Major win for gun trusts

[bobthefisher]

For whatever reason if anyone of us who own any sort of gun trust (even non-NFA) become a felon, we can legally transfer the firearms within the trust to non-prohibited persons. It's better then the alternative, which is confiscation and then maybe destruction.

I know this is being talked about in National 2A, but I figured it would have a good audience here.
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=162680

Good write-up:
http://blog.princelaw.com/2015/05/18/unanimous-u-s-supreme-court-decision-felons-do-not-lose-property-right-in-owned-firearms-conta/

 

[outrider58]

Thought that already was the law as it was explained to me by Rusty but, maybe I read it wrong..

 

[SWO Daddy]

For whatever reason if anyone of us who own any sort of gun trust (even non-NFA) become a felon, we can legally transfer the firearms within the trust to non-prohibited persons. It's better then the alternative, which is confiscation and then maybe destruction.

I know this is being talked about in National 2A, but I figured it would have a good audience here.
http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=162680

Good write-up:
http://blog.princelaw.com/2015/05/18/unanimous-u-s-supreme-court-decision-felons-do-not-lose-property-right-in-owned-firearms-conta/

This is a big deal for machineguns.

 

[bobthefisher]

Thought that already was the law as it was explained to me by Rusty but, maybe I read it wrong..

A few idiot judges didn't agree with that logic, both the district court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Henderson, now a convicted felon due to drug charges, the ability to transfer his firearms to a non-prohibited person. Therefore, trusts are the best vehicle to facilitate these transfers without external law enforcement intervention.

 

[NateIU10]

A few idiot judges didn't agree with that logic, both the district court and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals denied Henderson, now a convicted felon due to drug charges, the ability to transfer his firearms to a non-prohibited person. Therefore, trusts are the best vehicle to facilitate these transfers without external law enforcement intervention.

I haven't read the case yet, but we're the firearms in a trust or not? If they are then most good trusts I've seen automatically remove that person as trustee and the substitute trustee takes over. You don't own the guns, the trust does.

 

[Straightshooter]

I don't think the Henderson case had anything to do with firearms owned by a trust. Henderson owned the firearms that were taken from him and the government would not let him transfer or sell them. SCOTUS threw out the BS flag.

 

[Fireman51]

This is a great update, helps provide additional clarity.

 

[outrider58]

I haven't read the case yet, but we're the firearms in a trust or not? If they are then most good trusts I've seen automatically remove that person as trustee and the substitute trustee takes over. You don't own the guns, the trust does.

That was my understanding. I wonder how this would pertain to non gun trusts. Would family members be allowed to take possession of said firearms If I, for some reason, was declared a prohibited person, if all my possessions were in a trust?

 

[BigDaddy]

That was my understanding. I wonder how this would pertain to non gun trusts. Would family members be allowed to take possession of said firearms If I, for some reason, was declared a prohibited person, if all my possessions were in a trust?

Unless mentally incompetent, the usual non gun trust wouldn't address it because "prohibited" people are allowed to own/use non gun stuff. Nate is correct in that the trust owns the property but there is no basis to remove the trustee, unless Pop always thought you would come to no good and set up the trust that way. Since your example is a non gun trust, it wouldn't mention guns anyway.

 

[Inigoes]

I haven't read the case yet, but we're the firearms in a trust or not? If they are then most good trusts I've seen automatically remove that person as trustee and the substitute trustee takes over. You don't own the guns, the trust does.

That was my understanding. I wonder how this would pertain to non gun trusts. Would family members be allowed to take possession of said firearms If I, for some reason, was declared a prohibited person, if all my possessions were in a trust?

What is not being talked about in the decision.

The court can seek guarantees from the firearm(s) recipient, that the prohibited person will not have any control.

In the case of a trust, the prohibited person would have to be removed from the NFA trust, if the trust is not liquidated of assets.