How Do I Select a Gun Trust And Firearms Attorney In Dist of Columbia ?
Before choosing a gun trust or firearms attorney in Dist of Columbia, clients should question their potential attorney about the attorney’s prior experience with gun laws.
At a minimum, they should ask the following questions:
1) Where did you learn about the gun laws?
2) Do you have any gun-related criminal law background?
3) Have you written any articles or taught gun law classes?
4) What estate or business gun-law related issues have you resolved for your former clients?
If your estate or business involves firearms in Dist of Columbia, make sure your attorney is well-versed in both state and federal gun laws. After all, there are thousands of gun laws on the books, and without some prior experience, you should question the attorney’s ability to protect you. Remember, each attorney’s particular knowledge and experience that they can offer to their clients is different, and not all gun trusts are created equal.
You can purchase an Alex Kincaid Law Gun Trust online by clicking "Get Your Gun Trust Now" We prepare Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Utah, Colorado, & Florida gun trusts within 24 business hours. Cost is $500.00. All of our Gun Trusts are complete incapacity and death plans that will keep your affairs out of the court system and allow you to share NFA firearms.
Gun Trust In Dist of Columbia For Firearms That Are Subject To The National Firearms Act
Gun owners in Dist of Columbia who are considering adding an NFA firearm (firearms subject to the National Firearms Act) to their collection should consider creating a gun trust before they make the acquisition.
The most popular NFA firearms in Dist of Columbia are suppressors, short-barreled rifles, short-barreled shotguns, and fully automatic firearms. The National Firearms Act was passed by Congress in 1934. The NFA imposed a special tax on NFA firearms, and restricts the possession and transfer of NFA firearms to the person who has paid the tax. If you are considering acquiring or building an NFA firearm, you need to know the laws that pertain to these special firearms. Readers are encouraged to read Alexandria Kincaid’s book, “Infringed” to more fully understand the laws, including the NFA, and avoid committing an accidental felony.
What Special Laws Apply to NFA Firearms In Dist of Columbia ?
The National Firearms Act (NFA) regulates the possession, use, and transfer of several different types of firearms in Dist of Columbia. These firearms are commonly referred to as “Title II” firearms and include machine guns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, suppressors, destructive devices, and “any other weapons” (AOWs). State laws may also further restrict the possession and use of these weapons. In many states, it is legal to own and use
suppressors, destructive devices, and AOWs as long as the NFA regulations are followed.
Gun owners in Dist of Columbia wishing to acquire Title II firearms can do so by registering the firearm in their own name or in the name of an entity. If you choose to acquire the NFA firearm in your own name, you must submit fingerprints, a photograph, pay a $200 application fee/tax, and obtain the signature of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) in the jurisdiction where you live. In some cities and counties, the CLEO signature is very hard, if not impossible, to obtain.
The Best Way To Own Title II Firearms In Dist of Columbia
Even when you can obtain the CLEO signature, individual ownership is not the best way to own Title II firearms in Dist of Columbia. Only the individual in whose name the firearm is registered will be entitled to possess the NFA firearms. Leaving these firearms accessible to other people living in your home can be a crime.
As a result of the drawbacks of individual ownership, combined with the CLEO non-participation in the application process, many gun owners in Dist of Columbia have resorted to forming an entity to purchase and hold Title II firearms. There are several advantages to using an entity to purchase and hold NFA items:
• No fingerprints are required.
• No photographs are required.
• No CLEO signature is required.
• In contrast to individual ownership, multiple people may possess the firearms.
The question then becomes which type of entity is best to hold Title II firearms In Dist of Columbia. The answer is usually a firearms trust
Business entities such as corporations and limited liability companies (LLCs) in Dist of Columbia can be used to obtain Title II firearms. The problem with these entities is that they all require fees and a public record with the state. You must pay an initial fee to form the entity and in many states, a yearly fee to maintain it. Further, these types of entities are designed to earn money rather than to hold, share, and distribute firearms.
Business entities in region~ rarely address what will happen to the firearm when the creator of the entity becomes incapacitated or dies. Despite these drawbacks, some gun owners choose to use a business entity due to the ability to obtain asset protection of the firearms with such an entity. When gun owners create an LLC to hold firearms, the LLC is still often combined with a gun trust, so the gun owner receives the best of both worlds: asset protection and estate planning combined.
Gun Trust In Dist of Columbia Can Be Kept Private
In contrast, a trust does not require any fees with the state and can be kept private. Because trusts in Dist of Columbia are primarily an estate-planning tool, they are designed to hold, share, and distribute assets. A proper gun trust will address what happens to the firearms when the creator of the trust becomes incapacitated or dies. While a person could use a free trust provided by a gun shop (which is the “unauthorized practice of law”) or downloads one from a discount online source, these products do not protect a person’s family and friends adequately.
A proper firearms trust is designed for owning, sharing, and eventually distributing firearms, ammunition, and accessories.
This Article Is Provided by Attorney Alex Kincaid
The same law also prohibited the possession of handguns, even in private citizens' own homes, unless they were registered before 1976. However, the handgun ban was struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller. The Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment acknowledges and guarantees the right of the individual to possess and carry firearms, and therefore D.C.'s ban on handguns was unconstitutional. This was considered a landmark decision by the US Supreme Court and a very significant advancement of the 2nd amendment and gun rights.
Following the Heller decision, the Washington D.C. City Council enacted a set of rules regulating the possession of handguns in citizens' homes. In addition to each handgun being registered with the police, the rules require that D.C. residents undergo a background check and submit fingerprints. The firearms registry photographs the applicant. Residents must take an online gun safety course, and pass a written test on the District's gun laws. Residents must also declare where it will be kept
The District of Columbia does not permit the concealed carrying of firearms. Open carry is also prohibited. A lawsuit was filed on August 6, 2009, to compel the district to issue permits to carry weapons, it is also expected that with the recent 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruling forcing the state of Illinois to make concealed Carry available to its citizens that DC will be compelled to follow suit.
Washinton DC’s insane gun laws; Back in January, 2013 Benjamin Srigley, a 39-year-old man who lives in Washington, DC. Benjamin Srigley saw three pitbulls attack 11-year-old Jayeon Simon as the boy rode his bike. Benjamin Srigley ran into his house and grabbed his handgun. He shot one of the three dogs. A nearby police officer heard the shots and once arriving on the scene, shot the other two dogs .Rather than being treated as a hero, an investigation was opened into Benjamin Srigley's "offenses." By DC law "Possession of an unregistered firearm or ammunition in the District is punishable by up to a year in jail and a $1,000 fine, and prosecutors said Mr. Srigley could have faced up to seven criminal charges in the case." Seven criminal charges? For saving a boy's life?
US Precision Defense support SANE and fair gun law, lean more on our political news feed on our websites home page.
With the recent decision of the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruling regarding the ban on CCW’s in Illinois there has been a lot of debate as to whether the same will apply to Washington DC; the US Supreme court answered a technical question about its 2008 ruling, concerning whether the federal right it recognized (the District of Columbia is on federal land) also applied to the 50 states. By another 5-4 vote, the court said it does. While the court's five-member conservative majority has been bold about declaring a Second Amendment right to have a gun, it has been less than clear about which gun-control laws violate that right. In fact, the court did not actually strike down Chicago's law, which is effectively a near ban on the possession of handguns by private citizens. It simply asked a lower court to take another look at it.
In looking at the history of US Supreme Court rulings; The court concluded, “We have found no historical evidence that the Second Amendment was intended to convey militia power to the states, limit the federal government’s power to maintain a standing army, or applies only to members of a select militia while on active duty. All of the evidence indicates that the Second Amendment, like other parts of the Bill of Rights, applies to and protects individual Americans. We find that the history of the Second Amendment reinforces the plain meaning of its text, namely that it protects individual Americans in their right to keep and bear arms whether or not they are a member of a select militia or performing active military service or training.”
If there’s any place in America where everything must go smoothly, it’s Washington D.C., the city that runs the country. And that’s true of gun control, which went as smoothly in Washington D.C. as it has everywhere else. The formula is simple. Ban guns. Encourage criminals.
The gun ban had an unintended effect: It emboldened criminals because they knew that law-abiding District residents were unarmed and powerless to defend themselves. Violent crime increased after the law was enacted, with homicides rising to 369 in 1988, from 188 in 1976 when the ban started. By 1993, annual homicides had reached 454.
Since the gun ban was struck down, murders in the District have steadily gone down, from 186 in 2008 to 88 in 2012, the lowest number since the law was enacted in 1976. The decline resulted from a variety of factors, but losing the gun ban certainly did not produce the rise in murders that many might have expected. Follow the latest on Gun owners’ rights by being a member of US Precision Defense.