This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Machine guns, SBRs, SBSs, suppressors, destructive devices, AOW (any other weapon)
User avatar
Sweep
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 3119
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2004 7:51 pm
Location: Largo
Contact:

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by Sweep » Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:19 am

10 miles away and never heard of them :-k
Democrat's still for Trump ..
Full service FFL/SOT manufacture
Pale Rider Co Inc FFL07/SOT
http://www.blingblingbangbangs.com
727-776-4274

User avatar
Augdawg
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2004 11:24 am
Location: Melbourne Florida

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by Augdawg » Sat Dec 11, 2010 6:42 am

I know of someone who has gotten a trust from them. Don't know if there will be any problems though. Is there a reason why nobody should use this lawyer? Is it because of the advertisement or because there is problems with trust in general? Appreciate any information. Thanks.

User avatar
Bladesmith2000
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 411
Joined: Sat Apr 24, 2010 11:18 am
Location: Lakeland, FL

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by Bladesmith2000 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:33 pm

Bravo on the letter to the Florida Bar! Well stated!

User avatar
Cracker
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2006 10:11 am
Location: Davie, Florida

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by Cracker » Sat Dec 11, 2010 12:58 pm

GoingQuiet wrote:Look at this drivel. It infuriates me.

http://goingquiet.com/Photos/DavisBastaLawfirm.JPG" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
How could you say such a thing. They're obviously competent. They've been doing real estate law for years and we all know how that turned out. Their advice is good too. How else would they KNOW that in order to own an NFA item, you have to have a trust. You just can't believe how many people there are that actually believe they can own something like this in their own name, or through a corporation.

I'm going to contact them right away to make sure that my own trust meets their standards. Bob Howell did mine, but he's only a firearm experienced attorney and probably does not know as much as those that specialized in real estate. I think I'll send them a check, just to speed the process along.

WHEN PIGS FLY.
________________________________________________________
In God We Trust

User avatar
ipscscott
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 7679
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 12:03 am
Location: Davenport, FL
Contact:

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by ipscscott » Sat Dec 11, 2010 1:16 pm

Hey GQ - after that letter, my opinion of you just went up a notch. :ber

Let us know if you get any response from the bar.
Custom Cerakote/GunKote refinishing and Hydrographic Printing, mild to wild!
Hydro Print Services
http://www.hydroprintservices.com/
https://www.facebook.com/HydroPrintServices
863-797-4226


Full service FFL/SOT manufacturer, for all your NFA goodies
Thermo Arms Inc FFL07/SOT
http://www.thermoarms.com/
727-776-4274

wcontratto
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 838
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 8:02 am
Location: Osceola County

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by wcontratto » Sat Dec 11, 2010 2:01 pm

GoingQuiet wrote:Read my response to the Florida Bar.

<snippage happens>

5. The third paragraph references “When the NFA is violated, the individuals who violate the act are subject to substantial fines, criminal charges and forfeiture of ALL WEAPONS, NOT JUST THOSE REGULATED.”

Again, this is a patently erroneous statement. When the NFA is violated, typically it is from an unlawful possession or construction issue that has nothing to do with any ownership/trust related problems. A willful violation of the National Firearms Act supports automatic forfeiture of the illegal item – not forfeiture of all personal firearms.
While I agree with most of your analysis, this part may bear reconsideration. While I haven't read the actual law in some time, I am pretty sure you are right saying that it only requires forfeiture of the illegal item. However, IIRC, this is a felony violation. As such, if you are convicted, you would have to forfeit ownership of all your other firearms. Now this does not mean that you have to give up "ALL WEAPONS", but you would no longer be elligible to own firearms.

Just a nit.

The letter is pure fear mongering bait trying to hook the uninformed. Good on you for bringing it to the bar's attention.

User avatar
Rentprop1
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 23280
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 1:09 pm
Location: Finally relaxin in the country in Citrus Co

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by Rentprop1 » Sat Dec 11, 2010 3:18 pm

a lot of time people have to dumb down advertisements for the general public ...just sayin :-k
In the days of the old west a 6 shooter was as common as cell phones are today and just annoying if they go off in a theater.

Synaptic Misfire
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 1633
Joined: Sat Oct 20, 2007 12:37 pm
Location: St. Pete Florida

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by Synaptic Misfire » Sat Dec 11, 2010 5:41 pm

wcontratto wrote:
GoingQuiet wrote:Read my response to the Florida Bar.

<snippage happens>

5. The third paragraph references “When the NFA is violated, the individuals who violate the act are subject to substantial fines, criminal charges and forfeiture of ALL WEAPONS, NOT JUST THOSE REGULATED.”

Again, this is a patently erroneous statement. When the NFA is violated, typically it is from an unlawful possession or construction issue that has nothing to do with any ownership/trust related problems. A willful violation of the National Firearms Act supports automatic forfeiture of the illegal item – not forfeiture of all personal firearms.
While I agree with most of your analysis, this part may bear reconsideration. While I haven't read the actual law in some time, I am pretty sure you are right saying that it only requires forfeiture of the illegal item. However, IIRC, this is a felony violation. As such, if you are convicted, you would have to forfeit ownership of all your other firearms. Now this does not mean that you have to give up "ALL WEAPONS", but you would no longer be elligible to own firearms.

Just a nit.

The letter is pure fear mongering bait trying to hook the uninformed. Good on you for bringing it to the bar's attention.
I see what you are saying and you are right after due process you would be ineligible to own firearms. BUT what is stated is that the illegally possessed item would have to be forfeited prior to trial and conviction, because even if you are not charged they are still going to seize the illegal item.
"Maybe when we secede, we'll just take the Constitution with us.
Nobody in DC is using it anyway." -Joe C. Wales

Ronald Reagan brought down the 2nd most powerful nation in the world-the Soviet Union.
Barack Obama is trying to bring down the most powerful nation in the world-the United States of America

wcontratto
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 838
Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 8:02 am
Location: Osceola County

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by wcontratto » Sat Dec 11, 2010 7:05 pm

Synaptic Misfire wrote:
wcontratto wrote:
GoingQuiet wrote:Read my response to the Florida Bar.

<snippage happens>

5. The third paragraph references “When the NFA is violated, the individuals who violate the act are subject to substantial fines, criminal charges and forfeiture of ALL WEAPONS, NOT JUST THOSE REGULATED.”

Again, this is a patently erroneous statement. When the NFA is violated, typically it is from an unlawful possession or construction issue that has nothing to do with any ownership/trust related problems. A willful violation of the National Firearms Act supports automatic forfeiture of the illegal item – not forfeiture of all personal firearms.
While I agree with most of your analysis, this part may bear reconsideration. While I haven't read the actual law in some time, I am pretty sure you are right saying that it only requires forfeiture of the illegal item. However, IIRC, this is a felony violation. As such, if you are convicted, you would have to forfeit ownership of all your other firearms. Now this does not mean that you have to give up "ALL WEAPONS", but you would no longer be elligible to own firearms.

Just a nit.

The letter is pure fear mongering bait trying to hook the uninformed. Good on you for bringing it to the bar's attention.
I see what you are saying and you are right after due process you would be ineligible to own firearms. BUT what is stated is that the illegally possessed item would have to be forfeited prior to trial and conviction, because even if you are not charged they are still going to seize the illegal item.
Agreed.

My first thought when I read the original drivel was "that's BS", but upon reflection, I reasoned it was just a stretch. Not uncommon to marketeering professionals and lawyers.

The rest of it was pure crappola

philasteen
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 12:39 am
Location: Plantation

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by philasteen » Sun Dec 12, 2010 6:15 pm

GoingQuiet, you must have been the kind of kid that was the hall monitor in high school. Seriously, you wrote a letter to the bar about this without even attempting to contact the lawyer first? Is it possible -- just possible -- this overworked lawyer wrote off a quick note that was incorrect without any ill intent? Possibly that lawyer was not infallible and may have been mistaken? Because a number of people may have come looking for trusts and he made the erroneous assumption a trust was required?

His letter is basically correct other than the statement that NFA is required to be placed in trust, your nitpicking about the commonly used descriptor "class 3" notwithstanding. I might have done him the courtesy of a phone call or contact before going and writing a letter to the Florida Bar, rather than trying to poison somebody who obviously is a supporter of our community, even if from a purely business-driven standpoint.

George W
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 5997
Joined: Sun Nov 16, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: Plant City, Florida

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by George W » Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:09 pm

It ain't just a misprint in his mailer. It's on his website as well.:
Gun Trusts
We are pleased to provide Revocable Firearms Trusts designed to address the federal law requirement that class 3 weapon owners of certain gun related items place them in Trust. Because gun ownership is regulated by the federal government, it is important to understand the law in this regard. We have a trust drafted to deal with the special issues involving items regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA).
Half of my resolutions to problems come with a cold sweat somewhere around 2 am.

philasteen
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 12:39 am
Location: Plantation

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by philasteen » Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:52 am

I think that he's just mistaken, not being misleading. And he is effectively correct in that if you live in a no-sign off county, you do need to use a trust (or corporation/LLC) for purchase.

User avatar
Pizzim
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 1885
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: Largo
Contact:

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by Pizzim » Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:49 pm

Where he is located ( Pinellas County ) You will never get a CSO sign off, so its either a trust or corp .... FWIW he did my trust, They provided me a copy prior to my payment. Not only did i go over it but i have a few other people ( including a few other trust/probate lawyers) and sure non of them were Firearms lawyers like BOB but i have to think all the possible bases were covered if they all thought it was GTG.


Somewhat funny they are sending advertising to you but i dont think the BAR handles that kind of stuff they tend to look into the unethical/illegal stuff
"you cant miss fast enough to win" " Don't slow down, Just aim faster"

Two Brothers Armory FFL 07/02
www.twobrothersarmory.com

Bob
Member
Member
Posts: 185
Joined: Mon May 17, 2004 4:46 pm
Location: Davie, Florida

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by Bob » Mon Dec 13, 2010 3:50 pm

Well I have been dealing with trusts for NFA for quite a few years longer. The first article I wrote for Small Arms Review on the subject was back in 2007. That was the one that pretty much got the NFA trust on the map but I have been dealing with trust transfers since long before then. Very few attorneys (Barnes, Jeffries, Wong, etc.) out there really seemed to care about dealing with NFA issues back then. Seems like I cant throw a rock without hitting an expert these days.

Wish I was a real estate attorney too, oh wait, I am... [smilie=011.gif]

Bob J. Howell, Esq., FFL, SOT

User avatar
macattack321
Executive Member
Executive Member
Posts: 831
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:28 pm
Location: Brevard County, FL

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by macattack321 » Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:15 pm

I can vouch for Bob... I just put a suppressor on a trust that he set up for me (i.e. tax stamp came in last week). =D>

User avatar
Famester
Contributor
Contributor
Posts: 884
Joined: Fri Aug 06, 2010 11:13 am
Location: Weston

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by Famester » Tue Dec 21, 2010 5:37 pm

philasteen wrote:GoingQuiet, you must have been the kind of kid that was the hall monitor in high school. Seriously, you wrote a letter to the bar about this without even attempting to contact the lawyer first? Is it possible -- just possible -- this overworked lawyer wrote off a quick note that was incorrect without any ill intent? Possibly that lawyer was not infallible and may have been mistaken? Because a number of people may have come looking for trusts and he made the erroneous assumption a trust was required?

His letter is basically correct other than the statement that NFA is required to be placed in trust, your nitpicking about the commonly used descriptor "class 3" notwithstanding. I might have done him the courtesy of a phone call or contact before going and writing a letter to the Florida Bar, rather than trying to poison somebody who obviously is a supporter of our community, even if from a purely business-driven standpoint.
Ignorance is not a defensible excuse. "Sorry, I did not know" will cause a professional license to be revoked. :ham'r
I began revolution with 82 men. If I had to do it again, I do it with 10 or 15 and absolute faith. It does not matter how small you are if you have faith and plan of action.
Fidel Castro

philasteen
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 316
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2003 12:39 am
Location: Plantation

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by philasteen » Mon Jan 17, 2011 5:38 pm

GoingQuiet wrote:
Famester wrote:
philasteen wrote:GoingQuiet, you must have been the kind of kid that was the hall monitor in high school. Seriously, you wrote a letter to the bar about this without even attempting to contact the lawyer first? Is it possible -- just possible -- this overworked lawyer wrote off a quick note that was incorrect without any ill intent? Possibly that lawyer was not infallible and may have been mistaken? Because a number of people may have come looking for trusts and he made the erroneous assumption a trust was required?

His letter is basically correct other than the statement that NFA is required to be placed in trust, your nitpicking about the commonly used descriptor "class 3" notwithstanding. I might have done him the courtesy of a phone call or contact before going and writing a letter to the Florida Bar, rather than trying to poison somebody who obviously is a supporter of our community, even if from a purely business-driven standpoint.
Ignorance is not a defensible excuse. "Sorry, I did not know" will cause a professional license to be revoked. :ham'r
As Jon Gutmacher likes to say - the burden of proof in federal court is "you should have known better" - and seeing that they passed the bar, I didn't, and I'm the one that knows the difference here - they should have known better.

This in no way justifies sending in a complaint to the bar before making an attempt to reach out to someone who supports our community, even if in a misguided fashion. IMHO this was inexcusable conduct.

liquidm1980
Member
Member
Posts: 140
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:00 am
Location: Broward County FL

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by liquidm1980 » Wed Mar 09, 2011 9:49 pm

thanks god it wasnt the one i used. i guess the amount of money i paid for a few pages was worth it lol.

User avatar
SteyrAUG
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 3463
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2003 3:05 am
Location: Broward
Contact:

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by SteyrAUG » Wed May 04, 2011 10:29 pm

GoingQuiet wrote:
philasteen wrote:GoingQuiet, you must have been the kind of kid that was the hall monitor in high school. Seriously, you wrote a letter to the bar about this without even attempting to contact the lawyer first? Is it possible -- just possible -- this overworked lawyer wrote off a quick note that was incorrect without any ill intent? Possibly that lawyer was not infallible and may have been mistaken? Because a number of people may have come looking for trusts and he made the erroneous assumption a trust was required?

His letter is basically correct other than the statement that NFA is required to be placed in trust, your nitpicking about the commonly used descriptor "class 3" notwithstanding. I might have done him the courtesy of a phone call or contact before going and writing a letter to the Florida Bar, rather than trying to poison somebody who obviously is a supporter of our community, even if from a purely business-driven standpoint.
I see your point - and I considered that but I've gotten three of these ads in as many months, all with the same remarkably bad information. If this law firm had maintained a consistency and it was just one set of errors, I'd offer to proofread the advertising - but what really burns me is that they send out advertising in the mail that says you need a trust to be in compliance with federal law and they have a website that says no, you don't really need a trust.

But now that you mention it, I'll drop a note in the fax machine.

Do you really try and address everything you see that offends your sensibilities?

You remind me of a guy who cancels his NRA membership because he found a bunch of old issues of the Rifleman where every article referred to magazines as "clips."

At the most you should have contact the law firm to point out the minor errors in case they were actually interested. But you contacted the bar in an attempt to interfere with the mans practice and livelihood?!? Gee where have I seen that before?

Maybe if you put all that effort into your business you wouldn't have time to be offended by the stupid s';t that shows up in your mail. I see probably six stupid things a day, I'm way too busy trying to take care of my own s';t to worry about them, let alone actually sit down and right letters. When I see stupid junk mail, I throw it away.

Now so you don't misunderstand me, there is nothing wrong with giving people the heads up that such things are not necessary. And that is all that was needed, you should have stopped there. Like you and I, the lawyer is trying to make a living. He's not screwing with you, there is no reason to screw with him. We could actually use some "gun friendly" lawyers, there are way too many of the other variety. How "pro gun" do you think your actions are liable to make him?
Steyr808@yahoo.com
FFL Broward County, FL

User avatar
Pizzim
Life Member
Life Member
Posts: 1885
Joined: Thu May 14, 2009 4:19 pm
Location: Largo
Contact:

Re: This is one lawyer NOBODY should use

Post by Pizzim » Thu Sep 06, 2012 6:51 am

So you believe everything a customer tells you? So you pay for when they tell you the glock they want to trade in is "custom" and "one of a kind" ?

I would love to see a document where he says this.

Also are you a lawyer? you seem to love making complaints to the BAR
"you cant miss fast enough to win" " Don't slow down, Just aim faster"

Two Brothers Armory FFL 07/02
www.twobrothersarmory.com

Post Reply