LOOKING FOR A GOOD NFA TRUST LAWER THE OF IND

[CountryBoy19]

Very well. Good thing you know it all. Go ahead and continue to bask in your all knowing glory. A boilerplate copyrighted trust form that is widget generated as opposed to specifically tailored is EXACTLY what you need.

Again, I ask WTF are you even talking about? Are you at all familiar with the process that guntrustlawyer goes through? It's quite apparent that you aren't.

My trust is not a boilerplate copyrighted trust. It is specifically tailored to my wishes and desires. When you talk to them on the phone they ask you the standard questions like trustees etc etc, and then ask if you have any other special requests desires, then they write the trust for you. Just because it's copyrighted doesn't mean that it's just the same as all of them.

Lets face it, 95% of the language in any trust remains the same, it doesn't really need to change. So why pay a trust lawyer that has no clue about NFA laws $2,000 to draw up a trust that won't be any better than the one from Apple law firm?

Please enlighten us, are you familiar with the Apple law firm process? I think that is really the only thing that matters right now. If not then stop making a fool of yourself by arguing about something that you don't even understand.

 

[Eddie]

Again, I ask WTF are you even talking about? Are you at all familiar with the process that guntrustlawyer goes through? It's quite apparent that you aren't.

My trust is not a boilerplate copyrighted trust. It is specifically tailored to my wishes and desires. When you talk to them on the phone they ask you the standard questions like trustees etc etc, and then ask if you have any other special requests desires, then they write the trust for you. Just because it's copyrighted doesn't mean that it's just the same as all of them.

Lets face it, 95% of the language in any trust remains the same, it doesn't really need to change. So why pay a trust lawyer that has no clue about NFA laws $2,000 to draw up a trust that won't be any better than the one from Apple law firm?

Please enlighten us, are you familiar with the Apple law firm process? I think that is really the only thing that matters right now. If not then stop making a fool of yourself by arguing about something that you don't even understand.

What Ashkelon was doing was nicely trying to warn you that there might be a problem if the lawyer you hired was not licensed to practice in Indiana. Just because a Florida lawyer hires an Indiana lawyer it does not create a contractual relationship between you and the Indiana lawyer, even if the Indiana lawyer mails something to your address. The guy tried to be nice and point this out to you and you are going off for no reason. Maybe you have nothing to worry about, maybe. What is your plan if your trust is declared invalid?

 

[Ashkelon]

What Ashkelon was doing was nicely trying to warn you that there might be a problem if the lawyer you hired was not licensed to practice in Indiana. Just because a Florida lawyer hires an Indiana lawyer it does not create a contractual relationship between you and the Indiana lawyer, even if the Indiana lawyer mails something to your address. The guy tried to be nice and point this out to you and you are going off for no reason. Maybe you have nothing to worry about, maybe. What is your plan if your trust is declared invalid?

Exactly and thank you. I have neither the time nor the inclination to slowly explain agency and privity theory and/or coverage issues as well as jurisdiction problems to this person should a trust come under review and be declared invalid. I was merely trying to point out potential pitfalls that could be avoided with a little more effort. But regardless, he should be fine. It came in an envelope and on letterhead. And you can do the entire transaction over the internet so it must be quality work.

 

[millfire517]

I emailed that lawyer and it costs $600 including all lawyer fees for a trust.

 

[CountryBoy19]

What Ashkelon was doing was nicely trying to warn you that there might be a problem if the lawyer you hired was not licensed to practice in Indiana. Just because a Florida lawyer hires an Indiana lawyer it does not create a contractual relationship between you and the Indiana lawyer, even if the Indiana lawyer mails something to your address. The guy tried to be nice and point this out to you and you are going off for no reason. Maybe you have nothing to worry about, maybe. What is your plan if your trust is declared invalid?

He was not nicely trying to do anything... he was making statements on a legal process/trust of which he obviously doesn't even understand or he wouldn't have made the statement in the first place.

BTW, find me a lawyer in the state of IN that is well-versed in NFA laws, and is also affordable. As of yet, I am not aware of a single lawyer in IN.

So you have a few options, go down to your local lawyer and just get a normal trust for $300-1200. This trust will not explain to your heirs how the items need to be handled in the event of your death. The lawyer handling your estate also won't know or understand unless he is well versed in NFA laws (very rare). Or go down to your local lawyer, have him do research on NFA law, have him write you a trust with detailed language regarding the proper handling and care of NFA weapons, and pay him $1500-5000. There is one other option there, go to a lawyer in Florida that has researched and followed NFA law for decades, who saw a market for NFA specific trusts, and worked tirelessly to develop a network of practicing attorneys all over the country. He wrote a trust that contains all of the detailed language regarding NFA, and he modifies it as necessary to your specific needs and your state's laws. He then sends it to a licensed, practicing lawyer in his network to be checked/modifed/etc to be certain it complies with state law. You can have that for $600.

Now, please explain to me how either of the first 2 options are better than the 3rd?

They're not, absolutely no way about it. The only thing I can possibly see as being better is that you would have a better chance of filing a malpractice suit against the in-state attorney. I'm not sure how that would work with the Apple law firm because I don't know how sub-contracting legal services works, but if I had to wager a guess, Apple Law firm has the bases covered pretty well regarding that. The big difference here is that with the 3rd option you have a trust that has been detailed to your specific needs and will cover your butt better in the event of your death. On the former 2, I wouldn't take any bets. Regarding scenario #1 it would take an attorney a lifetime to research NFA law and have a full understanding of it, there is no possible way a lawyer that isn't already well-versed in the laws can affordably write such a trust. Regarding #2 a plane-jane trust doesn't give you much of the specific coverages that an NFA trust does. Sure, you can try to file a malpractice suit against the in-state lawyer if you find that there was a problem, but IIRC malpractice requires the plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of the lawyer, or show that he/she knowingly made a mistake. Good luck doing that...

So basically you can choose a trust that has .001% chance of having an error but may not have any legal recourse if there is an error found.

Or you can choose a trust that has a 1-50% chance of having an error with slightly more recourse if an error is found.

I'd rather have the trust done right the first time than to mess with a malpractice suit because the local lawyer didn't do enough research on NFA law prior to writing my trust. Not to mention that a trust like that is going to be big $$$$$$$$. Especially when there is a law firm out there that has already done all the research and knows how to write the trust.

It's a double-edged sword. There is a chance to lose no matter which way you choose. In my opinion going with the Apple law firm trust has a smaller chance of losing.

Ever heard of economy of scale? David Goldman has it down... he can afford to sell his trusts so cheap, and still pay a lawyer in the client's state simply because he sells so many of them.

I get the opinion that Ashkelon thinks David Goldman is scamming people. Am I correct? Could you explain yourself in more detail? Are you a lawyer?

I emailed that lawyer and it costs $600 including all lawyer fees for a trust.

If you can find a local lawyer in IN that is well-versed in NFA law that will do it for less then by all means go ahead, and please post the info here. But I looked high and low when I got my trust done and David Goldman was the cheapest option out there that I felt comfortable with.

 

[millfire517]

He was not nicely trying to do anything... he was making statements on a legal process/trust of which he obviously doesn't even understand or he wouldn't have made the statement in the first place.

BTW, find me a lawyer in the state of IN that is well-versed in NFA laws, and is also affordable. As of yet, I am not aware of a single lawyer in IN.

So you have a few options, go down to your local lawyer and just get a normal trust for $300-1200. This trust will not explain to your heirs how the items need to be handled in the event of your death. The lawyer handling your estate also won't know or understand unless he is well versed in NFA laws (very rare). Or go down to your local lawyer, have him do research on NFA law, have him write you a trust with detailed language regarding the proper handling and care of NFA weapons, and pay him $1500-5000. There is one other option there, go to a lawyer in Florida that has researched and followed NFA law for decades, who saw a market for NFA specific trusts, and worked tirelessly to develop a network of practicing attorneys all over the country. He wrote a trust that contains all of the detailed language regarding NFA, and he modifies it as necessary to your specific needs and your state's laws. He then sends it to a licensed, practicing lawyer in his network to be checked/modifed/etc to be certain it complies with state law. You can have that for $600.

Now, please explain to me how either of the first 2 options are better than the 3rd?

They're not, absolutely no way about it. The only thing I can possibly see as being better is that you would have a better chance of filing a malpractice suit against the in-state attorney. I'm not sure how that would work with the Apple law firm because I don't know how sub-contracting legal services works, but if I had to wager a guess, Apple Law firm has the bases covered pretty well regarding that. The big difference here is that with the 3rd option you have a trust that has been detailed to your specific needs and will cover your butt better in the event of your death. On the former 2, I wouldn't take any bets. Regarding scenario #1 it would take an attorney a lifetime to research NFA law and have a full understanding of it, there is no possible way a lawyer that isn't already well-versed in the laws can affordably write such a trust. Regarding #2 a plane-jane trust doesn't give you much of the specific coverages that an NFA trust does. Sure, you can try to file a malpractice suit against the in-state lawyer if you find that there was a problem, but IIRC malpractice requires the plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of the lawyer, or show that he/she knowingly made a mistake. Good luck doing that...

So basically you can choose a trust that has .001% chance of having an error but may not have any legal recourse if there is an error found.

Or you can choose a trust that has a 1-50% chance of having an error with slightly more recourse if an error is found.

I'd rather have the trust done right the first time than to mess with a malpractice suit because the local lawyer didn't do enough research on NFA law prior to writing my trust. Not to mention that a trust like that is going to be big $$$$$$$$. Especially when there is a law firm out there that has already done all the research and knows how to write the trust.

It's a double-edged sword. There is a chance to lose no matter which way you choose. In my opinion going with the Apple law firm trust has a smaller chance of losing.

Ever heard of economy of scale? David Goldman has it down... he can afford to sell his trusts so cheap, and still pay a lawyer in the client's state simply because he sells so many of them.

I get the opinion that Ashkelon thinks David Goldman is scamming people. Am I correct? Could you explain yourself in more detail? Are you a lawyer?



If you can find a local lawyer in IN that is well-versed in NFA law that will do it for less then by all means go ahead, and please post the info here. But I looked high and low when I got my trust done and David Goldman was the cheapest option out there that I felt comfortable with.

I was just putting out the fact that his services are $600. I may very well use him when I get ready to do a trust. I haven't found any lawyers in Indiana who are well versed in the nfa trusts.

 

[Ashkelon]

Yes, I do happen to be a lawyer. If you read my original post I believe you will find I was quite diplomatic in pointing out potential legal pitfalls in this arrangement.

Scam? Nope. He is offering a service and you are paying for that service. I guess you are right. I don't get it. Why would someone spend all this money for these items and then prop them up with as cut rate a trust as they can get. 600 bucks? Hell, I've spent more than that at Costco on Sunday afternoon.

My concern is what kind of personal preparation are you getting when an out of state lawyer takes your information over the phone and charges 600 bucks and still has to pay an in state lawyer out of those funds?

Why would someone who pays for their E&0 insurance every year be willing to take a document prepared by an out of state lawyer and then step in as a middle man and ship it to you on their letterhead? Do they simply not have enough of their own work? Isn't that a bad sign?

I do know if an out of state lawyer were to call our office and and ask us to sign off on his product and ship it under our name for a percentage of 600 bucks wherein we had no direct contact with the client then YES that would likely void our coverage under our E&0 as failure to exercise due diligence.

Their fraction of the fee hardly seems the risk which goes back to my original point. Is this who you wish to have structuring such a sensitive arrangement? Your call.

Telephone calls and e-mails for the preparation of the trust with no real or up close accountability. Just my two cents.

Jurisdictional issues and privity issues abound in this situation.

Malpractice recourse? Proving negligence is just a matter of proving the mistake. Not a great hurdle if the trust is declared invalid for procedural or substantive defect. In fact I have made some pretty decent money over the years off the mistakes of other lawyers. Its why we carry E&0 ins.

Are their E&0 policies claims based? Do they have a tail rider? Maybe worth looking into if you are looking for a document that is designed to last in perpetuity.

But you wouldn't even get that far since if its declared invalid you will likely be unable to cross the privity and jurisdictional obstacles.

Class dismissed.

 

[Eddie]

He was not nicely trying to do anything... he was making statements on a legal process/trust of which he obviously doesn't even understand or he wouldn't have made the statement in the first place.

BTW, find me a lawyer in the state of IN that is well-versed in NFA laws, and is also affordable. As of yet, I am not aware of a single lawyer in IN.

So you have a few options, go down to your local lawyer and just get a normal trust for $300-1200. This trust will not explain to your heirs how the items need to be handled in the event of your death. The lawyer handling your estate also won't know or understand unless he is well versed in NFA laws (very rare). Or go down to your local lawyer, have him do research on NFA law, have him write you a trust with detailed language regarding the proper handling and care of NFA weapons, and pay him $1500-5000. There is one other option there, go to a lawyer in Florida that has researched and followed NFA law for decades, who saw a market for NFA specific trusts, and worked tirelessly to develop a network of practicing attorneys all over the country. He wrote a trust that contains all of the detailed language regarding NFA, and he modifies it as necessary to your specific needs and your state's laws. He then sends it to a licensed, practicing lawyer in his network to be checked/modifed/etc to be certain it complies with state law. You can have that for $600.

Now, please explain to me how either of the first 2 options are better than the 3rd?

They're not, absolutely no way about it. The only thing I can possibly see as being better is that you would have a better chance of filing a malpractice suit against the in-state attorney. I'm not sure how that would work with the Apple law firm because I don't know how sub-contracting legal services works, but if I had to wager a guess, Apple Law firm has the bases covered pretty well regarding that. The big difference here is that with the 3rd option you have a trust that has been detailed to your specific needs and will cover your butt better in the event of your death. On the former 2, I wouldn't take any bets. Regarding scenario #1 it would take an attorney a lifetime to research NFA law and have a full understanding of it, there is no possible way a lawyer that isn't already well-versed in the laws can affordably write such a trust. Regarding #2 a plane-jane trust doesn't give you much of the specific coverages that an NFA trust does. Sure, you can try to file a malpractice suit against the in-state lawyer if you find that there was a problem, but IIRC malpractice requires the plaintiff to prove negligence on the part of the lawyer, or show that he/she knowingly made a mistake. Good luck doing that...

So basically you can choose a trust that has .001% chance of having an error but may not have any legal recourse if there is an error found.

Or you can choose a trust that has a 1-50% chance of having an error with slightly more recourse if an error is found.

I'd rather have the trust done right the first time than to mess with a malpractice suit because the local lawyer didn't do enough research on NFA law prior to writing my trust. Not to mention that a trust like that is going to be big $$$$$$$$. Especially when there is a law firm out there that has already done all the research and knows how to write the trust.

It's a double-edged sword. There is a chance to lose no matter which way you choose. In my opinion going with the Apple law firm trust has a smaller chance of losing.

Ever heard of economy of scale? David Goldman has it down... he can afford to sell his trusts so cheap, and still pay a lawyer in the client's state simply because he sells so many of them.

I get the opinion that Ashkelon thinks David Goldman is scamming people. Am I correct? Could you explain yourself in more detail? Are you a lawyer?



If you can find a local lawyer in IN that is well-versed in NFA law that will do it for less then by all means go ahead, and please post the info here. But I looked high and low when I got my trust done and David Goldman was the cheapest option out there that I felt comfortable with.

Ashkelon has covered most of this already but here is what I will add:

I am also a lawyer. The past few years privity of contract has been a hot button issue with the growth of internet advertising. Trusts have also been a recent area of controversy regarding the unlicensed practice of law and the selling of "canned" documents. You analyzed the problem in terms of cost. Ashkelon analyzed in terms of liability. If the trust is disqualified then liability becomes the important issue since it won't matter how much you paid for it. If the trust is not disqualified then you got a good deal for your money. It is a relevant point that if you hire an attorney who is not licensed to practice in Indiana and that attorney hires an Indiana attorney and something goes wrong then you might get left holding the bag because you didn't have privity of contract with the Indiana lawyer and the guy that you did hire wasn't licensed to practice here.

As far as phone consults; I hate them and I will only do a phone consult if the person absolutely can't physically travel to see me. You learn a lot about a client during a face to face consult that can be missed over the phone.

Regarding fear of hiring a local lawyer who will charge you more to educate themselves on NFA trusts; it is unethical for a lawyer to charge you to educate themself about a new area of law. They are free to take your case and charge the going rate, but it is up to them to learn the basics on their own time.

I think both points of view; costs vs. liability, are relevant. $600 for a trust sounds low to me.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Scam? Nope. He is offering a service and you are paying for that service. I guess you are right. I don't get it. Why would someone spend all this money for these items and then prop them up with as cut rate a trust as they can get. 600 bucks? Hell, I've spent more than that at Costco on Sunday afternoon.

Haven't been around the NFA trust game long have you? 80% or more of people are doing trusts with quicken willmaker. IMHO, that is a cut-rate, cheap trust that may get you in trouble. Many argue that the goldman trust is too expensive but IMHO, it ss well worth the money to cover your butt. Cut-rate? How is it cut-rate? Just because it's cheaper than what you would charge it's cut-rate? Have you even read over a trust from them? How can you make an accurate judgment baseed upon the price? I already explained to you that it is simply a case of economy of scale. David Goldman doesn't have to charge for X hours of his time to every single client because 95% of the trust langauge doesn't change and he sells thousands of trusts. His hours to do each trust are minimal based upon the small amount of modifications that are necessary. His time and costs spent developing the basic form of his trust are divided between thousands of clients. Do you even write trusts? If so, do you start from a blank piece of paper every time or do you start with a "form trust" that you modify/alter as needed? If it's the former then you're a fool for doing the same thing over and over again. If it's the latter then just how much language gets changed each time you write a trust?

You don't have to be smart to look at a trust and see that 95% of the language can, and does remain the same from trust-to-trust. Any lawyer that is drafting a new trust from blank paper each time isn't treating his clients fairly IMHO. And any lawyer that charges as if he is doing that, but then uses a form type trust is raping his clients on rates. So if you think the goldman trust is cut-rate, then which of the above lawyer types are you?


You must be a lawyer... only lawyers are right even when they're wrong...

$600 for a trust sounds low to me.

See above...


I contacted David to get the full scoop on how the process works just to set things straight. It's obvious that you didn't understand, and you had no desire to understand it, you just wanted to argue about it (because you're a lawyer). So to be sure none of the other members here are led astray by your blind arguments and misconceptions, I give you the below from David Goldman sent in an email to me this morning.

No our agreement specifically states that the money is being split and 1/2 is going for the local attorney for state law issues and 1/2 is going to us for the federal issues. In fact the local attorney's name is on the trust and if you would prefer, you can pay them and they would send us 1/2 the money.

Many local attorneys do not take credit cards so they prefer if we take the funds as this reduces any delay in the documents. Please ask the lawyer who is posting to call me or send me his information and I would be happy to talk with him and make sure our agreement gives the individuals the rights they need.


Anyway, if there was a problem, our policy is to refund the fees. Its not worth arguing over $600.00 and this has happened only a few times over the thousands of trusts we do. One guy, lost his job after getting the trust and could not afford what he planned to buy, technically we did not have to do a refund but we felt it was the right thing to do.


No trust that we have prepared has ever been denied by the ATF when executed properly. We offer to review the trusts after they are signed, but some people do not and forget to sign a page. It has always been something that is correctable by re-execution and faxing the change to the agent.


This is one of the reasons you do not see any clients posting any negative comments on our services. We have 100% customer satisfaction much of our business comes from referrals.

 

[Ashkelon]

Look. This is the last time that I will try to explain this to you. Please note his response: "when they are executed properly". This service is no different than tubo tax or any other document generating service. Make the money but take no responsibility as they assume no responsibility or liability for the finished product other than the original cost to the consumer. YOU the consumer are responsible for making sure everything is complete and finished. Same with Turbo Tax. If you screw up your taxes using their product they might give you the 59.99 back but there is no CPA helping you with the audit or risking the time with you. Same situation.

Regardless, you are correct. I don't do NFA trusts. I have a Judge friend who does some on the side for select people but nope - I won't get off my arse for 300 bucks or even the 600 this person charges.

You attempt to make this personal when I have not. I am merely pointing out obvious risks with such an arrangement. I am glad he states he has 100 percent customer satisfaction. It is an admirable goal but if someone honestly believes out of thousands of "clients" or "customers" each and every one is 100 percent satisfied then I fear neither of you are being objective.

Good luck to you and hope your faith is not misplaced.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Look. This is the last time that I will try to explain this to you. Please note his response: "when they are executed properly". This service is no different than tubo tax or any other document generating service. Make the money but take no responsibility as they assume no responsibility or liability for the finished product other than the original cost to the consumer. YOU the consumer are responsible for making sure everything is complete and finished. Same with Turbo Tax. If you screw up your taxes using their product they might give you the 59.99 back but there is no CPA helping you with the audit or risking the time with you. Same situation.

You must have missed the last 2 sentences in that paragraph when you read it. Everybody could make a mistake in executing a trust etc. But please, point me to the place where David says that he doesn't assume any responsibility. He specifically offers to review the trust document after execution. Just because a client turns that service down does not make the document itself any less safe, it makes the client careless or reckless. That is not the fault of any party involved except the client himself. And you seem to have missed the entire part about the in-state lawyer getting half the money, being liable etc. Why don't you address that as well? Oh, because it would trash your entire argument wouldn't it? You're really grasping at straws here aren't you?

You're only addressing half the argument here. I don't think David should be responsible for anything regarding state law issues. As he explained it, he is there to back up the state lawyer regarding federal matters. The in-state lawyer is the one that assumes all liability and takes care of the state issues. So yes, while David is implying that he isn't responsible for more than the cost of the trust, he never once said that the in-state lawyer also isn't. As a matter of fact, he said that the client should be dealing with the in-state lawyer, not him. But that doesn't mean that he won't deal with you. Any time I've ever had any questions he has been very prompt at answering them, and I have no doubt in my mind that he would also promptly take care of problems. As a matter of fact, he did that once before. There was an issue where a guy used a quicken trust. His trust wasn't valid, but that wasn't caught until he tried to obtain a 3rd NFA firearm, at which point ATF found the mistake and attempted to seize his weapons. He contacted David, and David fixed his trust for him, for free, so that his weapons wouldn't be seized. Now tell me that David is going to cut and run when there is a problem. He fixed a problem that he wasn't at fault nor liable for on a trust for a guy that had never paid him a single cent. Come on, your argument is falling apart at the seams.

We offer to review the trusts after they are signed, but some people do not and forget to sign a page.

Regardless, you are correct. I don't do NFA trusts. I have a Judge friend who does some on the side for select people but nope - I won't get off my arse for 300 bucks or even the 600 this person charges.

I am merely pointing out obvious risks with such an arrangement.

And what obvious risk is that? It seems to me that David just addressed those risks, yet you completely avoided the issue and still argued your blind argument. Did you call David and talk to him? He offered to explain it to you. I'm sure he could do a better job than I can. Or is your time too valuable and you're too lazy to get off your arse without getting paid more than $600 to do it?

 

[Eddie]

You must have missed the last 2 sentences in that paragraph when you read it. Everybody could make a mistake in executing a trust etc. But please, point me to the place where David says that he doesn't assume any responsibility. He specifically offers to review the trust document after execution. Just because a client turns that service down does not make the document itself any less safe, it makes the client careless or reckless. That is not the fault of any party involved except the client himself. And you seem to have missed the entire part about the in-state lawyer getting half the money, being liable etc. Why don't you address that as well? Oh, because it would trash your entire argument wouldn't it? You're really grasping at straws here aren't you?

You're only addressing half the argument here. I don't think David should be responsible for anything regarding state law issues. As he explained it, he is there to back up the state lawyer regarding federal matters. The in-state lawyer is the one that assumes all liability and takes care of the state issues. So yes, while David is implying that he isn't responsible for more than the cost of the trust, he never once said that the in-state lawyer also isn't. As a matter of fact, he said that the client should be dealing with the in-state lawyer, not him.




And what obvious risk is that? It seems to me that David just addressed those risks, yet you completely avoided the issue and still argued your blind argument. Did you call David and talk to him? He offered to explain it to you. I'm sure he could do a better job than I can. Or is your time too valuable and you're too lazy to get off your arse without getting paid more than $600 to do it?

Two people have tried to help you. You refuse to listen. Good luck.

 

[CountryBoy19]

Two people have tried to help you. You refuse to listen. Good luck.

And how is that? By telling me that a process is flawed without providing any evidence what-so-ever? One of them admittedly doesn't even waste his time with trusts. How about you?

One of you do us both a favor. Please call David, discuss the matter with him, and then post back here. If you still hold the opinion that it is flawed, then I concede. But I don't think a lawyer with a reputation such as David would leave his clients hanging out to dry like you guys imply he would.

 

[Ashkelon]

Read the previous posts by Eddie and myself. All the information is there. You just have to think it through

 

[Ashkelon]

And how is that? By telling me that a process is flawed without providing any evidence what-so-ever? One of them admittedly doesn't even waste his time with trusts. How about you?

One of you do us both a favor. Please call David, discuss the matter with him, and then post back here. If you still hold the opinion that it is flawed, then I concede. But I don't think a lawyer with a reputation such as David would leave his clients hanging out to dry like you guys imply he would.

I know I said I wouldn't post on this anymore but your response just now hit me. I am not implying David would leave his clients out to dry. There is a HUGE difference between a "client" and a "customer".

Wal Mart has customers. Your local mom and pop have clients. KNOWING someone and spending the time to understand their needs is not the same as filling in the blanks over the phone. Different approaches. I'm not even saying one is better than the other. They are just different. Each may serve a niche and a need. Once your check clears and the "trust" gets e-mailed to some lawyer in some state his relationship with you is essentially over from a legal standpoint. Anything he does from that point forward is gratis. As stated in his e-mail. You are a customer. That is it.

When you stated that you don't believe "David" should know state law I am sure he is relieved to hear you say that. Unfortunately, the Courts and society view otherwise. When you take somebody's money you are supposed to know what you are doing. Period. If you don't and can't competently address the issue then you can't dodge responsibility by subcontracting it out. Using a constuctiuon analogy -- The general contractor assumes liability for his subs. Not the case in your scenario-- hence the previous posts. If one happens to fall south you then run into the jurisdictional pitfalls I pointed out earlier.
I have addressed this issue all I can and will - if you don't see it - then you don't see it.

 

[CountryBoy19]

I know I said I wouldn't post on this anymore but your response just now hit me. I am not implying David would leave his clients out to dry. There is a HUGE difference between a "client" and a "customer".

Wal Mart has customers. Your local mom and pop have clients. KNOWING someone and spending the time to understand their needs is not the same as filling in the blanks over the phone. Different approaches. I'm not even saying one is better than the other. They are just different. Each may serve a niche and a need. Once your check clears and the "trust" gets e-mailed to some lawyer in some state his relationship with you is essentially over from a legal standpoint. Anything he does from that point forward is gratis. As stated in his e-mail. You are a customer. That is it.

Really splitting a thin hair aren't you?

When you stated that you don't believe "David" should know state law I am sure he is relieved to hear you say that. Unfortunately, the Courts and society view otherwise. When you take somebody's money you are supposed to know what you are doing. Period. If you don't and can't competently address the issue then you can't dodge responsibility by subcontracting it out. Using a constuctiuon analogy -- The general contractor assumes liability for his subs. Not the case in your scenario-- hence the previous posts. If one happens to fall south you then run into the jurisdictional pitfalls I pointed out earlier.
I have addressed this issue all I can and will - if you don't see it - then you don't see it.

So how is this different than me remitting payment to the in-state lawyer, who then remits his share to David for the copyrighted trust, then the in-state lawyer provides the trust to me? That would be no different than me going directly to the in-state lawyer, paying him for his services, and he in-turn purchases some documents from elsewhere. He sold me a service, and purchased documents to provide that service from an outside company/law-firm. His purchase of those documents doesn't negate any rights and/or client privileges I have. That is what happens with the Apple trust. That is the part you're not understanding.

Scenario: You are a trust lawyer in IN but don't know anything about firearms, or NFA firearms. You have a client that wants a trust written for the purchase of said firearms. You have a lawyer friend is XXX state that knows A LOT about firearms. So you contact him, he says, "Oh, yeah, I already have a trust written up for NFA firearms, how about I send it over to you, you can review and modify it as needed for IN state law and the customer's needs then pass it on to him". How is that any different than this situation? The only difference I see is where the payment was first remitted to, but even then a person purchasing an Apple trust could remit payment to their local lawyer as well.

So what gives?

I think you're either arguing just for the sake of arguing even though you know you're wrong, or you just don't fully understand it all yet. Or maybe I just have no clue what you're even trying to say because you aren't explaining it very well.


Did you call David? Can one of you just do that so you fully understand how the process works, and then can post an expert opinion on it? It's toll-free, won't take much of your time, and will certainly help this discussion out a lot.

 

[patience0830]

fights like these.

thanks to all for the free advice. Remember, it's worth what you paid for it. (sometimes more, sometimes less. But it averages out)

This argument could have been conducted more in a more civil fashion.

I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV. But in a case as serious as a trust for my NFA items I'll be doing my research independently and thoroughly. I recommend that anyone considering a trust for this purpose do the same.

 

[JoshuaW]

If someone will post the name of the lawyer in Mishawaka, I will gladly call them as a prospective customer who has never even heard of "Gun Trust Lawyer" and see what they say. Im interested in doing a trust eventually anyways, I havent decided if the risk is worth the few hundred dollars in savings, but I just think it would be interesting for someone (me) to call the Mishawaka lawyer and just ask "Im looking to have a trust made up to register my short barreled rifle against. I guess it is considered an NFA item and if I want my wife or my dad to be able to use it freely I apparently need to register it to a trust". That sounds ignorant enough of the law for them to try to convince me one way or another. If they try to sell me a trust they write for a much larger sum, that would be another reason to think twice before using Gun Trust Lawyer (Im still not saying someone shouldnt, but I agree one should be well informed before making that decision). If they offer me the Gun Trust Lawyer trust at the same $600, then take that as you want. Either they are comfortable selling it (since that is essentially what they are doing) or they are completely oblivious to any concerns, which is probably not something you want in a lawyer.

 

[CarmelHP]

Ashkelon and Eddie, I resent you offering free legal advice. Fools treat it as what they paid for it.

"Give not that which is holy to dogs; neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest perhaps they trample them under their feet, and turning upon you, they tear you." Matt. 7:6

IAALBNYL

 

[Bill B]

Soooo, four pages of who not to use (or maybe he's ok), but still no answer to the OP.
I've been watching this thread hoping for an answer because if I ever get into NFA items it'll be the trust route.
Can anyone provide a cite for the statutory requirements for a NFA trust?