Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05-21-2013, 8:50 PM
liv4spd's Avatar
liv4spd liv4spd is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 210
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Am now thoroughly confused as to where this/we all stand with these trusts.. I really am coming to spite California's bureaucracy, and everything that comes with it.
__________________
███ ████ everything ████ ███ ███████ ██ is ███████ fine █████.
███████ ██ ████ trust █████ your █████ ███ government.

Welcome to California. Everything here is either illegal or mandatory. Enjoy your stay!
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 05-21-2013, 9:19 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is online now
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 3,653
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by liv4spd View Post
Am now thoroughly confused as to where this/we all stand with these trusts.. I really am coming to spite California's bureaucracy, and everything that comes with it.
You are confused b/c there is NO clear answer. This is an area of the law that has not been addressed by any case law or statute. Please understand that we lawyers are merely hypothesizing and theorizing. There is no "right" answer until a court or the legislature tells us.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 05-21-2013, 9:38 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is online now
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 3,653
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guntrust View Post
CAL.BAR we are really not disagreeing that legal ownership trumps registered ownership and we are not discussing incapacity or succession (yet) - our group was going to discuss these things and then Jason dropped the 27545 bombshell on us - something none of us had really considered. So at this point we are just issuing a warning about the initial transfer based on Jason's revelation and where that led us.

Please reread my memo, and look at 27920 carefully. Again, we're not talking about registered ownership trumping legal ownership--27920 lays out specific requirements which must be strictly followed in order to exempt a non-FFL transfer from 27545 so that it is not a misdemeanor or felony. One of those requirements is the filing of a form which does not exist.
I'm with you Guntrust. But I hardly find 27545 a "bombshell". We all know that a transfer between two parties requires an FFL. But what about when the one party is already the owner of the gun (ie settlor) and the transferee is a trust (and thus not able to be the registered owner (i.e. the registered owner never changes)?

It appears that 27920 simply does not take into consideration and therefor address the possibility of the transfer of a weapon via inter vivos trust. However, 16990 does specifically mention trustee of a bankruptcy so that may be an angle to argue for proper transfer of a soon to be banned "AW" to the successor trustee of a trust following the settlor's death.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 05-21-2013, 9:44 PM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Orange County, where I regularly provide free training in Estate Planning and Concealed Carry
Posts: 352
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Here is a video on "How to Select Trustees" (one of the most important decisions in your estate plan):
http://lawnews.tv/images/video/trust...0Trustees.html

It should be obvious by now that if you are a gun owner in California you need to educated on trusts and not just blindly accept documents (even if from an attorney). You need to know the terminology and how all of this affects firearm legacy.

You wouldn't pick up a gun without training, would you? You shouldn't pick up a trust without training, either. They can be dangerous.

For those in or near Orange County, i offer lots of free training out of my office (in both estate planning and firearms--concealed carry class, handgun dry practice, HSC cards, competitions with prizes including free Front Sight memberships and tea party flags, etc.

No obligation to buy anything, just sign up at http://GunLaw.Pro for the free events and have fun, invite others, and learn what you need to know to carry on the legacy. (The trust IS the best vehicle for this.)
__________________

Last edited by guntrust; 05-21-2013 at 9:56 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 05-21-2013, 9:53 PM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Orange County, where I regularly provide free training in Estate Planning and Concealed Carry
Posts: 352
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
I'm with you Guntrust. But I hardly find 27545 a "bombshell". We all know that a transfer between two parties requires an FFL. But what about when the one party is already the owner of the gun (ie settlor) and the transferee is a trust (and thus not able to be the registered owner (i.e. the registered owner never changes)?

It appears that 27920 simply does not take into consideration and therefor address the possibility of the transfer of a weapon via inter vivos trust. However, 16990 does specifically mention trustee of a bankruptcy so that may be an angle to argue for proper transfer of a soon to be banned "AW" to the successor trustee of a trust following the settlor's death.
A trust is not an entity, so a trust cannot be a transferee. (NFA is the only exception i'm aware of.) A trustee is an individual who takes title subject to all sorts of fiduciary obligations, but it's still just an individual taking title.

Estate planning attorneys are a pretty creative bunch when it comes to things like tax planning and asset protection planning, but this is much, much different because criminal liability is potentially involved. The approach of estate planning attorneys with respect to gun trusts must necessarily be extremely cautious and conservative, and the attorney cannot in any way facilitate criminal or potentially criminal conduct. This is highly complex stuff, merging a renumbered penal code with a very complicated crossover field like estate planning, and gun owners need to be in a committed relationship with a qualified estate planning attorney and leave experimentation to the red light district of paralegals and DIY.
__________________

Last edited by guntrust; 05-21-2013 at 10:05 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 05-21-2013, 10:44 PM
CAL.BAR CAL.BAR is online now
CGSSA OC Chapter Leader
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: South OC
Posts: 3,653
iTrader: 7 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guntrust View Post
A trust is not an entity, so a trust cannot be a transferee. (NFA is the only exception i'm aware of.) A trustee is an individual who takes title subject to all sorts of fiduciary obligations, but it's still just an individual taking title.
Yes, I understand that a trust or corp. cannot be the REGISTERED owner, but who has legal title to the firearms (or anything put in the trust?) The Trust. A trustee does not have personal title or ownership of the items entrusted to him. (right?) Similarly, who owns all the FA weapons the movie industry uses? It is an individual who may hold the AW or DD license, but it is the corporation that owns the firearms. (and like a trust, the Corp CANNOT own the AW or DD license - at least as the law is to be amended. So again we have a case of a split between the legal and registered owner. So the "group" decided it's not against the law (27545?) to put guns in a gun trust, but this conundrum still exists. I have already established that firearms can and do change legal ownership by operation of law. (and not in contravention of it) Putting something in a trust also changes ownership by operation of law. (see probate code cited in posts above) All w/o changing registered ownership (at least initially) Yes, the Penal Code requires certain things AFTER legal title has changed. My argument is that if an OLL were placed in an irrevocable trust prior to the ban on transfers and after the ban were enacted the settlor dies leaving a new trustee, we would have a solid argument to the courts that the next trustee in line should be able to be included in that categories mentioned in the code sections discussed above just like a BK trustee or executor etc. But again, no one knows for sure just yet.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 05-21-2013, 10:58 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CAL.BAR View Post
Yes, I understand that a trust or corp. cannot be the REGISTERED owner, but who has legal title to the firearms (or anything put in the trust?) The Trust.
I don't think so. A "trust" is merely a fiduciary relationship between two (or more) people. It can even be created without formal trust documents, just be the actions of the parties (for example a husband transfers to his separate property to the wife with the mutual agreement that it will be used to care for their children after the divorce). It is not it's own entity, it can't hold title to property. We know this because a trust cannot itself be sued (Powers v. Ashton, 45 Cal.App.3d at p. 787, 119 Cal.Rptr. 729; Code Civ. Proc., § 369). If something can't be sued, it would be very strange if it could hold title to property, for obvious reasons. The trustee would be the target of the lawsuit, and the trustee would have the legal title.

Nonetheless, I think your reasoning holds.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 05-22-2013, 2:34 AM
mrdd mrdd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

A trust is a contract. It sets down special relationships between persons and property or other assets.

The trust is not an entity which holds title to assets, but assets which are recorded as relating to the trust are handled according to the language of the trust. The trustees manage the assets for the beneficiaries, and the trustees effectively hold the title to the assets until such time that the assets are distributed according to the terms of the trust.

The only exception is that the IRS and other taxing authorities can consider a trust to be an entity for tax purposes, depending on the terms of the trust and the situation. This is done because even though a trustee effectively controls the assets, it does not make sense to handle any income, etc. as applying to the trustee as an individual.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 05-22-2013, 6:30 AM
wchutt's Avatar
wchutt wchutt is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Shasta County
Posts: 390
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by guntrust View Post

No obligation to buy anything, just sign up at http://GunLaw.Pro for the free events and have fun, invite others, and learn what you need to know to carry on the legacy. (The trust IS the best vehicle for this.)

Really confused... is a gun trust a way to pass firearms on to children or not?
__________________
www.jeffersonstatelaser.com
Make it personal.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 05-22-2013, 6:38 AM
vantec08 vantec08 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Beaumont
Posts: 3,801
iTrader: 13 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carnivore View Post
This is California and the general public wants to get rid of hunting, fishing, firearms, contact sports, meat, petrol chemicals, salt, Tabaco and any self reliance as it poses a threat to the state controlling everything... basically they want every one to be wrapped in bubble wrap, smoke pot, and think happy loving thoughts all day.
and embrace the anchovie, the spotted whipporwhil, the sand eating booger thing, and gnats. Note to the gubmint: GET OUT OF OUR LIVES.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 05-22-2013, 7:38 AM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Orange County, where I regularly provide free training in Estate Planning and Concealed Carry
Posts: 352
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wchutt View Post
Really confused... is a gun trust a way to pass firearms on to children or not?
Yes! in fact it is the BEST way because it is more private than probate and relies on centuries of established law. Entities, on the other hand, are more expensive, more susceptible to regulation, and there are even more questions about whether and how they can hold firearms in CA.

It will pass on your guns--more importantly (much more importantly), it can pass on your TRAINING.

I hope this thread will stay focused on the limited issue addressed by the memo, viz., risks associated with initial funding of a common joint revocable trust, and the solution recommended in the memo. The thread is confusing enough for folks without getting into irrevocable trusts, or what happens with a revocable trust upon incapacity or death. Save those issues for another thread please.
__________________

Last edited by guntrust; 05-22-2013 at 7:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07-19-2013, 3:23 PM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Orange County, where I regularly provide free training in Estate Planning and Concealed Carry
Posts: 352
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Interesting letter uploaded by Brandon:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/154819272/...ws-July-9-2013

But note this para from my memo linked by the OP:

But is it even possible to report to DOJ a transmutation from separate to community? Note another oxymoronic aspect to these sections: §§ 27915 and 27920 refer to “a person who takes title or possession of” and “the individual taking possession of the firearm,” and §16990 (the one exempting transmutations) refers to “instances in which an individual receives title to, or possession of, a firearm.” In fact, DOJ’s op law form provides room only for one recipient. (Where a dealer is used, DROS and 4473 forms similarly provide only for one recipient.) - See more at: http://lawnews.tv/index.php/2013-06-....QO4kpFt1.dpuf
__________________

Last edited by guntrust; 07-19-2013 at 4:51 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07-19-2013, 4:11 PM
Rumline's Avatar
Rumline Rumline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Escaped to Colorado
Posts: 846
iTrader: 5 / 100%
Default

^ This thread is exactly what I thought of when I saw that letter. Hopefully there will be movement on the issue.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07-19-2013, 7:14 PM
Fjold's Avatar
Fjold Fjold is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Near Bakersfield
Posts: 20,000
iTrader: 25 / 100%
Default

So, I can take property that was purchased as a married person and exempt it from California community property laws?


WIN !
__________________
Frank


One rifle, one planet - Holland's 375

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v214/Fjold/member8325.png

Life Member NRA, CRPA and SAF
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 07-19-2013, 7:33 PM
Old4eyes's Avatar
Old4eyes Old4eyes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: East Bay - Livermore
Posts: 1,237
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

In the words of Shakespeare:

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
__________________
Send Lawyers, Guns and Money - On second thought, hold the Lawyers.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 07-19-2013, 11:46 PM
fizux's Avatar
fizux fizux is offline
Senior Member
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 1,541
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyD View Post
California Family Code Section 760 into your analysis.
So I could sink our CP life savings into expensive guns thereby effecting a unilateral transmutation to SP? If the (family law / probate) Court tries to impose a constructive trust, will CADOJ go arrest the Judge?

It really is a shame that I let my wife sit through my CP class (evening class; she worked two blocks away). When I see a few more pink-clad ARs appear in the safe, I'll know I'm in for the big D.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 07-20-2013, 8:38 AM
mag360 mag360 is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 5,021
iTrader: 6 / 100%
Default

cash out 401(k); buy a dozen perazzi shotguns and a hundred desert eagles. Sorry...not community property. revel in divorce success, until CA finally overturns the rule because it is not until taken to the absurd will the media/public even care.
__________________
just happy to be here. I like talking about better ways to protect ourselves.

Shop at AMAZON to help Calguns Foundation

CRPA Life Member. Click here to Join.

NRA Member JOIN HERE/
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 07-20-2013, 10:23 AM
Paul S's Avatar
Paul S Paul S is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Fresno, CA
Posts: 1,771
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Holy crappadoodle Batman...this thread makes my hair hurt.
__________________
Paul S
“Cogito, ergo armatum sum: I think, therefore I am armed.” - Collection of Quotes - Lt. Col. Dave Grossman
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 07-20-2013, 12:27 PM
mmiller mmiller is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: so. Cal. & Arizona
Posts: 35
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grendl View Post
I was one of the attorneys in attendance at that meeting.

We concluded it is NOT illegal to put firearms in a trust, but it is probably illegal to put them into a trust with two trustees. The government currently does not allow for or recognize community property ownership of firearms.
In 1989, I registered my California defined AW's to not only me, but my spouse and oldest son. In 2000 (?), I registered the then newly California defined AW's (not the same weapons as '89) in my name and my youngest son. (No spouse at time, lol). Is this not in conflict with what you are saying?
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 07-20-2013, 12:40 PM
The Gleam's Avatar
The Gleam The Gleam is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 5,101
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I'm NOT an attorney, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night, and I think this thread is a good read.

Because then I wast thinking of....

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=795749
__________________
-----------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Librarian View Post
What compelling interest has any level of government in knowing what guns are owned by civilians? (Those owned by government should be inventoried and tracked, for exactly the same reasons computers and desks and chairs are tracked: responsible care of public property.)

If some level of government had that information, what would they do with it? How would having that info benefit public safety? How would it benefit law enforcement?
Reply With Quote
  #61  
Old 09-06-2013, 12:49 PM
Dano3467 Dano3467 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: 85 mi south of Oregon
Posts: 4,241
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

WOW could they make it any more difficult. Sheee

I'm beginning to think there is less then NO hope for anyone in this **** up state...
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 09-06-2013, 1:33 PM
KIMBER8400's Avatar
KIMBER8400 KIMBER8400 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 651
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyD View Post
We're attorneys. We are educated, trained and paid to write confusing text, so we can be paid again to explain what we wrote.
Rules of professional conduct comes into mind
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-07-2013, 9:22 AM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Orange County, where I regularly provide free training in Estate Planning and Concealed Carry
Posts: 352
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KIMBER8400 View Post
Rules of professional conduct comes into mind
The real money is in plain-language docs, which tend to be longer, and counseling clients so they actually benefit from them.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-07-2013, 9:46 AM
Calplinker Calplinker is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,613
iTrader: 12 / 93%
Default Gun Trust

So what's the thinking on a trust to preserve the right for my wife and minor children to be able to own/use my evil semi automatic rifles? I understand that the kids would need to reach 18 first.

Worth the time and money to set one up before year end?

Last edited by Calplinker; 09-07-2013 at 10:00 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-07-2013, 9:47 AM
scarville's Avatar
scarville scarville is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Glendora, CA
Posts: 2,301
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by speedrrracer View Post
Read this entire thread. Came away totally confused.

Read the entire thread again. I am now more confused than I was previously.
Ditto.

I didn't transfer my guns into the living trust I set up because I wasn't sure about the legality and, frankly, neither was the lawyer. Now I am even less sure.

I mean, if a couple decide to get a divorce I am pretty sure that thousands of dollars in guns would be considered community property. What I don't understand is how they would be community property in a divorce but not in a trust.
__________________
Politicians and criminals are moral twins separated only by legal fiction.

Last edited by scarville; 09-07-2013 at 10:44 AM.. Reason: fix grammar error
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-07-2013, 10:11 AM
SemperFi1775's Avatar
SemperFi1775 SemperFi1775 is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 686
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Old4eyes View Post
In the words of Shakespeare:

The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers.
we're not a nation of laws, rather a nation of lawyers and lobbyists...
__________________
"What the hell happened to land of the free and home of the brave???"

"I want the truth! You can't handle the truth!!!" A Few Good Men
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-08-2013, 6:03 AM
mrdd mrdd is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: San Francisco Bay
Posts: 1,675
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by scarville View Post
Ditto.

I didn't transfer my guns into the living trust I set up because I wasn't sure about the legality and, frankly, neither was the lawyer. Now I am even less sure.

I mean, if a couple decide to get a divorce I am pretty sure that thousands of dollars in guns would be considered community property. What I don't understand is how they would be community property in a divorce but not in a trust.
If the living trust is just for you (for your separate property), you would either need to purchase the firearms using separate funds, or have your spouse agree (in writing) to transmute them into separate property. Otherwise, they would need to go into a joint living trust, which would be dissolved as part of the divorce, and the assets of the trust divided.

Actually, it would seem to be a very good idea to have a living trust for any separate property if you are married. If it is set up and documented properly, the assets would not be part of the divorce. You could name anyone as beneficiary and as successor trustees if you should die.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 11-12-2014, 8:19 AM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Orange County, where I regularly provide free training in Estate Planning and Concealed Carry
Posts: 352
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

When i made the switch to wordpress last summer my URLs changed--here is the current URL for the memo that was posted by the OP:
http://lawnews.tv/gun-trust-attorneys-issue-warning
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 11-30-2014, 10:52 PM
Michael Ehline's Avatar
Michael Ehline Michael Ehline is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Redondo Beach, CA
Posts: 1,100
iTrader: 8 / 100%
Default

Why can't your wife simply gift you her CP interest in the guns, and you be the trustee on behalf of your son, the beneficiary?
__________________
Shoot and shoot often. "Rights not claimed are considered waived" (Marbury v. Madison)
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 11-30-2014, 10:58 PM
bountyhunter bountyhunter is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 3,136
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by qdx450 View Post
I have come to realize that a lot of people here in calguns voted for these democrats so now we're paying for it.
And I have come to realize a lot of angry people here continually make specious assumptions about other people.
Reply With Quote
  #71  
Old 11-30-2014, 11:19 PM
khw9mm's Avatar
khw9mm khw9mm is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,582
iTrader: 72 / 100%
Default

All these years and I missed this thread....Tagged.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
__________________
WANT TO SELL

WTS: White Oak Armament Adjustable Stock
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 01-09-2015, 3:45 PM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Orange County, where I regularly provide free training in Estate Planning and Concealed Carry
Posts: 352
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

http://www.americastopplannerevent.c...er-gun-trusts/
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 01-10-2015, 3:26 PM
River Jack River Jack is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Riverside
Posts: 1,246
iTrader: 60 / 100%
Default

So, forgive me for my lack of knowledge on the subject as even the common language in this thread is making my head spin, but what is the general consensus here? Gun owners should have their firearms placed in a individual gun trust? Please help out the confused. My wife and I have a family trust set already set up for our home and community property. Do I need to set up another separate trust just for the guns then? I need some advise.
__________________
URL="http://www.nra.org/"][/url]NRA Life Member
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 01-10-2015, 3:45 PM
Tincon's Avatar
Tincon Tincon is offline
Mortuus Ergo Invictus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 5,067
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by River Jack View Post
So, forgive me for my lack of knowledge on the subject as even the common language in this thread is making my head spin, but what is the general consensus here? Gun owners should have their firearms placed in a individual gun trust? Please help out the confused. My wife and I have a family trust set already set up for our home and community property. Do I need to set up another separate trust just for the guns then?
They real question is, why a gun trust? And depending on what you say, the response will probably be, "you don't need a trust for that" OR "a trust doesn't do that." Trusts don't do much here in CA for gun owners, and as such I'm not sure why someone would spend money on one.
__________________
My posts may contain general information related to the law, however, THEY ARE NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND I AM NOT A LAWYER. I recommend you consult a lawyer if you want legal advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship exists or will be formed between myself and any other person on the basis of these posts. Pronouns I may use (such as "you" and "your") do NOT refer to any particular person under any circumstance.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 01-11-2015, 11:25 AM
guntrust's Avatar
guntrust guntrust is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: South Orange County, where I regularly provide free training in Estate Planning and Concealed Carry
Posts: 352
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tincon View Post
They real question is, why a gun trust? And depending on what you say, the response will probably be, "you don't need a trust for that" OR "a trust doesn't do that." Trusts don't do much here in CA for gun owners, and as such I'm not sure why someone would spend money on one.


http://www.americastopplannerevent.c...er-gun-trusts/

You are goading me, Tincon. That is like saying contracts don't do much here in CA for gun owners.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 10-23-2015, 5:56 PM
cdg109 cdg109 is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 1
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Now I have another twist to add, CA allows a trust to own an AOW with out a sign off, Could an AOW be purchased to a trust consisting of 3 members that would not qualify for operation of law for IFT?
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 10-23-2015, 10:21 PM
wjc's Avatar
wjc wjc is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Sunnyvale, Ca
Posts: 10,401
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Attachment 451386
__________________
Some words can give you a feeling that makes your heart warm. Republic is one of those words.

-- John Wayne as Davy Crockett in The Alamo

Last edited by wjc; 01-17-2016 at 1:38 PM..
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 1:37 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.