so, my local NFA guy says the ATF is going to start requiring prints and photos for

[TY44934]

I agree with Renegad. Bound to happen sooner or later.

Not so sure that the BATFE would go so far as requiring CLEO sign offs for corps and trusts though.

AFAIK, the CLEO was written into the original 1934 NFA (which was incorporated in the GCA '68 I believe).

BATFE is stuck with CLEO for individuals, but being federal, I do not think they really give a crap about informing local LEOs in matters that they do not understand.

In fact, it seems like their field agents spend a lot of time responding to bogus reports of NFA violations from local LEOs who are ignorant of the laws on Tittle II firearms (like the cops who wanted to confiscate some guy's GSG-5 because they thought its fake suppressor must be real, and "everyone knows silencers are illegal").

[Renegade]

AFAIK, the CLEO was written into the original 1934 NFA (which was incorporated in the GCA '68 I believe).

The 1934 law said the transfer could take place if there were no local or state laws to the contrary. Given in 1934 it was next to impossible for IRS in DC to know every possible law in all states and jurisdictions, the CLEO signoff was instituted to meet that requirement.

So while the 1934 law does not actually require CLEO, that is how it is there.

[TY44934]

The 1934 law said the transfer could take place if there were no local or state laws to the contrary. Given in 1934 it was next to impossible for IRS in DC to know every possible law in all states and jurisdictions, the CLEO signoff was instituted to meet that requirement.

So while the 1934 law does not actually require CLEO, that is how it is there.

Interesting. Thanks for that bit of history (I did not know the origin of CLEO).

Perhaps CLEO is vulnerable to a legal challenge, since the law only states "no local or state laws to the contrary." There are many acts/items which are lawful under Federal law, but could be prohibited at the state or local level - and they do not require a CLEO prior to ownership. Perhaps we should push back on CLEO now before they impose it on trusts & corps.

Before anyone says "impossible!" - consider the fact that D.C. violated the constitution for 30 years & got away with it until Bob Levy and the Libertarian CATO Institute called them on it (but I digress).

[Renegade]

Interesting. Thanks for that bit of history (I did not know the origin of CLEO).

Perhaps CLEO is vulnerable to a legal challenge, since the law only states "no local or state laws to the contrary." There are many acts/items which are lawful under Federal law, but could be prohibited at the state or local level - and they do not require a CLEO prior to ownership. Perhaps we should push back on CLEO now before they impose it on trusts & corps.

Before anyone says "impossible!" - consider the fact that D.C. violated the constitution for 30 years & got away with it until Bob Levy and the Libertarian CATO Institute called them on it (but I digress).

There was a legal challenge a few years ago (2000 or so) and it lost. They went by the name 1934 Group.

[Irish]

The 1934 law said the transfer could take place if there were no local or state laws to the contrary. Given in 1934 it was next to impossible for IRS in DC to know every possible law in all states and jurisdictions, the CLEO signoff was instituted to meet that requirement.

So while the 1934 law does not actually require CLEO, that is how it is there.

I always thought that the CLEO sign-off was instituted to keep blacks from purchasing those types of firearms. And I'm not making a racist remark or being flippant. A lot of our gun laws were derived so that blacks couldn't have guns and that's one of the reason for the $200 tax stamp. According to the .gov inflation calculator $200 in 1934 would be $3,174.76 in 2009.

If you want to have a little fun go here http://www.bls.gov/data/inflation_calculator.htm and see how much our money has gone to shit.

Good day!

[dbrowne1]

but they are now requiring NICS checks for the individual taking possession of the NFA firearm on behalf of the trust/partnership/corp.

Not that I think many criminals would ever go through all the NFA crap with a trust or company, but it did kind of shock me when I went to pick up my first NFA item (via a trust) and the dealer just handed it to me and said "here you go, bye." No Form 4473, no NICS - nothing.

[markm]

but it did kind of shock me when I went to pick up my first NFA item (via a trust) and the dealer just handed it to me and said "here you go, bye." No Form 4473, no NICS - nothing.

That didn't shock me. But the fact that they just handed me my silencer on 2 occasions without even checking my ID was strange. Especially since on both occasions, I took the item from an employee who I didn't know and didn't start the transaction with.

[Irish]

Not that I think many criminals would ever go through all the NFA crap with a trust or company, but it did kind of shock me when I went to pick up my first NFA item (via a trust) and the dealer just handed it to me and said "here you go, bye." No Form 4473, no NICS - nothing.

[Iraqgunz]

So can anyone explain this? Is a trust an individual and therefore you must submit fingerprints and a photo or not?

9.4.2.2 Transfers of NFA firearms to persons other than an individual or an FFL and special (occupational) taxpayer. Section 479.85 of the Code of Federal Regulations requires the ATF Form 4 or Form 5 application to properly identify the transferee. Although transfers to natural persons (individuals) must include a recent photograph, duplicate fingerprint cards, and a certification from law enforcement, the NFA also defines a person to include a partnership, company, association, trust, estate, or corporation. The requirements for fingerprints, photographs, and the law enforcement certificate specified in § 479.85 are not applicable for transferee who is not an individual.

[markm]

Is a trust an individual and therefore you must submit fingerprints and a photo or not?

Not. The box options you have on the F1 are Individual or Entity. Trusts fall in the corporation/entity realm.