Re: So, I was at the range today....
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Graham</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I was not talking specifically about whether a trust can have more than one trustee, because that has nothing to do with the ATF anyway.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What are you talking about?! How can you prove what you were told over the phone unless you were recoding that conversation, which is against the law unless you have their consent and that would need to go up the chain at the ATF/NFA.</div></div>I was talking about relevance, not methods of proof. And Graham's Rule #1 also applies with regard to the legality of recording a conversation. <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: KYS338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Written word on ATF letterhead would suffice with no argument in a court should something go wrong.</div></div>ATF legal doesn't exist to draft legal opinions for people at their request. My point was for him not to bother asking the ATF to draft him a legal opinion, and not to rely as a defense on anything a functionary tells him about whether what he is doing is legal.
But if you want to ask the ATF in writing for their policy on the enforcement of something, then go ahead. </div></div>
Not being a lawyer, I can still see three advantages to having something in writing.
1) if someone from the ATF decides to hassle you, you have something to show them that confirms that yes, another ATF agent told you that it was ok. That could buy you a "ok, but that's not valid anymore, don't do it again", or even a "sorry to bother you".
2) if you do face charges, a Jury will have a hard time convicting you of something that the ATF told you in writing was legal.
3) It provides you a defense of entrapment by estoppel.
Entrapment by estoppel: "As described in United States v. Howell, 37 F.3d 1197, 1204 (7th Cir. 1994), the defense "applies when, acting with actual or apparent authority, a government official affirmatively assures the defendant that certain conduct is legal and the defendant reasonably believes that official."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entrapment#Entrapment_by_estoppel