COBrien

I'd imagine they're projectiles (Can Cannon). Best use I've even seen for a Keystone Light!

Agreed. Like I say, though, the guy hedged a bit by saying "at this time" there is no way to accomplish that. When asked if it was coming at some point, he said he didn't know for sure. I would think they would have to provide for the possibility of additional RPs after transfer. Otherwise they're going to have lots and lots of people being prosecuted for breaking a law they fully believed they were in compliance with.

Good deal! Now, to get him to eat steak like a grown-up...

I just got off the phone with the ATF NFA Help Desk. The information I received was not at all what I expected. TL;DR Version: The new ATF rules regarding NFA trusts only allow the responsible persons on the trust at the time of the transfer to possess an NFA item. Adding responsible persons after the fact has no legal effect. There is currently no process to add responsible persons for a particular NFA item after it has been transferred. When purchasing an NFA item through a trust, the following forms must be submitted: 1. Form 4 for the trust, with the serial number of the NFA item listed. 2. Complete trust document, including any amendments. 3. Form 5320.23 for each responsible person listed in the trust documents. Now, here's the tricky part... The ONLY people who are legally authorized to "hold" (i.e., possess) an NFA item purchased through a trust are those responsible persons who submitted a Form 5320.23 with the Form 4 which transferred that item. Period. At this time, there is no way to add responsible persons for a particular item after that item has been transferred to the trust. For example, if I purchase a can through my trust (which only lists myself and my wife as Trustees), I have to submit a Form 4 for the trust and a Form 5320.23 for myself and my wife. If I then add my best friend as a Trustee (which I have considered) after the Form 4 and Forms 5320.23 are approved, he CANNOT legally possess that can without myself or my wife (i.e., the Trustees for whom a Form 5320.23 is on file) being present. I asked the gentleman if he knows of any rules or regulations coming down the pike which would allow responsible persons to be added after a transfer, and he said he hasn't heard of any. Of course, he hedged by saying that they are just now processing Form 4s which were submitted May-June 2016, so they haven't been presented with this particular problem just yet (because the law and rules changed effective July 13, 2016).

Thinking about this some more... The process (at least in Oklahoma) for amending a trust requires a typed amendment to be executed in the presence of a notary. The amendment must be attached to the original trust documents (most attorneys attach amendments to the front -- multiple amendments will be attached in reverse chronological order, i.e., most recent amendment on top). Since a copy of the trust (and all amendments...) are required to be submitted to ATF with each Form 4 for the trust, ATF would be able to see the changes that have been made to the trust. While I don't think there's necessarily anything illegal about adding/removing/adding/removing Trustees, I bet ATF would smell something fishy and probably start asking some questions.

Here you go, gents: https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulations/final-rule-41f-background-checks-responsible-persons-effective-july-13 The Q&A for the new rule: https://www.atf.gov/resource-center/docs/general41fquestionsandanswersupdated-6-28-16pdf/download That last one is a PDF. Look at the fourth question and answer there... Sure sounds to me like they don't want to know about Responsible Persons added after the purchase. I just don't know where they stand on RPs who are removed after the initial purchase and before a subsequent purchase.

I believe you have to submit a Form 4 for the trust, plus a 5320.23 (including photo & prints) for each "responsible person" (for a trust, the Trustees). The 5320.23 is the questionnaire for Trustees. It's basically a 4473, from what I remember. Its my understanding that each of these forms must be submitted for each purchase. Plus a copy of the NFA Trust every time. But I could be wrong. I'll call BATFE in the next day or so and see what they say.

I don't mind admitting this in the Class III section (because not many people wander in here...), but I'm actually an attorney here in OK. Hence the disclaimer in my last post Lol! I've looked at the BATFE rules update (7/13/16), and it confirms that the only time they really care who the Trustees are is when acquiring an NFA item (I'm paraphrasing, of course...). Trustees can be added at any time without BATFE notification. Again, according to the new rule and the "Q&A" for that rule. I may just call the BATFE hotline and ask the question. Artfully worded, of course...

Preface: I am in no way recommending or suggesting anyone do anything that could be construed as violating or circumventing the NFA or BATFE procedures. I'm simply asking the question, as I have not yet done any research on this particular topic. Now, with that out of the way... My understanding is that you can add/change Trustees at any time and for any reason without reporting those changes to BATFE. Until it's time to add a new NFA item to the trust. Then BATFE must do a full "work-up," so to speak, on each Trustee. But, by that same logic, couldn't a person just change their trust and remove all other Trustees prior to adding a new NFA item, then just re-add the Trustees after the purchase?

Seems like quite a bit of work to solve a relatively minor problem. You just end up with a trust for each NFA item you own, and you have to keep up with who is a Trustee on each trust, i.e., adding a Trustee to each and every trust document any time you want to add someone. Or removing them from each and every trust if you want them removed. Honestly, how much work can it be to "track down all your Trustees" for the average person? I know where my wife lives. I know where my best friend lives. And, trust me, if either of them finds out I'm buying a can or FA, they're going to do whatever they need to to be able to legally handle/possess that item.

My wife claims I bought her a pair of Walker's Alpha Earmuffs, stole them, and had to buy her a pair to replace the ones I "got all nasty with sweat." I'm pretty sure I bought them for myself, let her use them to qualify, then she insisted on a pair for herself so she could hear what everybody else at her department's range was saying about her behind her back. Either way, I've used those Walker's Alphas for about 3 years now, and can't imagine going back to plain ol' earmuffs and/or earplugs. When I'm shooting at an indoor range (twice a year at the very most), I'll run squishy earplugs under the Alphas. Otherwise, I have never felt the need to double up on ear protection.

Just gonna leave this here...

I hadn't even looked at your FUR thread until you posted that. Looks like we have very similar taste in rifles!

Got the BCG, CH, and brake in today. I have literally everything I need to build my upper. Except a blessing from SWMBO. I have to say, I'm impressed with this Sig QRD comp. All the pics I found online made it look HUGE and ridiculous. I threaded it onto the muzzle and it was proportional, IMO.

The 4th Circuit just decided this case yesterday (02/21/17). There is time for this case to be appealed to the Supreme Court. It's not that they have refused to hear it, it's that the case hasn't made it to them yet. Yet. I would imagine -- with all the parties involved -- that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. At least 4 justices have to agree before it will be heard by the Supreme Court, and I would imagine they will get at least that many, given how contentious this issue has become since Heller and McDonald were decided. That's not to mention that the opinion itself takes certain language from Heller and claims to apply it to the facts at hand. Specifically, they talk about "M16 rifles and the like" being excluded from 2nd Amendment protection, and that AR-15 rifles are "like" "M16 rifles," so, therefore, they are also excluded from 2nd Amendment protection. I have to believe the Supreme Court would want to set the Circuit Courts straight -- for better or for worse (for gun owners) -- on this issue. The other side of the argument, of course, is that, if the Supreme Court disagreed with the 3 other Circuit Courts that have upheld the constitutionality of "Assault Weapons Bans" and "Large-Capacity Magazine Bans," they could have taken the cases up themselves.

So Faxon told you they did it wrong, but they actually did it right. I guess either way, Faxon was wrong. Even though they were right.

Just...erm..."thinking ahead." Honestly, I'd always planned a can purchase before another rifle. But with all these good deals out there, I basically couldn't afford NOT to build another rifle. I'll report back on how well that one works on the wife the second time around. First (and only so far) time that worked was the smokin' deal I got on my .308.

Had to run to the office today to make a couple of phone calls. Decided to mock up what I have so far (just lacking the BCG and Sig QRD Micro Brake). After snapping the pic, I promptly broke it all back down and put it back in the totally-not-suspicious Fulton Armory box under my desk that I've managed to squeeze all my parts into.

This thread is seriously lacking in pics, so here goes: Pic was posted by a user at ARFCOM (can't remember who now). After I decided to go with the ArmaLite green furniture set, I Googled "green dissipator" and found this: Yeah. That'll do.

I'm terrible at this "waiting for permission" thing. I got an e-mail from PSA with last weekend's "deals." One of those was a NiB BCG (Carpenter 158, HPT, MPI) and a "premium" forged CH for $119.99. Identical parts from FA would have cost $189.90, full retail, or $170.91 with 10% off (Winter Sale). Or $161.42 for Presidents' Day. I had originally planned to go with the FA "GI" BCG, which, with a CH, would have cost me $159.90, full retail. Or $135.92 for Presidents' Day. Seems to me there are only a handful of manufacturers kicking out BCGs, and the FA price premium over PSA (which appears to be the exact same part...) is, IMO, kind of ridiculous. Is my reasoning right? Or is the Fulton Armory BCG really that much better than the PSA?

Thanks for the birthday wishes, fellas! On a side note, I did order up the ArmaLite Green A2 Furniture Set. I figure for $40 + Shipping (and taxes... WTF, ArmaLite?), I can't go wrong. Plus the green furniture will lend a bit of an "old school" look to the rifle.

Looks like this project is going to rest on the back burner for a bit... For my birthday yesterday, I asked the wife for one thing: Permission to build a rifle. The response was "Not right now, you have several other projects to finish first." For several reasons, right now is one of those times where permission>>forgiveness. So the barrel assembly and all the other parts will just have to live under my desk at work until I can get the green light. And then figure out how to introduce those parts to the house as though they've just been ordered....

Good point, and exactly the conclusion I came to after some thought. I'd love to "build it once" and not worry about it, but methinks a Dissy may be difficult to do that with. Plus I know how I like to constantly fool with things -- just like my Trans Am and my bike, I can't leave any of my guns alone. Nothing is ever "finished" for long...

Ah, nice! Thanks for the heads-up. I've already placed "this month's" order, but that may be the time to go ahead and order up the rest of my FA parts, including the lower.

Pulling the trigger on the next order today. FA M4 Upper; UPK; delta ring, spring, & snap ring; gas tube & pin; front sight post, detent, & spring. All at 10% off for Fulton Armory's "Winter Service Sale." I'd highly suggest ordering whatever FA parts you need now, as I can't remember seeing anything go on sale there lately. This will get me a put-together upper (minus HG, BCG, and CH). And my muzzle device... March will see everything but the BCG, which will be ordered in April. As an aside, has anyone run an MGI Adjustable Gas Tube? Looks like an interesting part (that is mostly obsolete now that everyone and their dog makes an adjustable gas block...), and something I may try if/when it becomes necessary (i.e., if this rifle becomes over-gassed with a suppressor).