TexasCHLforum.com

TexasVet wrote:I guess if is a trust then really no problems with age and it can go on for a long time. Since a trust in an "individual" in the eyes of the law that would take care of that. But can my under 18 year old child be the legal owner of a firearm.. not buy it, but own it ?

I am not sure about the law in Texas, but I assume it would be the same as in Louisiana because it is the BATFE that inspects trusts to see if they are proper: All trustees must be legally able to possess firearms. (Not sure if that's 18 or 21 for NFA restricted items.) A minor can be a beneficiary and, if a revocable trust, be added as a trustee when of age. I think in the case of a beneficiary taking possession, it is actually a transfer; I don't know about this last detail.

sjfcontrol wrote:Why would you "assume" that?
[...]
Of course, if you voluntarily register some of your firearms, they WILL know you have at least some, and may want to check for others, IMO.

Even without that assumption, the question posed is still an interesting hypothetical. I would make that assumption with my tin foil hat squarely on my noggin.

I tend to agree with your analysis... where there's one declared, there might be more. At the same time, I wouldn't want to have a benign encounter with a LEO turn into a felony while carrying out of the house. I think the comments from others that the government can confiscate weapons "one bullet at a time" are predicated on that you're home and ready to defend you and yours. Assume the S doesn't HTF, I would still need to be out and about in may daily routine of work, daycare, groceries, etc.

Just trying to examine the issue from every angle. Thanks for the response!

Just wanted to float a question to you all. Haven't thoroughly evaluated the hypothetical, so I'm not sure how I would respond. And let me preface this with the fact that I am of course opposed to any registration scheme and, knowing that would be the first step towards confiscation, not comply.

If registration is required, might there be an argument for registering one or two weapons to appear to be compliant, while not registering the rest? (I assume the security apparatus that is currently in place would already be able to determine who is and who isn't a firearm owner, especially holding a CHL.) For example, if registration of all guns is required, should a CHL register one or two carry gun that is used the most -- in case s/he is approached by a LEO for a traffic stop? What about registering a pump action shotty in case of a break in and leaving the semi-auto one off of the lists?

What would the pros and cons be?

Just playing devil's advocate here. I understand and agree with the stock response to never register anything, cede no ground in a "compromise," but I'm just trying to explore this hypothetical from every angle.

The Annoyed Man wrote:

Oldgringo wrote:

jdhz28 wrote:You could set up a trust, it doesn't have to belong to a corporation. Upon your death the other trustees and beneficiaries will take over the firearms, the down side to that is they aren't yours, they belong to the trust.

If you're dead doesn't ownership become somewhat of a moot question?

It is still part of your estate, which you paid for and accumulated, and you ought to have the legal right to pass it along to your heirs, just like with a car or a house. If her law passes, I could sell all of my guns to my son for $1 before it takes effect, and then borrow them back.

I think your solution works, but in my case my son is not old enough. I can have him as beneficiary of a revocable trust (which still may require a transfer, I'm not sure), but when he is of age add him as a trustee; furthermore, if the laws regarding trusts remain the same, he could add his children when the time comes. This provides access for future generations while skirting the transfer issue.