PDA

View Full Version : Corporate Firearm Ownership


Cali-V
08-27-2009, 3:59 PM
I'm trying to figure this out...
I see in varies state and federal legal code relating to firearms, the inference to firearm ownership by Corporations.

I spoke to a person at CADOJ and was told a corporation could not own a firearm in CA...


So


Can a Corporation own a non-NFA firearm?
If so, how is it Drosed in CA
Also, is there anything which prevents a corporation from purchasing a firearm outside of CA...

Just a few things I'm wondering about...

Vtec44
08-27-2009, 4:27 PM
Interesting question. If it's a no, how do those movie production companies obtain machine guns?

Theseus
08-27-2009, 5:07 PM
A corporation, for legal purposes is a person. They can buy land, enter contracts, and I would suspect purchase firearms. I mean, a city is nothing more than a government chartered corporation, right? So if a city can purchase and own firearms I don't see why a corporation would be that different.

halifax
08-27-2009, 5:11 PM
I'm trying to figure this out...
I see in varies state and federal legal code relating to firearms, the inference to firearm ownership by Corporations.

I spoke to a person at CADOJ and was told a corporation could not own a firearm in CA...


So


Can a Corporation own a non-NFA firearm?
If so, how is it Drosed in CA
Also, is there anything which prevents a corporation from purchasing a firearm outside of CA...

Just a few things I'm wondering about...

The DOJ was correct. There is no way to DROS a firearm to a corporation, must be a person...usually an officer.

Cali-V
08-27-2009, 7:18 PM
Is it illegal for a corp to DROS or is it a technical issue with the DROSing system? Also is it illegal for a corp to own?

l_Z_l
08-27-2009, 7:34 PM
so we make a "movie prop" corporation and now we can get FA firearms...for the purposes of movie making of source ;)

bruce_ventura
08-27-2009, 9:36 PM
Oh contrare. It is legal for a corporation to own a firearm - but only if it is a federally licensed firearm dealer (FFL). This is the usual method for corporations (other than gun retailers) to own firearms, for example for firearm manufacturing, ballistic testing, development of firearm-related accessories, movie prop supply and other profit-motivated activities. However, BATF does require a profit motive, and the responsible person within the corporation must not otherwise be prevented from owning a firearm.

Being an FFL also gives a corporation the ability to borrow firearms from other corporations without having to purchase them, as well as other perks.

Remember that once you become an FFL, your business records and firearm storage facilities are subject to annual inspection by BATF.

TangoCharlie
08-27-2009, 10:25 PM
Oh contrare. It is legal for a corporation to own a firearm - but only if it is a federally licensed firearm dealer (FFL). This is the usual method for corporations (other than gun retailers) to own firearms, for example for firearm manufacturing, ballistic testing, development of firearm-related accessories, movie prop supply and other profit-motivated activities. However, BATF does require a profit motive, and the responsible person within the corporation must not otherwise be prevented from owning a firearm.

Being an FFL also gives a corporation the ability to borrow firearms from other corporations without having to purchase them, as well as other perks.

Remember that once you become an FFL, your business records and firearm storage facilities are subject to annual inspection by BATF.

Unless you're talking about California law regarding firearms ownership by corporations, which I cannot speak to, corporations do not need an FFL to own firearms. They would need an FFL to do business in firearms, like any other individual. Corporations can buy firearms as investments or for corporate use and do so all the time.

BATFE only requires a profit motive for the FFL to be issued, not for the corp to own a firearm.

As stated previously stated by someone else, a corporation is a "paper" person and can have many of the same rights and privileges as a real human being.

SwissFluCase
08-27-2009, 10:46 PM
A trust can own firearms. Think of NFA trusts. Whay would a corporation be any different? In the the case of a trust, how would a trust be DROSed?

Regards,


SwissFluCase

bruce_ventura
08-27-2009, 11:28 PM
Perhaps I should have said "purchase", rather than "own". I suppose one could imagine a corporation coming into ownership of a firearm by some unusual means other than purchasing one from another legal owner.

Regarding purchasing a firearm, I don't think so. I recently checked with BATF. They said no, only FFLs and citizens can purchase firearms.

leitung
08-28-2009, 12:47 AM
How do companies like say Blackwater buy and own Class III weaponry?

CAL.BAR
08-28-2009, 10:41 AM
And as far as I know FFL requires you to buy and sell (a number of) weapons per year to show a profit. If I start a movie prop gun company - I'm not in the weapons sale business. If there a different category of FFL?

And while we're at it, why the hell can't we who are willing to go through the immense paperwork and licensing scheme to get an FFL merely keep them for personal use only and not HAVE to buy and sell. What's the difference to the ATF?

THIS could be a great way around KA's ridiculous laws. If we could get and keep an FFL (for personal collecting) then we get around KA's stupid AW laws (and can even get a hi cap permit to boot)

This is a very easy change for us to push for that the general public would never see and not cause much uproar and yet could yield immense returns.

Flopper
08-28-2009, 11:10 AM
A trust can own firearms. Think of NFA trusts. Whay would a corporation be any different? In the the case of a trust, how would a trust be DROSed?

Regards,


SwissFluCase

I'm curious about this also, as I've always read that trusts AND corporations can get tax stamps for Title 2 weapons.

Is this supposed prohibition only for CA?

CAL.BAR
08-28-2009, 11:36 AM
I'm curious about this also, as I've always read that trusts AND corporations can get tax stamps for Title 2 weapons.

Is this supposed prohibition only for CA?

KA can't supersede the Feds (supremacy clause of US Constit.) This is why once you have a Federal FFL, KA can only begrudgingly make you get a business license, a resellers permit, city business permit tax ID number etc. to actually use the FFL in our fair State.

CAL.BAR
08-28-2009, 1:26 PM
I'm curious about this also, as I've always read that trusts AND corporations can get tax stamps for Title 2 weapons.

Is this supposed prohibition only for CA?

KA can't supersede the Feds (supremacy clause of US Constit.) This is why once you have a Federal FFL, KA can only begrudgingly make you get a business license, a resellers permit, city business permit tax ID number etc. to actually use the FFL in our fair State.

Flopper
08-28-2009, 1:26 PM
KA can't supersede the Feds (supremacy clause of US Constit.) This is why once you have a Federal FFL, KA can only begrudgingly make you get a business license, a resellers permit, city business permit tax ID number etc. to actually use the FFL in our fair State.

I don't know how you can argue that to be true.

CA can and does supersede the Feds time and again with more restrictive gun laws than the Feds, and it basically bans most NFA items by requiring a Dangerous Weapons Permit which is granted only in specific, limited situations.

How does that not then violate the Supremacy Clause?

l_Z_l
08-28-2009, 1:58 PM
isn't it the states can be more restrictive than the federal governments but not vise versa?

racer98765
08-28-2009, 2:07 PM
They are not superseding Federal law. All they are doing is adding to the law. Superseding would be along the lines saying everyone can own a machine which would be in direct conflict with the NFA, GCA, etc.

Flopper
08-28-2009, 2:52 PM
They are not superseding Federal law. All they are doing is adding to the law. Superseding would be along the lines saying everyone can own a machine which would be in direct conflict with the NFA, GCA, etc.

Which, by that definition, is what Montana et al are currently in the process of doing. Sure, it doesn't deal with NFA weapons at the moment, but it is challenging the Feds by saying the Feds don't have any business having anything to do with firearms which stay exclusively in MT.

Someone who actually knows what they're talking about needs to chime in, because so far only a bunch of assumptions have been posted.

bruce_ventura
08-28-2009, 9:11 PM
Lot's of red herrings thrown into this thread. Let's get back to the original topic for a moment.

If it's a firearm, then only FFLs and citizens can purchase it. Companies like Blackwater and others who have a legitimate use for NFA weapons have to fall into one of those two categories to purchase the guns. Guess which one?

BATF only requires that your use of the FFL generates a profit, not that you actually sell firearms. Many companies become FFLS so that they can acquire possession of firearms for R&D, product development, etc. How do you think all those holster manufacturers get their products to fit such a wide variety of handguns? They are FFLs and simply request samples from gun manufacturers, who ship them sample guns for fitting. After the holster is developed, the gun is shipped back to the gun manufacturer. The holster manufacturer (FFL) didn't have to purchase the gun in order to possess it.

Dangerous Weapon Permits from California DOJ require a solid good cause. If you have one (see the regs), then you get the permit. Otherwise, you're wasting your time and money. DOJ charges heavily for the priviledge, too. AFAIK, without the DOJ permit, a California resident can't get a class 2 tax stamp from BATF.

CAL.BAR
08-28-2009, 10:12 PM
I don't know how you can argue that to be true.

CA can and does supersede the Feds time and again with more restrictive gun laws than the Feds, and it basically bans most NFA items by requiring a Dangerous Weapons Permit which is granted only in specific, limited situations.

How does that not then violate the Supremacy Clause?

When the Feds issue rules that are meant to subsume the field (i.e. firearms dealing) then the States can't take that right away) The Feds regulate firearms sales and interstate commerce thereof. So the States can't contradict it.

That's why FFL's in KA can get class III, hi caps AW's and the like.

dantodd
08-28-2009, 11:45 PM
If it's a firearm, then only FFLs and citizens can purchase it.

As you've made the claim a couple times can you post a citation to the law stating this? Thanks.

ke6guj
08-28-2009, 11:52 PM
AFAIK, without the DOJ permit, a California resident can't get a class 2 tax stamp from BATF.Some NFA items do not need a DOJ permit, such as an AOW. You can get a tax stamp to make or build an AOW or .51"-.60" DD without needing the Dangerous Weapons permit.

As you've made the claim a couple times can you post a citation to the law stating this? Thanks.+1.

Expecially when, as an example, federal law specifically allows the ownership of NFA firearms by corporations and trusts.

The person actually picking up the item fills out the 4473 as the corporate representative.

jmlivingston
08-28-2009, 11:57 PM
I spoke to a person at CADOJ

First mistake. ;) You should have enquired here rather than wasting your time on the phone with them.

Mnort10x
08-29-2009, 12:34 AM
What about grandfathered? Say a corporation has had possession for 30-40+ years? Was there a point along that timeline when laws changed to cause problems with corporate possession?

Curtis
08-29-2009, 1:52 AM
Talk to Oaklander.....that's who I talked to about this subject. As I understand it and recall, a company or trust can own firearms as long as the officiers/trusties are not restriced from owning firearms. CADOJ doesn't allow a company or trust to DROS firearms an individual needs to do so.

dantodd
08-29-2009, 6:55 AM
My question is can an 18 or 19 year old person form a corporation and acquire firearms which can normally only be transferred to individuals over 21?

Mnort10x
08-29-2009, 10:14 AM
My question is can an 18 or 19 year old person form a corporation and acquire firearms which can normally only be transferred to individuals over 21?

Talk to Oaklander.....that's who I talked to about this subject. As I understand it and recall, a company or trust can own firearms as long as the officiers/trusties are not restriced from owning firearms. CADOJ doesn't allow a company or trust to DROS firearms an individual needs to do so.

Corporate officiers/trusties age would be the restriction.

bruce_ventura
08-30-2009, 10:52 PM
As you've made the claim a couple times can you post a citation to the law stating this? Thanks.

I got that over the phone from the LA office of BATF. I didn't pursue it further. If you do pursue it, however, please let us know what you find. The BATF agent I spoke to could have been mistaken, but I doubt it.

The person actually picking up the item fills out the 4473 as the corporate representative.

Doesn't that prove the point? The name on the check or credit card is irrelevant. Isn't the purchaser of record still a citizen, not a corporation? If the firearm is later recovered as part of a criminal investigation, won't it be tracked to the citizen who's name and fingerprint is on the 4473 form, not to a corporation?

ke6guj
08-31-2009, 12:07 AM
this is what ATF says about that right on the 4473,

When the buyer of a firearm is a corporation, company, association, partnership, or other such business entity, an officer authorized to act on behalf of the business must complete Section A of the form with his or her personal information, sign Section A, and attach a written statement, executed under penalties of perjury, stating: (A) the firearm is being acquired for the use of and will be the property of that business entity and (B) the name and address of that business entity.
http://www.atf.gov/press/2008press/100308f4473_pt1_aug2008-sample-rev.pdf

even though the 4473 is filled out by a specific person, the firearm is owned by the corporate entity. So, even though it may be traced back to the 4473, the written statement would explain the true ownership of the firearm.


And ATF included this in a recent newsletter as well

TRANSFER OF A NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT FIREARM TO A CORPORATION OR OTHER LEGAL ENTITY
ATF has been increasingly asked questions about the procedures for the transfer of a National Firearms Act (NFA) firearm to a corporation or other legal entity, such as a trust, that is not a Federal firearms licensee (FFL).

When transferring a firearm to a corporation or legal entity you must use an ATF Form 4 Application for Tax Paid Transfer of a Firearm.

The FFL will identify the corporation or other entity on the Form 4 application by the legal name as the transferee. No individual name, such as the name of the president of the corporation, shall be included in identifying the transferee.

The Articles of Incorporation or other documentation establishing the legal entity must be included with the Form 4 application. The documentation must identify a point of contact for the corporation or other entity and must be sufficient for ATF to establish the legitimacy of the existence of the corporation or other entity.

If the firearm being transferred is a machinegun, short-barreled rifle, short-barreled shotgun, or destructive device, an officer or director of the corporation or other entity must complete item 15 on the reverse side of the Form 4.

Items 13, 14, 16, and 17 of the Form 4 do not require completion for a transfer to a corporation or other entity nor is the submission of ATF F 5330.20, Certification of Compliance with 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(5)(B), required.

Procedure after approval

Approved NFA transfers are exempt from the NICS background check. So, when the FFL arranges for the disposition of the NFA firearm to a representative of the corporation or other entity, only the ATF Form 4473, Firearms Transaction Record, must be completed by the representative of the corporation or other entity.

All other recordkeeping requirements of the Gun Control Act must be met.http://www.atf.gov/firearms/newsletter/1108fflnewsletter.pdf


And look at the form 1, http://www.atf.gov/forms/pdfs/f53201.pdf , where it has a box for a corporate entity to register and make a Title 2 firearm.

dantodd
08-31-2009, 6:39 AM
I got that over the phone from the LA office of BATF. I didn't pursue it further. If you do pursue it, however, please let us know what you find. The BATF agent I spoke to could have been mistaken, but I doubt it.


Taking the word of BATF employee about the law was obviously your first mistake. I hope this thread has disabused you of this practice. The problem is that they could just as easily told you something was legal when it isn't. I'm sure you can see how this would be even more problematic.

Flopper
08-31-2009, 9:32 AM
this is what ATF says about that right on the 4473,


http://www.atf.gov/press/2008press/100308f4473_pt1_aug2008-sample-rev.pdf

even though the 4473 is filled out by a specific person, the firearm is owned by the corporate entity. So, even though it may be traced back to the 4473, the written statement would explain the true ownership of the firearm.


And ATF included this in a recent newsletter as well

http://www.atf.gov/firearms/newsletter/1108fflnewsletter.pdf


And look at the form 1, http://www.atf.gov/forms/pdfs/f53201.pdf , where it has a box for a corporate entity to register and make a Title 2 firearm.

Thanks a lot, that was very informative!

Cali-V
08-31-2009, 10:07 AM
ke6gui.... Thank you...

Transferring of a NFA item is stated clearly above.

Am I correct in assuming a non-NFA firearm would have to be transferred as Dealer Transfer or a PPT... the firearm would be DROS'ed by a corporate officer or board member, with the 4473 being filled out as stated above...

Also, I wonder if a corporation has residency limitations such as those required by a natural person...

bruce_ventura
09-06-2009, 11:25 PM
Taking the word of BATF employee about the law was obviously your first mistake. I hope this thread has disabused you of this practice. The problem is that they could just as easily told you something was legal when it isn't. I'm sure you can see how this would be even more problematic.

Quite so... I must humbly bow to ke6guj's thorough knowledge of the 4473 form.

Imagine my surprise, of course, after being told emphatically earlier this year by both BATF and CA DOJ that my company (not an FFL) could not purchase a firearm.

After this thread, I looked for anything related to corporate ownership in the PC and DOJ regs - and found nothing.

I called my FFL to have him read me the 4473 language over the phone so that I could confirm it. A BATF agent was in the store at the time. He also claimed a non-FFL corporation could not purchase a firearm - until he read the form. He quickly passed the buck to CA DOJ, saying they are responsible for the DROS process.

Cali-V
09-06-2009, 11:52 PM
I agree when dealing with a complex issue, and without a solid point of reference, one should not wholeheartedly take as fact the statements or opinions of any one source; however I also believe it's always wise to understand the current status quo of the issue at hand.

Thus I have zero problem asking BATFE or CADOJ questions...
I just never that any one answer as gospel...