[tarpleyg]

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.

[Jonesee]

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.

[Ragnar]

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.

[furioso2112]

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.

[tarpleyg]

Originally Posted by furioso2112

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]

It appears this is the way to go.

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

[UtahIrishman]

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.

[glockfanbob]

Getting mine done next week.

[Reissman]

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

[Walter Bishop]

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.

[VC-Racing]

Originally Posted by tarpleyg

This is my understanding. I think I am going to consult with guntrustlawyer.com and see about doing this...just in case.

Originally Posted by tarpleyg

It appears this is the way to go.

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

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

[tarpleyg]

Originally Posted by Walter Bishop

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.

[Walter Bishop]

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.

[tarpleyg]

Originally Posted by Walter Bishop

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.

[schild]

Originally Posted by Walter Bishop

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.

[The Fed]

What makes anyone think trusts will be exempt? Never underestimate the resolve of an idiot.