don't need the entity for some other reason. Trusts are generally private between the parties with no filings required ( a few states require registration I think), so that was easier. Lots of guys started creating trusts so they could get SBR's and cans and avoid the CLEO signature requirement.

A few years back, ATF changed the rules in the CFR to replace the CLEO signature requirement with the notification requirement. You just mail a copy of the form to the police chief or sheriff, but he doesn't have to sign. So, a trust no longer has an advantage in this regard.

The other perceived advantage of a trust owning the NFA item is that multiple people can possess the item. This has never been tested in court and is somewhat theoretical. Normally, if I hand you my can, and you drive off with it, unless we have an approved form 4, we have both committed a felony.

If we take the case of a corporation, obviously it is an artificial person, and it must possess property via one or more agents. This is where the 'responsible person' certification stuff comes in. If you have a corporation that has an FFL and runs a gun shop, one or more RP's have to submit fingerprints and be responsible for the firearms.

When I first created an NFA trust back in 2006, there was no RP requirement for trusts. My trust said that any of the beneficiaries were entitled to possess the trust property at the discretion of the trustee, and I listed all my close friends and family as beneficiaries. ATF used to approve transfer to that trust with no problem.

They have since changed their tune, and eventually they told me that I had to submit RP paperwork, prints, and photos, for each of those people for every transfer. So, I amended the trust to remove that language.

This is not say that the idea of a trust letting multiple people possess the NFA items is completely dead, but it has become a headache. I personally don't care to push the envelope. For a lot less than you can pay lawyers to defend you, you can just buy another can or two for your friend or family member.

So, based on all that, I have decided to just do my transfers to me as an individual. Plus, I get a tax-free transfer to my heirs when I die.

Your comments regarding multiple people on a trust to allow shared use make no sense to me. If I buy in my own name, as you seem to advocate, how does that protect others in the household from “constructive possession” charges of a NFA item? (There’s hundreds of scenarios more plausible, like what happens if the owner dies, just run with this for convenience.)
It‘s also possible I may age out of using cans as they put me in my wheelchair down at the home.
Having trust allows addition, removal of authorized users Without paying the NFA fee again, oh and no wait other than the notary.

Your comment about buying another duplicate can for your relatives is equally dubious, They too have to do their own paperwork, pay $200 tax, the wait, and no sharing if we do it your way.

At minimum, a trust shows one attempted to comply with the law, even if the attempt was flawed and the process was a hassle. Sounds like excellent fodder for my lawyer to argue mens rea, I think should the ATF take exception. I am one of those Trump will go after by weaponizing the DOJ, so I can use all the legal doctrine I can get.

But I’m not a lawyer, just a guy who wants to protect his hearing (donated to the USN years ago.)
I guess being a lawyer must pay pretty good if you can tolerate such inefficiency.

 

[MikeDeltaFoxtrot]

Your comments regarding multiple people on a trust to allow shared use make no sense to me. If I buy in my own name, as you seem to advocate, how does that protect others in the household from “constructive possession” charges of a NFA item? (There’s hundreds of scenarios more plausible, like what happens if the owner dies, just run with this for convenience.)
It‘s also possible I may age out of using cans as they put me in my wheelchair down at the home.
Having trust allows addition, removal of authorized users Without paying the NFA fee again, oh and no wait other than the notary.

Your comment about buying another duplicate can for your relatives is equally dubious, They too have to do their own paperwork, pay $200 tax, the wait, and no sharing if we do it your way.

At minimum, a trust shows one attempted to comply with the law, even if the attempt was flawed and the process was a hassle. Sounds like excellent fodder for my lawyer to argue mens rea, I think should the ATF take exception. I am one of those Trump will go after by weaponizing the DOJ, so I can use all the legal doctrine I can get.

But I’m not a lawyer, just a guy who wants to protect his hearing (donated to the USN years ago.)
I guess being a lawyer must pay pretty good if you can tolerate such inefficiency.

I suggest you don't get your legal advice from the Internet. Consult a lawyer licensed to practice in your jurisdiction who is knowledgable about the NFA.

Someone asked me to explain why I take the approach I do, and I did so. That is the conservative advice I give clients who pay me. Do what you want and take your chances.

 

[eltaco]

I have a submission date of 9/16/2023 and some of the recent approvals I’m seeing here give me some hope that I could be 1-2mo out. Hopefully I’m not on the other end as some of you guys are around a year!

I’m excited to get my first suppressor mounted and see what these things are all about.

 

[Tahoe1305]

I have a submission date of 9/16/2023 and some of the recent approvals I’m seeing here give me some hope that I could be 1-2mo out. Hopefully I’m not on the other end as some of you guys are around a year!

I’m excited to get my first suppressor mounted and see what these things are all about.

Seems like “average” is pretty close to 6 months right now. So yup hopefully your timeline is accurate.