GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 01-05-2013, 10:35   #1
tarpleyg
Senior Member
 
tarpleyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,401
Trusts for Firearms

A few weeks ago I made mention of starting a trust and giving your guns to that trust. That way, you could conceivably keep any guns you have forever in the family or with whomever belongs to the trust. People could be added or removed from the trust. I'm not sure of the specifics or if the gun grabbers have even thought about this but it warrants some discussion. A lot of people do this today for class III guns they own.
__________________

tarpleyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 11:04   #2
Jonesee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,242
I've read about them and it appears they are only of use if you have a class III firearms license and respective firearms.

I can't find any advantage at all for owners of "regular" firearms no matter how large their collection.

Am I missing something?

I do know trusts are not above the law and are not exempt from current laws and would not be exempt from future laws that may regulate firearms.

Last edited by Jonesee; 01-05-2013 at 11:06..
Jonesee is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 11:37   #3
Ragnar
Senior Member
 
Ragnar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Sometimes here, sometimes there
Posts: 11,720


Jonesee, the advantage as far as I know for regular firearms is that it can avoid (mostly) sticky issues like who gets your toys when you die.
Ragnar is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 11:38   #4
furioso2112
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 3,609
My understanding is something like this: if you put guns into a trust, they are transferred into ownership by "the trust" - the trust becomes the owner, and people listed in it can be given access, use and possession rights. IF there is a ban on the TRANSFER of guns in the trust, members of the trust (say, your kids) could still access the firearms, move them, possess them, etc., lawfully. CA, I think, banned the transfer of pre-ban ARs, so ARs that were in a trust prior to that law taking effect could still be used by members listed in the trust. There are a lot more considerations to it, but that's the basic utility of it. Also, potentially, a gun could be listed with certain features in the trust, which might prevent any questions about whether it was a stripped lower receiver only, (which, in the event of certain legislation, could be built only as, say, a sporter version) or an AR with shoulder thingys that go up and whatnot.

The idea, essentially, is that an ongoing entity (the trust) 'owns' the firearms, so if the registered owner, or owner of record, etc., dies, the guns are not required to be destroyed/turned in/etc. - presuming the law would not allow transfer of those guns. Since the trust owns them, a person's rights in the trust would not, ideally, be affected by the death of the trust originator.

Imagine of a law were to go in effect banning the future transfer of any magazines with a greater than 10-rd capacity, and any gun commonly referred to as an AR (very broad, I know - this is for illustration only). Let's also imagine that a person owned some of these items and wanted to transfer them to another person - kids, relatives, strangers, whomever. The transfer of firearms could not be lawfully effected. Membership in the trust, however, could be (presumably). So if you want to be able to hand you guns down to your unborn grandkids, or have some monetary value at the end of your life, etc., a trust could potentially solve some of these issues. This is not legal advice, I am not writing as a lawyer. Please seek qualified legal advice by contacting your local bar association if you want to look deeper into this issue and get more concrete answers. Trust and all laws vary state to state, jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
__________________
Madness is like gravity; all it needs is a little push.
(The Joker)

Last edited by furioso2112; 01-05-2013 at 11:46..
furioso2112 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 11:42   #5
tarpleyg
Senior Member
 
tarpleyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by furioso2112 View Post
My understanding is something like this: if you put guns into a trust, they are transferred into ownership by "the trust" - the trust becomes the owner, and people listed in it can be given access, use and possession rights. IF there is a ban on the TRANSFER of guns in the trust, members of the trust (say, your kids) could still access the firearms, move them, possess them, etc., lawfully. CA, I think, banned the transfer of pre-ban ARs, so ARs that were in a trust prior to that law taking effect could still be used by members listed in the trust. There are a lot more considerations to it, but that's the basic utility of it. Also, potentially, a gun could be listed with certain features in the trust, which might prevent any questions about whether it was a stripped lower receiver only, (which, in the event of certain legislation, could be built only as, say, a sporter version) or an AR with shoulder thingys that go up and whatnot.
This is my understanding. I think I am going to consult with guntrustlawyer.com and see about doing this...just in case.
__________________

tarpleyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 11:45   #6
tarpleyg
Senior Member
 
tarpleyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,401
It appears this is the way to go.

http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/assault-weapons-trust/
__________________

tarpleyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 11:45   #7
UtahIrishman
BLR
 
UtahIrishman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Utah
Posts: 6,042


Not a bad idea. The only drawback I can see is the Executor of the trust usually has sole power how the trust is distributed and used. You'd better be able to well..."trust" completely whoever the Executor is.

I only mention this because I got screwed bad on an Estate Trust that my brother is in charge of. Otherwise it sounds like it would work well.
__________________
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? - Juvenal

----

Last edited by UtahIrishman; 01-05-2013 at 11:46.. Reason: spelling
UtahIrishman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 12:26   #8
glockfanbob
Senior Member
 
glockfanbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: CT
Posts: 3,325


Getting mine done next week.
glockfanbob is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 14:46   #9
Reissman
Senior Member
 
Reissman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Central, MI
Posts: 1,590
Great idea. I am only child and my dad is dead so my mom put me on her property with rights of survivorship. Her lawyer said this way everything defaults to me with any tax burden cause on paper I own it with her.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
Reissman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 15:55   #10
Walter Bishop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 224
You can just as easily use a will to designate individual heirs as the recipient of specific items such as your guns. The only advantage to putting your guns in a trust would be that the trust would continue to own the guns after you die while a will ceases to exist after probate is settled. If you put your guns into a trust you could give certain people the right to use them but only the trustee would have the right to sell them. If you gave a gun to a child in your will, he would be free to sell it in the future. If you don't think your heirs will love your gun collection as much as you do then why force them to keep your guns after you die. Just give them to someone who you think will use them.
Walter Bishop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 16:01   #11
VC-Racing
General Flunky
 
VC-Racing's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: S.Fork of The Edisto River, SC
Posts: 2,217
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarpleyg View Post
This is my understanding. I think I am going to consult with guntrustlawyer.com and see about doing this...just in case.






Quote:
Originally Posted by tarpleyg View Post
When i talked to GTL it was $600 for a NFA trust. Then he told me about asset protection trust but offered no cost on that ....


posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
Son, never kick a fresh cow turd on a hot day .. Hank Jr. On "The View".
VC-Racing is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 16:33   #12
tarpleyg
Senior Member
 
tarpleyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Bishop View Post
You can just as easily use a will to designate individual heirs as the recipient of specific items such as your guns. The only advantage to putting your guns in a trust would be that the trust would continue to own the guns after you die while a will ceases to exist after probate is settled. If you put your guns into a trust you could give certain people the right to use them but only the trustee would have the right to sell them. If you gave a gun to a child in your will, he would be free to sell it in the future. If you don't think your heirs will love your gun collection as much as you do then why force them to keep your guns after you die. Just give them to someone who you think will use them.
I don't think you understand the issue. If Feinstein gets her way, you won't be able to leave anything defined by a new AWB to your heirs. A trust would potentially get around this.
__________________

tarpleyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 17:11   #13
Walter Bishop
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 224
Yeap I missed why you wanted to do this. Hypothetically speaking if they were planning to do something as draconian as you fear they would surely include language to prohibit people from circumventing the ban through a trust.
Walter Bishop is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 18:59   #14
tarpleyg
Senior Member
 
tarpleyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Bishop View Post
Yeap I missed why you wanted to do this. Hypothetically speaking if they were planning to do something as draconian as you fear they would surely include language to prohibit people from circumventing the ban through a trust.
You're giving them too much credit. I'm almost afraid to post about this because I'd bet they haven't considered it yet.
__________________

tarpleyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 19:00   #15
schild
Senior Member
 
schild's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Socialist Republic of Illinois
Posts: 3,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Bishop View Post
Yeap I missed why you wanted to do this. Hypothetically speaking if they were planning to do something as draconian as you fear they would surely include language to prohibit people from circumventing the ban through a trust.
Never assume that politicians are smart.
__________________
Schild

"You can ignore reality, but you can't ignore the consequences of ignoring reality." Ayn Rand

We are all outlaws in the eyes of America.
schild is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 19:10   #16
The Fed
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: Central Florida
Posts: 707
What makes anyone think trusts will be exempt? Never underestimate the resolve of an idiot.
The Fed is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:35.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,273
372 Members
901 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42