Uber's Gun Ban vs Florida's Gun in Cars Protection

Uber's Gun Ban vs Florida's Gun in Cars Protection
By Zach McCormick
June 21, 2015

Uber recently announced a 'no gun policy' that prohibits both drivers and riders from keeping a firearm "of any kind" in a "ride arranged through the Uber platform". The policy goes on to state that anyone found in violation of this policy "may lose access to the Uber platform". The question that has now been raised is whether Uber's stance conflicts with Florida's formidable prohibition on discrimination against gun possession in vehicles.

Officially titled "Preservation and Protection of the Right to Keep and Bear Arms in Motor Vehicle's Act of 2008" this law is colloquially known as the 'Guns in Cars Act" and can be found within Fla. Stat. 790.251. With some exceptions, this law allows a "worker" (including a contractor) with a concealed weapons permit to store their firearm in their vehicle while it is in a parking lot owned or controlled by their employer. Not all employers are subject to the rule and so places such as prisons, certain school property, national defense contractors and a few others are exempt. Also, if the employer owns (or leases) the vehicle, then the employer is allowed to prevent the worker from keeping a gun in it.The statute grants the Florida Attorney General the authority to initiate legal inquiries into prospective violations of the law and gives a worker the right to sue an infringing employer.

Because the phrasing of the Florida act mostly focusses on vehicles that are in a parking lot, the question of whether a ride sharing driver would be entitled to the 'Guns in Cars" protection while on the road is, as yet, unanswered. However,  the drafters of the final bill included a statement of legislative intent that seems to unequivocally assert a commitment to protecting Florida workers' rights to keep their guns in their cars.

As an interesting aside, the portion of the law that also protected customers' rights was essentially neutered by a federal inunction in Florida Retail Federation, Inc v. Attorney General of Florida, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1281 (N.D.FL 2008). The language relating to customers can however, still be found within the statute.

It would seem that Uber's new policy is all but certain to conflict with Florida's gun law and we shall have to wait to see how it all shakes out.

Top Five Questions About NFA Trusts

Top Five Questions About NFA Trusts
By: Zach McCormick
June 15, 2015

One of the reasons that I take so much time to sit down with my NFA trust clients is that there is a lot of critical information to know when it comes to such matters. I find that many people have very similar questions during the process. Below is a list of the most common questions that I get asked about my NFA trusts (AKA gun trusts).

1. "How does an NFA trust work?"
It is a legal entity that is able to legally hold property that is assigned (given) to it. An NFA trust (if properly crafted) can help a law abiding gun owner acquire NFA items such as suppressors, short barreled rifles and machine guns without having to jump through administrative hurdles such as convincing a chief law enforcement officer to approve of the transfer.

2. "What can I put in my trust?"

The short answer is: Anything you want. The long answer is: Only put NFA items in an NFA trust. The reasons for this are many but the most important reason is that a gun trust's primary purpose is to protect NFA items and not other property. This means that the protections may not be applicable to the property being held in trust. Further, for those concerned with maintaining privacy, the inclusion of non-NFA property in the trust risks exposure of the property to prying eyes

3. "Do I need a new trust for each NFA item?"

No you do not unless you want to. However, one trust is capable of holding a virtually limitless inventory of property. However, there are some reasons why a person might wish to have separate trusts such as lawful asset protection strategies or when contemplating the gift of an NFA item to another eligible person.

4. "How many beneficiaries can I designate?"

As many as you want but just like the old adage says; "just because you can, doesn't mean you should". The more people you give the titled of beneficiary to, the greater the possible complication from misplacement or mistake. It is my position that a beneficiary should be a very trusted person and this by definition tends to limit the number of beneficiaries a small handful of people for my clients

5. "Can I take my suppressor to another state?"

Yes but you must receive prior written approval from the ATF for the specific date range and destination you have in mind. Generally you will be able to secure permission for transport for up to a year at a time but you will need separate forms for each state. What is more,  you will need to ensure, prior to transport, that your destination state allows possession and use of the NFA item in question. 

You can download the form you will need here: (ATF Application to Transfer Interstate 5320.20)

Bill to Stop ATF Rule 41P Passes House

Bill to Stop ATF Rule 41P Passes House
By: Zach McCormick
6/6/15


According to an article posted on the American Suppressor Association Blog a recent funding bill passed the House of Representatives with an amendment that would block the much-reviled "41P" ATF proposed rule change. Naturally, this is merely the first step towards protecting the status quo as it pertains to NFA trusts (aka gun trusts) and there is still a long way to go before such protections become law.

 As a brief refresher, the 41P proposal would, if enacted, created the title of "responsible person" and require that such a person be fingerprinted and would require that a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) sign off on each trust.

This CLEO provision may be the most offensive term due to the tremendous discretion that it places on these individuals. In areas where CLEOs are opposed to NFA ownership they simply refuse to approve any application. This has the effect of creating a total ban on what would otherwise be lawful possession of suppressors, short barreled rifles and the like.

What is more, contrary to some rumors, it is not permissible for a criminal to use the current trust framework to unlawfully acquire a firearm or NFA item due to the requirement that the FFL conducting the transfer complete an NICS background check immediately prior to the transfer. In fact, the notion that a criminal would go through the hoops of getting a trust to accomplish his criminal intent is so implausible as to be ridiculous.