MNGunTalk.com

If an individual owning a suppressor then creates an NFA trust, would adding the individually owned suppressor to the trust require another FFL transfer/ $200 tax stamp?

xd ED wrote:If an individual owning a suppressor then creates an NFA trust, would adding the individually owned suppressor to the trust require another FFL transfer/ $200 tax stamp?

Yes it would. The trust essentially is a new "individual" that you are transferring ownership to.

No wonder Dayton signed this bill, I don't think many people will jump thru all the hoops to get one.

Hmac wrote:

LarryP wrote:As a newbie, I thought after the bill was passed we could easily go buy a silencer and use it. Sounds like a lot of B$$$ still needs to be dealt with. Will wait & see if it's even worth it. By the time one is done with everything it will cost 2-3 times more than the gun to use it with!

Yup. You can go to the suppressor store and buy it, but you can't take it home until you pay BATFE $200 transfer tax and they in turn send you a stamp 6-9 months later to prove that you paid. The application process entail getting fingerprints done by a law enforcement agency, a passport photo, a signature of approval from your Sheriff or Chief of Police. When approved by ATF 6 months later, only you, or others in your direct presence, can actually use the NFA device. An alternative to some of that is to buy the suppressor through a trust, but that will cost you anywhere from $99-$500 to have a lawyer create for you. Then you still have to pay the $200 and go through basically the same application process (no fingerprints, no CLEO sign-off).

Yes, it's a hassle.

Thank you to GOCRA and everyone that helped get this passed! My wife hates you because this is going to be expensive:-) I didn't have much interest in 300BO until now so there's another upper I need to build...

Is there a list of class 3 dealers in mn somewhere?

I'm working on a trust now (probably going through 199trust.com) and plan on getting at least 3 or 4 suppressors (9mm, 223, .30, and maybe 22lr) very soon. Also does anyone know if we can get the batfe application going now (knowing there is a 6+ month wait) or do we have to wait until after July 1st to begin the process?

LarryP wrote:No wonder Dayton signed this bill, I don't think many people will jump thru all the hoops to get one.

Hmac wrote:

LarryP wrote:As a newbie, I thought after the bill was passed we could easily go buy a silencer and use it. Sounds like a lot of B$$$ still needs to be dealt with. Will wait & see if it's even worth it. By the time one is done with everything it will cost 2-3 times more than the gun to use it with!

Yup. You can go to the suppressor store and buy it, but you can't take it home until you pay BATFE $200 transfer tax and they in turn send you a stamp 6-9 months later to prove that you paid. The application process entail getting fingerprints done by a law enforcement agency, a passport photo, a signature of approval from your Sheriff or Chief of Police. When approved by ATF 6 months later, only you, or others in your direct presence, can actually use the NFA device. An alternative to some of that is to buy the suppressor through a trust, but that will cost you anywhere from $99-$500 to have a lawyer create for you. Then you still have to pay the $200 and go through basically the same application process (no fingerprints, no CLEO sign-off).

Yes, it's a hassle.

Which is why not allowing people willing and able to jump through those hoops to have/use them is ridiculous.

LarryP wrote:No wonder Dayton signed this bill, I don't think many people will jump thru all the hoops to get one.

Nowadays I live in Virginia, where they have been legal to own all along, and it appears, legal to hunt with. I still don't see many of them.

Also I understand you get to ask BATF's permission (or inform them) every time you want to take it across state lines.

I don't see suppressors becoming common until the hurdles go away...

You aren't asking for the sheriff's approval. Just that he is not aware of any reason you should be denied. Basically, similar to him doing a background check. It's the same question that's asked when you apply for your C&R license.

You need to keep you tax stamp with you to transport. You don't need permission every time. That's what the stamp is for.

LarryP wrote:No wonder Dayton signed this bill, I don't think many people will jump thru all the hoops to get one.

I think a LOT of people will jump through those hoops. One reason there's a 6-9 month backlog of NFA applications is that there are so many people applying. It's a hassle, but certainly not insurmountable. You're right though...the process does discourage the whim buyers.

If I understand this correctly, If your sheriff won't sign off for whatever reason, you're screwed?
Only option is to form a trust to buy one?

farmerj wrote:You aren't asking for the sheriff's approval. Just that he is not aware of any reason you should be denied. Basically, similar to him doing a background check. It's the same question that's asked when you apply for your C&R license.

You need to keep you tax stamp with you to transport. You don't need permission every time. That's what the stamp is for.

LarryP wrote:If I understand this correctly, If your sheriff won't sign off for whatever reason, you're screwed?
Only option is to form a trust to buy one?

Yes. And ATF has already submitted a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking that fingerprints and CLEO sign-off, either for one trustee or all of them, be part of the Trust acquisition of NFA items too.

That was quite awhile ago, the proposed date it would go into effect has passed, and nothing happened. The BATFE is on extremely shaky legal ground in this proposal, as they basically presume to redefine trusts as a legal entity in order to justify their logic.

Long story short, BATFE could implement the policy change, but would certainly be sued, and would most likely lose and be required to pay damages to every person they required personal information from without legal justification.

The fact it never happened indicates that much like the M855 ban, they came to the conclusion that it was a losing proposition, and dropped it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Will be interesting to see what CLEO's will sign off, and those that won't.

This may have been answered already, but if one gets a suppressor here in Minnesota, is he allowed to bring it into Wisconsin?

Since WI allows them yes. That's part of the reason for the $200 stamp - bring it with you.

The ATF requires prior authorization via form 5320.20 to transport any destructive device, machine gun, short-barreled rifle, or short-barreled shotgun under across state lines. This requirement is in section 922(a)(4), The ATF does not require this prior authorization for a suppressor.

Some people recommend getting an approved 5320.20 for suppressors as well, since many in law enforcement might not understand the details of NFA law, but personally I don't think that's a good idea. Just carry a copy of the statute with you, and if the extremely unlikely situation happens where law enforcement questions your suppressor registration, you can show them the actual statute.

Just be aware that when you bring a suppressor into another state, you need to comply with that states laws, so doing a little background research first is always a good idea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk