View Full Version : CLEO signature requirement going away.
30 cal slut
12-05-11, 10:44
Hopefully not a dupe. Got this in an e-mail.
ETA: found the link for this, scroll down to bottom of this page:
http://www.theoutdoorwire.com/archived/2011-12-05_tow.html
CLEO Requirement to be Discontinued
For enthusiasts of NFA-controlled firearms (e.g., machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors), the requirement to get the local chief of police or sheriff's approval on the required Form 1 or Form 4 has been a problem. Started at the inception of the National Firearms Act, the idea was to get the person in front of the chief or sheriff - who was expected to know the "problem children" in his or her jurisdiction - to keep wackos from getting these special weapons. In the 30s through the 70s, that was potentially appropriate: there was no national computer database available at all hours to get criminal histories.
Now, someone buying a .22 rifle can have the National Instant (Background) Check (NICS) and leave the gunshop in fifteen minutes.
Since the CLEOs (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) approval was based on that person's supposed knowledge of local citizens and not whether or not the CLEO thought "people shouldn't own guns like that," it was (and is) often misused.
The National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association (NFATCA) has sought removal of the CLEO requirement for the last six years, according to NFATCA Executive Director and Board Member Jeff Folloder.
"There wasn't a lot of high profile aspects of the effort," he said in a phone interview. "It was a lot of drudgery and detail work trying to get the ATF to go along with removing that requirement."
They eventually did and ran the recommendation up to U.S. Department of Justice. The proposal was returned to NFA Branch for some clarifications. These were completed and the recommendation was sent back up.
Clearing the CLEO requirement off of Forms 1 and 4 has been approved by the DOJ. The revised Forms are being laid out and sent to Office of Management and Budget. They'll examine the proposed regulations and forms change and open the proceeding up for public comments. When that process is completed, they'll approve the printing run and disseminate the forms.
Something could happen to derail the process but it's not clear that anyone wants to. A problem does lurk if the proposed change - an apparently good thing - completes the bureaucratic process: There will be a run on NFA firearms from citizens who could legally own NFA guns but had a chief or sheriff who denied them the right.
Are there that many who were denied?
"The Harris County Sheriff (Texas) has never approved a Form 1 or Form 4," Mr. Folloder said. "That's potentially four million applications right there. Since there's a federal hiring freeze and the number of examiners will not increase, the increased applications will likely expand the time needed to get completed forms back from ATF/NFA."
He told people to be careful for what they wish. It looks like now we'll get it.
A call to the ATF's NFA branch for comment was not returned.
--Rich Grassi
Grassi is editor of our companion news service The Tactical Wire (The Tactical Wire)
Eurodriver
12-05-11, 10:51
The BATF is taking over 6 months from receipt to approval of a routine Form 4.
Assuming the above is true, I will not hold my breath waiting for them to implement this change.
Well this simplifies my decision to get NFA stuff next year. This just saved me time and money now that I don't have to do a trust.
Is there anything official that show these decisions are for real, or is it from an email from an internet blog from a rumor....?
RogerinTPA
12-05-11, 11:28
I hope it's real. It's standard policy here in FL for CLEO's to not sign the Form 1 & 4s. Hence everyone who has or wants an NFA item does the Trust thing. I have a friend who's a sitting Judge who was denied by the local Sheriff. It's completely ridiculous and about time to take the CLEO sign off, off of those forms.
Raven Armament
12-05-11, 11:29
Heard about it several months ago. As an SOT, I haven't been given any notice by the ATF/NFA branch as to changes.
Heavy Metal
12-05-11, 11:35
I hope it's real. It's standard policy here in FL for CLEO's to not sign the Form 1 & 4s. Hence everyone who has or wants an NFA item does the Trust thing. I have a friend who's a sitting Judge who was denied by the local Sheriff. It's completely ridiculous and about time to take the CLEO sign off, off of those forms.
Judge could have signed his own. There are plenty besides the Sheriff who can sign.
Personally, I hope it's true because it makes sense, but it also sounds too good to be true. :(
This was circulating back around January. I wouldn't hold your breath.
Raven Armament
12-05-11, 11:49
Judge could have signed his own. There are plenty besides the Sheriff who can sign.
From what the NFA told me, the judge has to preside over a criminal court, not a probate court.
Heavy Metal
12-05-11, 11:55
He could have went to the Circuit Judge then or got the Chief Prosecutor to sign for him. Chief of Police too if he had a Chief of P where he lived.
Chief Prosecutor singed mine where I used to live. Sheriff had a policy of signing no NFA stuff. I don't take no for an answer.
If it does happen, expect trasfer times to triple (or even quadruple).
Heh. Just read the initial post. I happen to live in Harris County. This county blows. That's why I had to resort to the RLT route.
I can't imagine the wait time if they officially went away with the CLEO signature.
Raven Armament
12-05-11, 12:13
I wouldn't think so. Those that corp or trust would just get them personally perhaps. There might be small numbers per state that increase due to just a paperwork and tax payment, but I don't think it would blow the doors down at the NFA with forms flooding the place.
I have a friend who's a sitting Judge who was denied by the local Sheriff.
At least your Sheriff is consistent.
Dolphinvet
12-05-11, 13:18
This rumor (and I'm calling it that since there is nothing official about it) has been going back and forth on Uzitalk for the past couple months. I said there and I'll say here, I will believe it when I see it.
If it's true, then why would it increase transfer times? The paperwork for an individual transfer is easier than a trust, since all you have are the signoffs, the pictures, and the fingerprint cards. The examiners could potentially do them faster than a trust.
I called NFA a month ago just to ask if the change was happening, and I did talk to the receptionist, and she had no knowledge of such a thing in the works.
If there's no requirement for a signoff under this new law, then what would be the process to obtain an NFA item? Just send in the Form 1/4?
Dolphinvet
12-05-11, 13:40
If there's no requirement for a signoff under this new law, then what would be the process to obtain an NFA item? Just send in the Form 1/4?
It would depend on what they change, but let's, for the purpose of argument, say that the only thing that changes is they do away with the CLEO signature, and don't add anything draconian to the requirements other than what's presently there.
The only thing you would have to do then, is correctly fill in the form 1 or 4, in duplicate, with pictures, and send them, along with 2 fingerprint cards, and a certificate of compliance (form 5330.20) along with the money for transfer of said firearm/device to NFA.
Voodoo_Man
12-05-11, 13:48
Sweet. Hopefully this works out...
Hopefully not a dupe. Got this in an e-mail.
This nonsense has been going around for the past 20 years.
I also don't think this will end favorably for us.
Does anyone really think Obama/Holder are going to make it easier to purchase an NFA firearm? They control the DOJ.
Dolphinvet
12-05-11, 16:40
This nonsense has been going around for the past 20 years.
I also don't think this will end favorably for us.
Does anyone really think Obama/Holder are going to make it easier to purchase an NFA firearm? They control the DOJ.
I agree wholeheartedly. I believe this to be unsubstantiated rumor. I also think that Obama and his ilk have no interest in helping us own NFA weapons.
This nonsense has been going around for the past 20 years.
I also don't think this will end favorably for us.
Does anyone really think Obama/Holder are going to make it easier to purchase an NFA firearm? They control the DOJ.
Several of the provisions I saw from when this circulated last January were awful.
I highly doubt that this is the case and it smells of rumor locker to me. The last thing I want (aside from abolishing the NFA) is people trying to do good by meddling with the procedure.
Kind of like that certain group that is messing with the Trust stuff.
I highly doubt that this is the case and it smells of rumor locker to me. The last thing I want (aside from abolishing the NFA) is people trying to do good by meddling with the procedure.
Kind of like that certain group that is messing with the Trust stuff.
There is no doubt there are folks attempting this. The details of what compromises they have made is unclear.
On Saturday I spoke to a manufacturer friend, at the Phoenix SAR show, that had a meeting with a member of the NFA Tech Branch and another that he described as an ATF Bureaucrat. During the meeting they told him the CLEO sign off is going away. They also said they are going to require photos, prints, date of birth...on everyone listed on a Trust, Corp... that will be allowed to possess the firearm. They told him these changes are still 6 months to 1 year away from taking effect.
No, I did not speak to the ATF representatives myself, but my friend has no reason to embellish and he has been a good, reliable source in the past.
Interesting. I read somewhere that a certain working group was working closely with the NFA branch to close the "loopholes" in the whole trust process. I would not be surprised if your info is correct that this is the outcome.
I wonder if the BATFE is allowed to make these changes or does it have to be approved by Congres, especially in light of the fact that all of these years it has been determined that trusts or corporation are not individuals.
On Saturday I spoke to a manufacturer friend, at the Phoenix SAR show, that had a meeting with a member of the NFA Tech Branch and another that he described as an ATF Bureaucrat. During the meeting they told him the CLEO sign off is going away. They also said they are going to require photos, prints, date of birth...on everyone listed on a Trust, Corp... that will be allowed to possess the firearm. They told him these changes are still 6 months to 1 year away from taking effect.
No, I did not speak to the ATF representatives myself, but my friend has no reason to embellish and he has been a good, reliable source in the past.
Raven Armament
12-06-11, 01:06
I wonder if the BATFE is allowed to make these changes or does it have to be approved by Congres
Yep. ATF has the same powers to make rules as the IRS does. Fancy that.
especially in light of the fact that all of these years it has been determined that trusts or corporation are not individuals.
Really?
Reagans Rascals
12-06-11, 01:15
I was under the impression that even if the CLEO refused signature you can still move forward with the process by submitting his refusal in writing and then challenging it, or by simply using a trust.... how does the Sheriff not signing in a county in Texas potentially add 4 million people to the NFA timeline.............
Am I wrong? I thought the whole reason why certain steps were eliminated is because a trust cannot be fingerpinted? The same with the an LLC? I know when I submitted my trust documents I didn't send in photos or fingerpints.
Yep. ATF has the same powers to make rules as the IRS does. Fancy that.
Really?
I guess if 4 million people bought NFA items you would have a long wait. But, since that isn't going to happen any speculation is pointless. If you use a trust from the beginning you never get to experience the CLEO rejection.
I was under the impression that even if the CLEO refused signature you can still move forward with the process by submitting his refusal in writing and then challenging it, or by simply using a trust.... how does the Sheriff not signing in a county in Texas potentially add 4 million people to the NFA timeline.............
30 cal slut
12-06-11, 07:06
On Saturday I spoke to a manufacturer friend, at the Phoenix SAR show, that had a meeting with a member of the NFA Tech Branch and another that he described as an ATF Bureaucrat. During the meeting they told him the CLEO sign off is going away. They also said they are going to require photos, prints, date of birth...on everyone listed on a Trust, Corp... that will be allowed to possess the firearm. They told him these changes are still 6 months to 1 year away from taking effect.
No, I did not speak to the ATF representatives myself, but my friend has no reason to embellish and he has been a good, reliable source in the past.
That is encouraging.
Interesting. I read somewhere that a certain working group was working closely with the NFA branch to close the "loopholes" in the whole trust process. I would not be surprised if your info is correct that this is the outcome.
That is NFATCA.
I wonder if the BATFE is allowed to make these changes or does it have to be approved by Congres, especially in light of the fact that all of these years it has been determined that trusts or corporation are not individuals.
Some things they can change some not. CLEO signoff yes. NICS check on NFA no. And some times they make stuff up that is not n the law, like CLEO signature! There is a process, it has to go through a public comment period and be printed in the Federal Register.
What does all this mean for Obama's delivery of US guns to the Mexican Drug Cartels???
Completely absurd that these imbeciles in ATF are obsessing over idiotic bureacracy for us.... when they're arming criminal enterprises on the other hand.
Several of the provisions I saw from when this circulated last January were awful.
What were some examples?
This whole thing should be left alone because the process works. Most people can get their CLEO to sign and they can get their NFA stuff, others have to set up a trust, but they still get their NFA stuff. I see this as a huge liability to NFA owners and collectors because opening the door to changing this process is going to open the door to change it IN WAYS WE DO NOT WANT. Yes, it's inconvenient and yes it's slow; but it works so don't try to "fix" it or it will end up more broken.
Or we could do the RIGHT thing and destroy the NFA process and treat NFA items as regular firearms or accessories. Now that is a change I could get behind.
What were some examples?
* No CLEO signature required but CLEO notification similar to an FFL
application. A copy of the form will be sent to the CLEO as opposed to
asking for signature. This will apply to all F1/F4 forms, whether
Individual, Trust, or Corp.
* Trusts and Corps will now require NICS check when firearm is transferred.
* Trusts and Corps will now require fingerprints, photos on all persons
authorized to possess firearm.
* Citizenship Compliance required on all persons authorized to possess
firearm.
We will not know how much of this is real or rumor until it is published in the Federal Register and the comment period opens.
Raven Armament
12-06-11, 10:24
Am I wrong? I thought the whole reason why certain steps were eliminated is because a trust cannot be fingerpinted? The same with the an LLC? I know when I submitted my trust documents I didn't send in photos or fingerpints.
Not sure. I've never done a trust or corp transfer. All NFA transfers I've done were individual with CLEO sign off. I'm out of the loop regarding trusts.
Deleted to correct error.
This whole thing should be left alone because the process works. Most people can get their CLEO to sign and they can get their NFA stuff, others have to set up a trust, but they still get their NFA stuff. I see this as a huge liability to NFA owners and collectors because opening the door to changing this process is going to open the door to change it IN WAYS WE DO NOT WANT. Yes, it's inconvenient and yes it's slow; but it works so don't try to "fix" it or it will end up more broken.
Or we could do the RIGHT thing and destroy the NFA process and treat NFA items as regular firearms or accessories. Now that is a change I could get behind.
+1
Dumb mother ****ers trying to stir up a bunch of shit and it will come back to bite us in the ass.
It can go from someone's good idea to a disaster in a split second, as soon as anti-gunner's hear that it's open to change. I really think we should scrap everything NFA.
That is already required.
No, that is myth perpetuated by the same people behind this NO CLEO stuff. They really want to end Trusts/Corps, which you can see as most of the changes involve Trusts/Corps.
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/BATFE/Q22.png
See "Procedure after approval"
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/BATFE/2008-11fflnewsletter_Page_05.jpg
No, that is myth perpetuated by the same people behind this NO CLEO stuff. They really want to end Trusts/Corps, which you can see as most of the changes involve Trusts/Corps.
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/BATFE/Q22.png
See "Procedure after approval"
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/BATFE/2008-11fflnewsletter_Page_05.jpg
I see and I agree.
I see and I agree.
I know this sounds nuts, but there are a lot of old-time NFA folks who see it as an exclusive club, and really resent the whole Trust/Corp process allowing NFA stuff to be so easy to get by common gun owners. And if they had their way, they would shut it down. And they do not work for the BATFE. They are the generally the same ones who will fight to the death to prevent MG ban from being repealed, to protect their collection.
I know this because I have met them and listened to their rants.
I know this sounds nuts, but there are a lot of old-time NFA folks who see it as an exclusive club, and really resent the whole Trust/Corp process allowing NFA stuff to be so easy to get by common gun owners. And if they had their way, they would shut it down. And they do not work for the BATFE. They are the generally the same ones who will fight to the death to prevent MG ban from being repealed, to protect their collection.
I know this because I have met them and listened to their rants.
Well, they can suck it.
I know this sounds nuts, but there are a lot of old-time NFA folks who see it as an exclusive club, and really resent the whole Trust/Corp process allowing NFA stuff to be so easy to get by common gun owners. And if they had their way, they would shut it down. And they do not work for the BATFE. They are the generally the same ones who will fight to the death to prevent MG ban from being repealed, to protect their collection.
I know this because I have met them and listened to their rants.
I misunderstood that because I have heard from people I know first hand who use trust/corps that the FFL performed a NICS check on them at the time they picked up their item.
I misunderstood that because I have heard from people I know first hand who use trust/corps that the FFL performed a NICS check on them at the time they picked up their item.
Always possible it is State Law.
I met a Tard that said he didn't want the MG ban to be repealed Because of the Money he was making on all the MG he bought before 86( a few Colts M-16 and a Shit ton of MAC-10 and 11) and he thought "Only Folks with Money should Own these weapons Not the Poor ass people it will hurt my profit.
"I stop talking to him not long after that .But Good news was i saw his son a few months Back and he told me His dad got caught with a unregistered drop in auto sear and guess who lost all their Full autos Karma is a Bitch
I misunderstood that because I have heard from people I know first hand who use trust/corps that the FFL performed a NICS check on them at the time they picked up their item.
They "recommend" a NICS on the person who picks it up.
I met a Tard that said he didn't want the MG ban to be repealed Because of the Money he was making on all the MG he bought before 86( a few Colts M-16 and a Shit ton of MAC-10 and 11) and he thought "Only Folks with Money should Own these weapons Not the Poor ass people it will hurt my profit.
"I stop talking to him not long after that .But Good news was i saw his son a few months Back and he told me His dad got caught with a unregistered drop in auto sear and guess who lost all their Full autos Karma is a Bitch
Ha. Screw him. I've got no problem with people making money, but when you support the enemy, I've got a problem with that. Don't sell your rights away, or those of another to make a buck.
As far as unregistered items, he should have known better.
Ha. Screw him. I've got no problem with people making money, but when you support the enemy, I've got a problem with that. Don't sell your rights away, or those of another to make a buck.
As far as unregistered items, he should have known better.
I agree 100% what was sad is he thought since all his other weapons had paperwork no one would even look at the DIAS .I would have loved to see his face when they asked for the Paperwork on the DIAS .he showed the Officer his SBR paper work and thought the Cop would not know any better ,well he did:D
he was one of the "I am Better than you "type guys .
his son told me that one of the Chief of Police that signed off on a lot of his stuff including a Bunch of SBR when Alabama changed the law told him "you should have known better, you broke the law and I will not help you now"all his weapons where seized and he is spending all his profit on lawyers now .
he even asked his son to sell his MG to help with the lawyers :rolleyes:Son told him no so their not talking now.his son said he made his bed let him lay in it Not my problem
KalashniKEV
12-06-11, 13:47
I know this because I have met them and listened to their rants.
+1
I recall a similar jaw-on-the-floor moment in my lifetime.
I personally still think this is just a rumor.
Is there a possibility that this could speed up the process by not having to review trusts and certify them legally sufficient? Just NICS and then good to go?
Wow geez. I'd stick up for my dad and sell my MG if that's what it came down to but I wouldn't be happy about it. Family is family. I guess his son really wants to
wait for it...
"stick to his guns".
Wow geez. I'd stick up for my dad and sell my MG if that's what it came down to but I wouldn't be happy about it. Family is family. I guess his son really wants to
wait for it...
"stick to his guns".
:laugh: I think he might have done it ,But his dad has stiffed his own son before on a few things he had a factory full auto Colt M-16 he promised him as a kid ,we shot it in High school but after 86 he sold it for a huge profit and told his son "Oh well" ever since then they have not been on good terms
The road to hell is paved with good intentions is all I can say about screwing with the NFA processes in place. PITA they may be they work and offer people numerous ways to get their toys. Opening it up to any political admin, especially this one is a bad idea.
IMO the Trust and LLC "loopholes" are going to get closed if they do away with the CLEO sign off. IMO the .gov beaurocrats see the inability to print, photo and tax trust members as a "security" liability and most importantly lost revenue stream. Honestly I'm surprised that they haven't already revised the tax rules away for taxing the item to registering its use to an individual. Have 3 people on the Trust and your tax is not $200 but $600.
The only revamp of the NFA process I'd like to see is its complete abolishment. I'm not holding my breath though.
Once the discussion is open and they've effectively changed something in the process, how about next they discuss increasing the NFA tax to account for inflation? Who wants to pay $20,000 for their next SBR?
Once these things start getting talked about other people are going to start throwing their ideas into the pot too, and soon you'll have a shit stew brewing. I'd be surprised if there wasn't already a laundry list of ideas about how to squeeze gun owners since Class III/NFA stuff is becoming more and more popular. Heck, in the northern Virginia area, just about every other gunstore is a Class III shop now.
Look, I hope nothing bad comes of this but open that door and you don't know who's going to walk through it. My guess is that if Pres. Obama is elected for another term then all the unpopular things he wants to accomplish is going to happen then - including gun control. NFA will be a drop in the bucket compared to that, and if it looks like he's going to get re-elected... well, then buy your stuff now gentlemen because the run on the gun market will be 2008 all over again (and then some).
When I first read about them meddling in the NFA stuff I knew that there was no good to come from it. Now I am convinced if this actually goes through it won't be.
****ing retards.
Once the discussion is open and they've effectively changed something in the process, how about next they discuss increasing the NFA tax to account for inflation?
The ATF is charged with producing the form for application and registration of tax paid transfer, not setting the tax rate.
Here is the law, a change in the law would need to come from Congress.
26 U.S.C. Chapter 53
Part II - Tax on Transferring Firearms.
§ 5811 Transfer tax.
(a) Rate. There shall be levied, collected, and paid on firearms transferred a tax at the rate of $200 for each firearm transferred, except, the transfer tax on any firearm classified as any other weapon under section 5845(e) shall be at the rate of $5 for each such firearm transferred.
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5320-8/atf-p-5320-8-appendix-a.pdf
Here is the part the ATF can change.
§ 5812 Transfers.
(a) Application. A firearm shall not be transferred unless (1) the transferor of the firearm has filed with the Secretary a written application, in duplicate, for the transfer and registration of the firearm to the transferee on the application form prescribed by the Secretary;...
Yeah, what Todd K said.
The BATFE, DoJ, etc. cannot change any part of the national firearms act of 1934 or the gun control act of 1968 (or the firearm owners protection act, for that matter), as they are all part of the US Code which is passed exclusively by congress.
They can change the CFRs, the regulations, which contain the minutiae such as the CLEO certificate which was added in 1968.
The tax itself, the photo & fingerprints, etc are all determined by the NFA itself and are not alterable by the DoJ or BATFE.
Glad to know that it would be hard to have the tax changed, the more information the better so thanks.
But has the executive branch always followed the letter of the law or have they effectively circumvented it to get stuff done? How far does an executive order go? How far does the regulating power of an executive branch agency go? It seems like some funny business goes on in Washington and that Presidents can get away with alot nowadays, without being put back into their place... I see this as a threat to our rights which have already been eroded.
I think that if people start meddling with the NFA process then gun owners aren't going to come out ahead, but I hope I'm wrong.
Dolphinvet
12-07-11, 09:02
Glad to know that it would be hard to have the tax changed, the more information the better so thanks.
But has the executive branch always followed the letter of the law or have they effectively circumvented it to get stuff done? How far does an executive order go? How far does the regulating power of an executive branch agency go? It seems like some funny business goes on in Washington and that Presidents can get away with alot nowadays, without being put back into their place... I see this as a threat to our rights which have already been eroded.
I think that if people start meddling with the NFA process then gun owners aren't going to come out ahead, but I hope I'm wrong.
I'm not worried about any executive order during this administration changing NFA ownership for the worse, but if he wins re-election, then I would be very afraid. Who knows what draconian decrees he would emit. What if he just signs an executive order to ban civilian ownership of NFA weapons? It could happen, and this community is so small, how could you fight it?
Stirring the pot with a marxist in office isn't a good thing.
They can change the CFRs, the regulations, which contain the minutiae such as the CLEO certificate which was added in 1968.
The tax itself, the photo & fingerprints, etc are all determined by the NFA itself and are not alterable by the DoJ or BATFE.
Except for the tax, most of that was created by the IRS, then the BATFE via regulation. There is no CLEO requirement in the law at all. That is derived the from law which required the xfer to be legal according to local laws. Hence the CLEO signs off saying no local laws would be violated if xfer takes place.
Now a bunch of instant gratification idiots are starting a thread on silencertalk to call their congressman because their transfers are taking too long.
Well it seem that there's a choice to make. We can either -
1. Play the game and try to improve it, and take some risk by doing so
or
2. Leave well enough alone and hope that nothing changes
Dolphinvet
12-07-11, 12:49
I just called to check a pending status, and the receptionist told me the wait times are still around 5 months from pending. Calling your congressman is not going to change wait times. In fact with all the scrutiny on ATF since fast & furious, I'd say that they are treading lightly right now, not trying to speed anything up.
Except for the tax, most of that was created by the IRS, then the BATFE via regulation. There is no CLEO requirement in the law at all. That is derived the from law which required the xfer to be legal according to local laws. Hence the CLEO signs off saying no local laws would be violated if xfer takes place.
The CLEO certificate is law, however it is not part of the US Code. It is part of the Code of Federal Regulations, which has the full force and effect of law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Federal_Regulations
The CLEO certificate is law, however it is not part of the US Code. It is part of the Code of Federal Regulations, which has the full force and effect of law.
US Code = Law.
CFR = Regulations.
CLEO is a regulation, not law.
Since it is a regulation, BATFE can change it. If it was law, it would take an act of Congress signed into law by PRES.
US Code = Law.
CFR = Regulations.
CLEO is a regulation, not law.
Since it is a regulation, BATFE can change it. If it was law, it would take an act of Congress signed into law by PRES.
Right.
Now a bunch of instant gratification idiots are starting a thread on silencertalk to call their congressman because their transfers are taking too long.
Such is Silencer Talk.
The elimination of the CLEO Signature is a good thing, indeed. As is the NRA getting behind silencers. Although these two aspects will undoubtedly make wait times skyrocket, hopefully this eventually (long term) leads to taking silencers off the NFA registry and allowing the purchase in-store. If you're interested in making a can purchase, I would get your forms submitted now.
Dolphinvet
12-07-11, 19:00
Such is Silencer Talk.
The elimination of the CLEO Signature is a good thing, indeed. As is the NRA getting behind silencers. Although these two aspects will undoubtedly make wait times skyrocket, hopefully this eventually (long term) leads to taking silencers off the NFA registry and allowing the purchase in-store. If you're interested in making a can purchase, I would get your forms submitted now.
I don't think silencers are going off the NFA register anytime soon. The NRA might have it on the wish list now, but I don't see the federal government doing it.
I don't think silencers are going off the NFA register anytime soon. The NRA might have it on the wish list now, but I don't see the federal government doing it.
Which would take an act of congress, at which time it opens an opportunity to raise the transfer tax to $3500 for other NFA to account for inflation since 1934. This would be part of the "compromise" with the left.
As is the NRA getting behind silencers.
The NRA should fix their own **** up and start working to eliminate the hughes amendment.
Thomas M-4
12-07-11, 20:48
Which would take an act of congress, at which time it opens an opportunity to raise the transfer tax to $3500 for other NFA to account for inflation since 1934. This would be part of the "compromise" with the left.
scottryan
The NRA should fix their own **** up and start working to eliminate the hughes amendment.
I believe Scottyryan is spot on with this 2 posts.
Bitching about wait times is silly and Incredibly short sided thinking.
I agree. I remember reading somewhere where the NRA stated that they were going to work diligently to repeal the Hughes fiasco.
I haven't seen it unless I was asleep for the last decade or two.
The NRA should fix their own **** up
and start working to eliminate the hughes amendment.
There are basically three factions working against us:
1. Elitist douches who want to see more regulations put in place to keep "commoners" out of the NFA exclusive club.
2. Instant gratification assholes that can't wait for the transfer time and want this adjusted.
3. Cheap ass ****ers that don't want to pay for a $200 tax or pay for a lawyer to set up a trust. These are the same people that send in invalid trusts/corps to the ATF and create paperwork and administrative issues with the ATF. This jams up everyone's time with excessive back and forth phone calls to correct the **** ups.
The NRA should fix their own **** up and start working to eliminate the hughes amendment.
Scotty, again your "spot on".
30 cal slut
12-08-11, 06:55
The NRA should fix their own **** up and start working to eliminate the hughes amendment.
Word.
I may have mis-heard this on the radio but I believe Wayne LaPierre is being interviewed on Glenn Beck TV GBTV tonight. All I recall was the comment similar to "and his comments on interesting developments with the DOJ"
Might be worth a look but I'm not a subscriber.
Bitching about wait times is silly and Incredibly short sided thinking.
+1
The last time people bitched about trivial regulations, it brought us the FOPA with a MG ban.
I never get "the Got to have it Now "Folks wait in line and it will come Just like when I got My C&R FFL I filled out the paperwork and waited and .......................................I got it .
You start bitch and moaning and acting like a spoiled brat they will make it harder for us and jack the prices up on the Tax stamps
+1
The last time people bitched about trivial regulations, it brought us the FOPA with a MG ban.
Also included in FOPA was the no spare silencer parts rule too.
davidjinks
12-08-11, 14:33
This is exactly why I went the Trust route.
It's not enough for the CLEO to refuse to sign, it sucks more when you're told only Military and Cops should have guns like this.
Personally, I still don't understand the reasoning behind all the BS of having to get a stamp in the first place.
I guess if 4 million people bought NFA items you would have a long wait. But, since that isn't going to happen any speculation is pointless. If you use a trust from the beginning you never get to experience the CLEO rejection.
30 cal slut
12-08-11, 14:37
Also included in FOPA was the no spare silencer parts rule too.
I would like to think that the times have changed since then.
I would like to think that the times have changed since then.
I will be shocked if we get CLEO removed and did not have to give up anything. At least in 1986 we had a chance (1 month or so) to try and stop the MG ban, but this deal looks like it was done behind closed doors with no input whatsover from the user community.
[I]* No CLEO signature required but CLEO notification similar to an FFL
application. A copy of the form will be sent to the CLEO as opposed to
asking for signature. This will apply to all F1/F4 forms, whether
Individual, Trust, or Corp.
Which creates more paperwork for us as this would have to be sent certified mail and you would have to keep the delivery receipt for every firearm to prove the notification was mailed.
davidjinks
12-08-11, 16:47
[I]* No CLEO signature required but CLEO notification similar to an FFL
application. A copy of the form will be sent to the CLEO as opposed to
asking for signature. This will apply to all F1/F4 forms, whether
Individual, Trust, or Corp.
So here's a question...
If this is all real and really going to be enacted, what happens to those people who have a CLEO that refuses to sign in the first place?
Basically, a person goes to the chief, chief says hell no, person gets a Trust, sends copy to the chief anyway, chief says WTF?!?!
So here's a question...
If this is all real and really going to be enacted, what happens to those people who have a CLEO that refuses to sign in the first place?
Basically, a person goes to the chief, chief says hell no, person gets a Trust, sends copy to the chief anyway, chief says WTF?!?!
The chief wont be able to do shit.
So here's a question...
If this is all real and really going to be enacted, what happens to those people who have a CLEO that refuses to sign in the first place?
Basically, a person goes to the chief, chief says hell no, person gets a Trust, sends copy to the chief anyway, chief says WTF?!?!
If no CLEO signature is required why would they have ever gone to them to begin with? Also, if they were doing an individual registration there would not be a trust.
The broad use of trusts is a reaction to uncooperative CLEO types. If their signature is no longer necessary I think that lots of people will go back to doing the individual route unless they already have a trust (or really like the benefits of it).
Actually that isn't entirely true. There was a segment of the community involved. But, if you weren't part of their organization then you wouldn't be aware of it.
I may be wrong, and if I am someone please let me know.
I will be shocked if we get CLEO removed and did not have to give up anything. At least in 1986 we had a chance (1 month or so) to try and stop the MG ban, but this deal looks like it was done behind closed doors with no input whatsover from the user community.
I don't believe that is correct. I think the suppressor issue came about due to the whole Gem-tech/ AAC wars. I may be wrong.
Also included in FOPA was the no spare silencer parts rule too.
I don't believe that is correct. I think the suppressor issue came about due to the whole Gem-tech/ AAC wars. I may be wrong.
It is correct.
I am not talking about pistons or re-builds.
I am talking about buying complete internal parts like for a Sionics MAC-10 can sans tube from Shotgun News. That ended as a result of FOPA.
davidjinks
12-09-11, 07:57
I understand what you are saying. I should have made myself a little more clear.
What is to stop an anti-gun CLEO, who has already said no in the beginning, from trying to throw a "Monkey wrench" into the works?
I understand what's being stated. However, if all this is real and going into effect, you will be required to send a copy to the CLEO. I think that could cause problems for people who have seriously anti-gun CLEO's they have to deal with.
That's what my concern is.
If no CLEO signature is required why would they have ever gone to them to begin with? Also, if they were doing an individual registration there would not be a trust.
The broad use of trusts is a reaction to uncooperative CLEO types. If their signature is no longer necessary I think that lots of people will go back to doing the individual route unless they already have a trust (or really like the benefits of it).
Actually that isn't entirely true. There was a segment of the community involved. But, if you weren't part of their organization then you wouldn't be aware of it.
I may be wrong, and if I am someone please let me know.
That is what I meant. Unless you were part of their club, you have no input. Even if you are member, you still do not know all the details of what was negotiated. They have not made it all public.
I don't believe that is correct. I think the suppressor issue came about due to the whole Gem-tech/ AAC wars. I may be wrong.
Having spare silencer parts on hand was made illegal by the FOPA.
Rebuilding a silencer was stopped by the AAC/Gemtech wars and ATF ruling.
I hope it's real. It's standard policy here in FL for CLEO's to not sign the Form 1 & 4s. Hence everyone who has or wants an NFA item does the Trust thing. I have a friend who's a sitting Judge who was denied by the local Sheriff. It's completely ridiculous and about time to take the CLEO sign off, off of those forms.
Maybe locally where you live . I can tell you for a fact Larry Campbell of Leon County and David Harvey of Wakulla County have never not signed one for someone if they could pass a BG check. All of the neighboring counties sign off too AFAIK. Some of them probably tell you they will only sign if they get to shoot it :D
I'm not worried about any executive order during this administration changing NFA ownership for the worse, but if he wins re-election, then I would be very afraid. Who knows what draconian decrees he would emit. What if he just signs an executive order to ban civilian ownership of NFA weapons? It could happen, and this community is so small, how could you fight it?
Stirring the pot with a marxist in office isn't a good thing.
This is something I have wondered about, and can't find anything on the net other than "total" gun ownership in the US. Just how "small" is the NFA community?
I know people say that there are too many guns in the US, and too few men who would carry out orders to confiscate them, making confiscation un-feasible, but what about NFA items? Are there that few of them that it would be feasible to go around confiscating them if the gov wanted to?
Thanks for the clarification.
Having spare silencer parts on hand was made illegal by the FOPA.
Rebuilding a silencer was stopped by the AAC/Gemtech wars and ATF ruling.
Thanks for the clarification.
So once I have my can and in the unlikely event I wear the can out, I cannot have it rebuilt by AAC?
Sounds great for those who wish to purchase individually. I will stick with my trust to ensure my kids get my stuff when I die without any undue hassle or expense.
ya'll do know others can sign off on the Form
Sheriff
Chief Of police(in the city you live in)
District Attorney
State Attorney General
Chief of State Police and or chief of state/Highway patrol (some states have Both)
Head of department of public safety
District Court judges
County Judges (not traffic or municipal Judges though)
Head of local Highway Patrol Office
head of local federal Law enforcement Agencies(Don't bother)
U.S.Attorney (again don't Bother )
But again if you run into a" no you can't" Chief of Police any of these others can sign off and is accepted By the ATF
ya'll do know others can sign off on the Form
Sheriff
Chief Of police(in the city you live in)
District Attorney
State Attorney General
Chief of State Police and or chief of state/Highway patrol (some states have Both)
Head of department of public safety
District Court judges
County Judges (not traffic or municipal Judges though)
Head of local Highway Patrol Office
head of local federal Law enforcement Agencies(Don't bother)
U.S.Attorney (again don't Bother )
But again if you run into a" no you can't" Chief of Police any of these others can sign off and is accepted By the ATF
All of this proves the point that this step is w/o merit and serves only to hassle the purchaser as well as the CLEO or CLEOs they pester for sign-off. That one didn't work? Okay, I'll just make an appointment with the next one on the list. That one didn't work? Okay, I'll just make an appointment with the next one on the list. Two weeks later the individual will likely get the required sign-off so what's the point of this step? Get rid of it. One down, many more steps to go.
All of this proves the point that this step is w/o merit and serves only to hassle the purchaser as well as the CLEO or CLEOs they pester for sign-off. That one didn't work? Okay, I'll just make an appointment with the next one on the list. That one didn't work? Okay, I'll just make an appointment with the next one on the list. Two weeks later the individual will likely get the required sign-off so what's the point of this step? Get rid of it. One down, many more steps to go.
I agree I think if you pass the Back ground check to buy a firearm to begin with ,you should to be able to submit the forms without the Sign off
Dolphinvet
12-15-11, 12:42
I agree I think if you pass the Back ground check to buy a firearm to begin with ,you should to be able to submit the forms without the Sign off
I'll take that a step further and say we shouldn't have the eternal wait once approved for the first time. If I qualified for my first NFA transfer, why should I have to wait 5 months for the 10th NFA transfer?!?
I'll take that a step further and say we shouldn't have the eternal wait once approved for the first time. If I qualified for my first NFA transfer, why should I have to wait 5 months for the 10th NFA transfer?!?
One miracle at a time. I would like to see this NFA go away entirely but, one miracle at a time...
There are basically three factions working against us:
1. Elitist douches who want to see more regulations put in place to keep "commoners" out of the NFA exclusive club.
2. Instant gratification assholes that can't wait for the transfer time and want this adjusted.
3. Cheap ass ****ers that don't want to pay for a $200 tax or pay for a lawyer to set up a trust.
Elitist douches don't like poor folk.
These are the same people that send in invalid trusts/corps to the ATF and create paperwork and administrative issues with the ATF. This jams up everyone's time with excessive back and forth phone calls to correct the **** ups.
How many of these have there been? Do you know, or are you making this up? You sound like a lawyer selling trust making services.
Back logs will not increase at all if the signature requirement goes away. The great evil of which scottyryan speaks (trusts) have already opened the flood gate of applicants. There are no new great masses of NFA applicants waiting for that complex and difficult to use program (Quicken Willmaker) to be rendered obsolete by the removal of the requirement for a CLEO signoff. I would even go so far as to say that the fiercely competitive and product filled market we enjoy today is due primarily to the EXPLOSION in applications due to, wait for it, the trust as a means to bypass ignorant CLEOs. Never mind the fact that it's easier, even if your CLEO will sign off, to do a trust.
And, lastly...
From the NFATCAs Facebook page:
National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association (NFATCA) ATF and DOJ have finished their review process on this issue. It's now at OMB for review and publishing in the Federal Register. The review takes into account the needed changes in forms, process, etc. and the cost to government for doing so. This would be known as the home stretch!
How many of these have there been? Do you know, or are you making this up?
There is a thread on silencertalk.com, m4carbine.net, or ar15.com atleast once a week about some person sending in a ****ed up trust to the ATF. It is usually started by the person who sent in the ****ed up trust.
If you don't already realize this you are completely out of the loop.
Back logs will not increase at all if the signature requirement goes away. The great evil of which scottyryan speaks (trusts) have already opened the flood gate of applicants. There are no new great masses of NFA applicants waiting for that complex and difficult to use program (Quicken Willmaker) to be rendered obsolete by the removal of the requirement for a CLEO signoff. I would even go so far as to say that the fiercely competitive and product filled market we enjoy today is due primarily to the EXPLOSION in applications due to, wait for it, the trust as a means to bypass ignorant CLEOs. Never mind the fact that it's easier, even if your CLEO will sign off, to do a trust.
:rolleyes:
Go back and reread the thread. I'm not even going to respond to this nonsense.
There is a thread on silencertalk.com, m4carbine.net, or ar15.com atleast once a week about some person sending in a ****ed up trust to the ATF. It is usually started by the person who sent in the ****ed up trust.
If you don't already realize this you are completely out of the loop.
I just did a search of Silencertalk, looking for threads with the word 'trust' in the title, back through 2007. I found one thread where someone forgot to send in their schedule A. Also searched the forum here for threads with the word 'trust' back through 2007. Not a single thread with 'my trust got rejected' or anything similar in the title. Perhaps you could help me with my search terms. Obviously I'm not doing it right.
The first I heard of a Trust being used for NFA was as a result of this thread on AR15.com: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_17/199942_.html Notice the date: 6/3/2006. Based on the info in that thread, and on the referenced thread on Sigforum, I did my first form 1. Word quickly spread. Notice how NFA transfers go postal starting that year:
http://www.atf.gov/graphics/statistics/nfa/nfa-firearms-processed-620x425.gif
It's the trusts that caused that spike.
It's the trusts that caused that spike.
The end of the AWB which then allowed threaded BBLS on rifles also had a lot to do with it. That chart does not go back far enough.
The first I heard of a Trust being used for NFA was as a result of this thread on AR15.com: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_17/199942_.html Notice the date: 6/3/2006. Based on the info in that thread, and on the referenced thread on Sigforum, I did my first form 1. Word quickly spread. Notice how NFA transfers go postal starting that year:
http://www.atf.gov/graphics/statistics/nfa/nfa-firearms-processed-620x425.gif
It's the trusts that caused that spike.
Whats your point?
That increase was caused by many factors and the most important two factors are not due to trust and corps.
1. The death of the assault weapons ban which made SBRs and silencers worthwhile to own again and affordable.
2. Obama getting elected. And yes I realize the upward trend started to increase before his election in 2008. My point is anyone with a brain knew the democrats were going to win the white house back in 2006 and started stockpiling.
3. Increase in popularity of using trust and corps.
The end of the AWB which then allowed threaded BBLS on rifles also had a lot to do with it. That chart does not go back far enough.
Agreed.
The first I heard of a Trust being used for NFA was as a result of this thread on AR15.com: http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_6_17/199942_.html Notice the date: 6/3/2006. Based on the info in that thread, and on the referenced thread on Sigforum, I did my first form 1. Word quickly spread. Notice how NFA transfers go postal starting that year:
It's the trusts that caused that spike.
You can't draw that conclusion.
Most peoples NFA purchases/projects take a year or longer.
Most of those NFA transfers in 2006 were from peoples NFA projects that were kicked off in 2005.
Your graph doesn't go back far enough.
we also need to remember A lot of new states have redefined (when Obama got into office) their laws on NFA items, which started a ton and flood of folks submitting Paperwork.Just Like when Alabama finally said it was legal for us to do SBRs last year.
I know one Guy who waited a little over 6 months for his Tax stamp to make it back to do his SBR and that was not even done on a trust
Whats your point?
This:
3. Increase in popularity of using trust and corps.
You can't draw that conclusion.
You just agreed with me.
Most peoples NFA purchases/projects take a year or longer.
None of mine have (7).
Most of those NFA transfers in 2006 were from peoples NFA projects that were kicked off in 2005.
I couldn't draw that conclusion from this chart. Mine took about three months, before everyone jumped on the trust bandwagon.
Your graph doesn't go back far enough.
It's not my graph. It's the ATFs. I strongly suspect that if you did the homework, you'd find that the number of transfers would go steadily down, the farther back you went. FWIW, those stats are for all NFA transactions, not just silencers. There were already a lot of lawful weapons that had threaded barrels. The rise of the internet had a lot to do with the increase, as well.
Still waiting for links to the plethora of threads about the rejected trusts.
In a fairly recent issue of Small Arms Review the issues with trusts was actually mentioned. This is according to someone from the NFA working group that works with the BATFE.
This:
You just agreed with me.
None of mine have (7).
I couldn't draw that conclusion from this chart. Mine took about three months, before everyone jumped on the trust bandwagon.
It's not my graph. It's the ATFs. I strongly suspect that if you did the homework, you'd find that the number of transfers would go steadily down, the farther back you went. FWIW, those stats are for all NFA transactions, not just silencers. There were already a lot of lawful weapons that had threaded barrels. The rise of the internet had a lot to do with the increase, as well.
Still waiting for links to the plethora of threads about the rejected trusts.
polymorpheous
01-18-12, 08:25
Any updates regarding this?
Eurodriver
01-18-12, 08:50
Any updates regarding this?
No. There won't be, either. Its not going away. Say it with me...."rumor"
polymorpheous
01-18-12, 09:04
Supposedly this is information passed down to Jeff Zimba by Jeff Follider.
They talk about it on Subguns.com.
The CLEO thing has been approved by ATF and DOJ. We are waiting for the
new forms to be designed by OMB and then the whole shebang published in
the Federal Register. Once that is done, it's over.
Are they to be considered unreliable for information?
I don't know too much about them.
justlikeanyoneelse
01-20-12, 16:01
The BATF is taking over 6 months from receipt to approval of a routine Form 4.
Assuming the above is true, I will not hold my breath waiting for them to implement this change.
hahaha so true
My thoughts:
Why is an Anti Gun Administration and Agency, headed by Fast & Furious Holder doing us a favor?
What are they going to do to screw us as NFA owners?
Fingerprint cards and photos for EVERYONE?
Copies of your forms submitted to your CLEO every time you submit one so the local CLEO will have a NFA item registration in his office?
Increased Transfer tax to more than $200.00?
I am simply wondering what the downside is?
Since I believe in the TANSTAAFL principle, I am worried that we are about to get a lot more than simply the No CLEO signoff.
I may be wrong. I hope I am.
charmcitycop
01-26-12, 01:24
.....
Don't be so sure. Zimba writes articles for Small Arms Review. Small Arms Review is a conduit for the NFATCA. They are the working group that has been pushing certain agendas behind the scenes and part of that is the revising of the way Trusts are used.
My issue is that there was no trust issue to begin with except for those who were idiots.
It's kind of like writing a letter to BATFE asking if a shoe string is considered a part of a machine gun and they tell you yes.
No. There won't be, either. Its not going away. Say it with me...."rumor"
I am a member, but I sometimes wonder if NFATCA has its own agenda that is not necessarily aligned with everyone's best interest.
I am a member, but I sometimes wonder if NFATCA has its own agenda that is not necessarily aligned with everyone's best interest.
They do.
Quiet Riot
01-26-12, 10:15
My thoughts:
Why is an Anti Gun Administration and Agency, headed by Fast & Furious Holder doing us a favor?
What are they going to do to screw us as NFA owners?
Fingerprint cards and photos for EVERYONE?
Copies of your forms submitted to your CLEO every time you submit one so the local CLEO will have a NFA item registration in his office?
Increased Transfer tax to more than $200.00?
I am simply wondering what the downside is?
Since I believe in the TANSTAAFL principle, I am worried that we are about to get a lot more than simply the No CLEO signoff.
I may be wrong. I hope I am.
You can scratch this off the list of things to worry about. Per the Constitution, only Congress can set taxes.
The $200 tax is written into the NFA. It cannot change without a new law- one that would never get enough support from either Republicans or Democrats.
CarlosDJackal
01-26-12, 12:18
This whole thing should be left alone because the process works. Most people can get their CLEO to sign and they can get their NFA stuff, others have to set up a trust, but they still get their NFA stuff. I see this as a huge liability to NFA owners and collectors because opening the door to changing this process is going to open the door to change it IN WAYS WE DO NOT WANT. Yes, it's inconvenient and yes it's slow; but it works so don't try to "fix" it or it will end up more broken.
Or we could do the RIGHT thing and destroy the NFA process and treat NFA items as regular firearms or accessories. Now that is a change I could get behind.
I sort of disagree with this. I personally know of individuals who could not purchase an SBRs or Suppressors because of the CLEO requirements. While some ended up going the RLT route, some just plain gave up because the CLEO in which they live in (NoVA) refused to sign.
But at the same time, I do agree with most of this because I do not want the obamists to take a closer look at the current laws and possibly tighten if up (because we all know how many registered NFA items are used in crimes, don't we?).
This rumor has been going around for as long as I started looking into owning NFA items (which is decades) and is probably nothing more than that - a rumor.
In my opinion yes, I think there is. I just don't know the angle yet.
I am a member, but I sometimes wonder if NFATCA has its own agenda that is not necessarily aligned with everyone's best interest.
I sort of disagree with this. I personally know of individuals who could not purchase an SBRs or Suppressors because of the CLEO requirements. While some ended up going the RLT route, some just plain gave up because the CLEO in which they live in (NoVA) refused to sign.
Failure to get a CLEO sig is not a valid reason to not own NFA. The Trust or LLC method is very easy.
I have dozens of customers who can get CLEO signoff, and still go the trust route because of its numerous advantages.
These folks need to better understand why trusts are so better.
Dennis Todd
01-29-12, 06:44
The latest is that BATFE wants the CLEO sign-off gone, but that everyone will need prints and pictures so that felons can't hide behind a corp. or trust. Not sure how that will work with corps. As posted earlier, Jeff Folloder of NFATCA reports OMB is designing new forms that will also include the citizenship certification nonsense on the same form. That will save one form we have to submit. NFATCA has been on this for some time and NFA branch is backing it.
I don't like the sound of this. The primary reason I went the trust route was so my wife can have access to my NFA items, i.e. can know the combination to my safe, can transport the items, etc. without any issues.
How can a legal entity have fingerprints/photo ID? Why is ATF so obsessed with the idea of having fingerprints and photo ID?
The simple answer is to require the corp/trust representative picking up the NFA item to do a NICS check, which is what FFLs are doing already.
The ATF has institutional biases and paranoia that we shouldn't be bending over backwards to assist or reinforce. We need to work to eliminate that paranoia or the institution's ability to impose rules on us based on that nonsensical paranoia.
You don't 'make a deal' with the ATF and expect to get a fair half of that deal. The ATF hates that people can own guns. Period. Dealing with people like that is like making a deal to pay the local crack heads to not rob your house. One way or the other, they're going to get the better end of the deal and they're just going to rob your house in the end anyway.
How can a legal entity have fingerprints/photo ID?
Pretty much the same way a legal entity has someone fill out a 4473.
Why is ATF so obsessed with the idea of having fingerprints and photo ID?
Cause they are an LE agency and the law requires it.
The simple answer is to require the corp/trust representative picking up the NFA item to do a NICS check, which is what FFLs are doing already.
Problem 1: Most FFLs do not do it.
Problem 2: BATFE cannot legally require FFLs to do it.
If any of this comes to fruition it will be interesting to see how it unfolds and how the BATFE is going to manipulate or break stuff.
davidjinks
01-31-12, 12:50
If you already have a trust/NFA items and this thing goes through, where do the trust holders stand? Will they be required to submit prints/photos (All people involved with said trusts) even though all of the NFA items are already approved?
Edited to add: If the trust holders, or trustees, will be required to submit prints/photos what about assigned beneficiaries?
I told y'all the NFATCA was going to **** us in the end.
I don't like the sound of this. The primary reason I went the trust route was so my wife can have access to my NFA items, i.e. can know the combination to my safe, can transport the items, etc. without any issues.
She will still be able to have access. Grantors and trustees will have to submit prints and photos so a background check can be done on them.
How can a legal entity have fingerprints/photo ID? Why is ATF so obsessed with the idea of having fingerprints and photo ID?
They just want to insure the weapon is not going to a prohibited possessor.
The simple answer is to require the corp/trust representative picking up the NFA item to do a NICS check, which is what FFLs are doing already.
The FFL is not required to perform a NICS check when you pick up an NFA weapon. There is a box to check on the 4473 that states NFA, no NICS check required. Also my last two purchases have been individual transfers-no NICS check. A Form 1 does not require a NICS check. You already have the weapon, however you got it, Gun Show, purchase from an individual...
Bottom line, the ATF wants to make certain they are not allowing the transfer to prohibited possessor... that is unless the weapon is going south of the border and they are guarding the shipment.:)
Read it and weep:
Start AT BOTTOM OF PAGE 12
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/BATFE/CLEO_zps16716384.png (http://s839.photobucket.com/user/Umbrarian/media/BATFE/CLEO_zps16716384.png.html)
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/inside-atf/2013/082913-wash-machine-guns-destructive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf
Now is the time for the NFA to be challenged in the courts. The CLEO sign off is a ridiculous and mundane step. Its time for those involved to consider some sort of class action suit. I would hope that some of the NFA trust attorney groups would look into something such as this.
Now is the time for the NFA to be challenged in the courts. The CLEO sign off is a ridiculous and mundane step. Its time for those involved to consider some sort of class action suit. I would hope that some of the NFA trust attorney groups would look into something such as this.
Agreed. I'm tired of the cowardice "don't rock the boat " attitude of so many 2a supporters. We as a community need to grow a freaking sack and flat out tell them to shove it up there ass.
Sent from my SGH-T999 using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
I'm still wondering what they are going to do with all the forms in the pipeline. I didn't see anything addressing grandfathering or the like.....
To require a CLEO sign off is one thing, but when a CLEO will refuse to sign off just because.... then that is where the line has to be drawn. I have items that were sent in with a sign off and those on a Trust. I am friends with the CLEO in my region so its not an issue for me. That being said I am mad as hell about this because it is ridiculous to say the least. Whats the point of a background check and fingerprints if they allow a CLEO to make such a deciding decision in the process. Like I said before now is the time to take action in the form of a lawsuit.
To require a CLEO sign off is one thing, but when a CLEO will refuse to sign off just because.... then that is where the line has to be drawn. I have items that were sent in with a sign off and those on a Trust. I am friends with the CLEO in my region so its not an issue for me. That being said I am mad as hell about this because it is ridiculous to say the least. Whats the point of a background check and fingerprints if they allow a CLEO to make such a deciding decision in the process. Like I said before now is the time to take action in the form of a lawsuit.
you nailed it. i would actually prefer to have it in my specific name and signed off by the cleo. but since the ones around here won't even respond when you contact them about it if you walk in will absolutely refuse to sign off, loopholes exist. if i pass my background check with flying colors why does he get to deny it? its like saying i am clearly a citizen but they aren't going to let me vote because they don't feel like it.
luckydube56
08-30-13, 01:34
Read it and weep:
Start AT BOTTOM OF PAGE 12
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/BATFE/CLEO_zps16716384.png (http://s839.photobucket.com/user/Umbrarian/media/BATFE/CLEO_zps16716384.png.html)
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/inside-atf/2013/082913-wash-machine-guns-destructive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf
School me on this part:
"ATF also proposes amending the language of the certificate to omit the requirement that the certifiying official state that he has no information that the applicant or transferee will use the firearm for other than lawful purposes"
This tells me CLEOs who refuse to "sign off" have been out of compliance all along. The existing language of the certificate does not indicate it is asking the CLEO if he approves. It is demanding a response as to whether he sees any reason to deny said applicant. It is a request by ATF for information; not approval.
Am I wrong?
School me on this part:
"ATF also proposes amending the language of the certificate to omit the requirement that the certifiying official state that he has no information that the applicant or transferee will use the firearm for other than lawful purposes"
This tells me CLEOs who refuse to "sign off" have been out of compliance all along. The existing language of the certificate does not indicate it is asking the CLEO if he approves. It is demanding a response as to whether he sees any reason to deny said applicant. It is a request by ATF for information; not approval.
Am I wrong?
That is the way it has always supposed to be. At least, that is my understanding.
So is there a place to provide comment on this yet? (Keeping in mind that they'll totally publish your address and any personal information you provide.)
i would actually prefer to have it in my specific name and signed off by the cleo. but since the ones around here won't even respond when you contact them about it if you walk in will absolutely refuse to sign off, loopholes exist.
Compliance with the law is not a loophole.
irunyourun
08-30-13, 15:57
If anyone is wondering who petitioned the ATF to address the trust "loophole" it was the National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association (NFATCA)
https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/files/assets/inside-atf/2013/082913-wash-machine-guns-destructive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf
http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad5/irunyourun/httpswwwatfgovsitesdefaultfilesassetsinside-atf2013082913-wash-machine-guns-destructive-devices-and-certain-other-firearmspd_zps3310d7d4.png (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/irunyourun/media/httpswwwatfgovsitesdefaultfilesassetsinside-atf2013082913-wash-machine-guns-destructive-devices-and-certain-other-firearmspd_zps3310d7d4.png.html)
http://i916.photobucket.com/albums/ad5/irunyourun/httpswwwatfgovsitesdefaultfilesassetsinside-atf2013082913-wash-machine-guns-destructive-devices-and-certain-other-firearmspd_zps47197e02.png (http://s916.photobucket.com/user/irunyourun/media/httpswwwatfgovsitesdefaultfilesassetsinside-atf2013082913-wash-machine-guns-destructive-devices-and-certain-other-firearmspd_zps47197e02.png.html)
Please tell me there is a way we can fight this? I have a Form 1 and a form 4 pending and to think that those might be the only 2 stamps I ever get is down right infuriating.
Anyone that couldn't see this happening is a damn fool.
I brought this up two or three years ago on here.
1. The NFATCA is to blame. They stirred shit on an issue that it didn't need to be.
2. People using trusts/corps for convenience reasons, that could otherwise get a CLEO sign off, are also to blame. They flooded the system with unnecessary trusts/corps and also stirred the shit.
3. There is no way to fight this. Someone will spend millions on lawyers and the outcome will be no change.
4. This is exactly how the machinegun ban got passed. Idiots stirred the shit on FOPA rules that don’t matter and then it gave an avenue for the hughes amendment.
Just frigging dandy... now Ill likely have to spend my time researching the NFA amenability of CLEOs in the areas I'm looking at relocating to..
Awesome.. :rolleyes:
School me on this part:
It is a request by ATF for information; not approval.
Am I wrong?
The way I read it, it removes liability from CLEO. IOW, before.. or actually now.. they are asked, Do you know any reason this person will use the item for other than legal purpose? They say no... then it gets used illegally someone comes back to hang the CLEO.
Now the new part removes that comment. Basically the CLEO says as of the day I sign this the guy is not a felon, his background checks, and I don't know nor am I checking to find anything else about him. I can't confirm nor deny what he might use it for but there is no legal means to deny him.
Before the CLEO could say, I simply can't put my job on the line by signing that claim because it's too wide open and I've got nothing to win and everything to lose. So they chose not not sign. In fact it's a wonder any of them sign it.
I agree though there is a lot of stupidity in the NFA rules. Suppressors, CLEO sign off.... I mean if they can't find out anything they need to know about you in six months......
Anyone that couldn't see this happening is a damn fool.
I brought this up two or three years ago on here.
1. The NFATCA is to blame. They stirred shit on an issue that it didn't need to be.
2. People using trusts/corps for convenience reasons, that could otherwise get a CLEO sign off, are also to blame. They flooded the system with unnecessary trusts/corps and also stirred the shit.
3. There is no way to fight this. Someone will spend millions on lawyers and the outcome will be no change.
4. This is exactly how the machinegun ban got passed. Idiots stirred the shit on FOPA rules that don’t matter and then it gave an avenue for the hughes amendment.
I would think that a lot of money is invested in getting NFA items such as SBRs and Suppressors to the civilian market. These manufacturers must know that this is going to lower their revenue and want to fight it in some way and same goes for firms that work solely on NFA trusts.
domestique
08-30-13, 18:16
Anyone that couldn't see this happening is a damn fool.
I brought this up two or three years ago on here.
1. The NFATCA is to blame. They stirred shit on an issue that it didn't need to be.
2. People using trusts/corps for convenience reasons, that could otherwise get a CLEO sign off, are also to blame. They flooded the system with unnecessary trusts/corps and also stirred the shit.
3. There is no way to fight this. Someone will spend millions on lawyers and the outcome will be no change.
4. This is exactly how the machinegun ban got passed. Idiots stirred the shit on FOPA rules that don’t matter and then it gave an avenue for the hughes amendment.
Totally disagree. I went the trust route so my spouse and family could use and share our legally owned firearms and suppressors. I want my wife to have the same tools at her disposal to defend herself if the need would arise.
Now, I will say I have no problem getting my finger prints done. Have had dozens of FBI clearances filed and fingerprinted over a dozen times. However the ATF needs to update how they do things. Make everyone in a trust get fingerprinted, but allow them to go to a UPS store and get it done (it seriously takes less than 3 minutes). Don’t bog down the State Police with fingerprint requests. Furthermore once you have already been in the ATF system, if should not take 6-9-12 months to get another stamp.
What would save the ATF a lot of time is put the responsibility on the class III dealers to run the background checks (mine already do that now anyways). Give them access to the Federal database and let them run the background checks (or at least subsequent checks) for each individual. This would not only speed up the ATF times, but allow the ATF to thoroughly investigate first time applicants.
Even if they rewrite trusts to get CLEO sign off and fingerprints I will still put everything in a trust….. the benefit of sharing suppressors and SBRs within the family far outweighs any extra burden IMHO.
Now, I will say I have no problem getting my finger prints done. Have had dozens of FBI clearances filed and fingerprinted over a dozen times. However the ATF needs to update how they do things. Make everyone in a trust get fingerprinted, but allow them to go to a UPS store and get it done (it seriously takes less than 3 minutes). Don’t bog down the State Police with fingerprint requests. Furthermore once you have already been in the ATF system, if should not take 6-9-12 months to get another stamp.
What would save the ATF a lot of time is put the responsibility on the class III dealers to run the background checks (mine already do that now anyways). Give them access to the Federal database and let them run the background checks (or at least subsequent checks) for each individual. This would not only speed up the ATF times, but allow the ATF to thoroughly investigate first time applicants.
Except that isn't going to ever happen.
This isn't about making the process more efficient and modern. It is about making it more complicated and burdensome so people won't buy these firearms.
domestique
08-30-13, 18:39
Except that isn't going to ever happen.
This isn't about making the process more efficient and modern. It is about making it more complicated and burdensome so people won't buy these firearms.
A guy can dream....
It's rather ironic that Obama and his administration would rather see the U.S go the way of Europe when it comes to guns, but here in the U.S it is more expensive, harder and takes longer to get a suppressor then over in Europe.
I was quoted around $100-$150 bucks for a disposable Glock suppressor that would last a couple hundred rounds. Many rifle clubs over in Europe require and at least strongly urge members to have suppressors to keep the noise pollution down.
luckydube56
08-30-13, 18:45
Just so everybody is clear, these are Executive Actions; not Orders. These actions do NOT bypass rule making processes. When this hits the Federal Register, be sure to make your voices heard.
These effin' Libs are constantly keeping us on our toes hoping that one of these instances, we won't act.
Dolphinvet
08-30-13, 20:31
If this continues, our weapons will be locked in place to us and be worthless. They won't be able to be transferred and sold. If the CLEO just flat out refuses to sign a form 4, as is the case in a LOT of counties, then you can't buy it. It's really an illegal move as I see it, one person can just say "no" for no other reason than they don't think you should have it, and that's it. More rules, less freedom. It's designed to wear us down so that we can't have them anymore, and where the existing Class 3 stuff is, is where it will stay until you die. I wonder what will happen then to the existing guns if they then need to be transferred to a family member. Will they need a CLEO signoff and background check too on the form 5 as it now stands? And if the CLEO now refuses to sign, then what? The gun gets confiscated and destroyed. That's their end game, to remove all the Class 3 from all of us within one generation.
domestique
08-30-13, 20:46
If this continues, our weapons will be locked in place to us and be worthless. They won't be able to be transferred and sold. If the CLEO just flat out refuses to sign a form 4, as is the case in a LOT of counties, then you can't buy it. It's really an illegal move as I see it, one person can just say "no" for no other reason than they don't think you should have it, and that's it. More rules, less freedom. It's designed to wear us down so that we can't have them anymore, and where the existing Class 3 stuff is, is where it will stay until you die. I wonder what will happen then to the existing guns if they then need to be transferred to a family member. Will they need a CLEO signoff and background check too on the form 5 as it now stands? And if the CLEO now refuses to sign, then what? The gun gets confiscated and destroyed. That's their end game, to remove all the Class 3 from all of us within one generation.
Kind of reminds you of the middle ages and the Dukes/Lords of the land deciding what we peasants can have.
This was the ATFs way of reducing the backlog without them having to make any changes. This change gets them off the hook for 12 month wait periods because it will reduce the number of forms in the system as now people will not be able to get CLEO signature.
It also sticks it to gun owners. All this was by design. The intent of the NFA was to make it nearly impossible for people to buy these things.
Dolphinvet
08-30-13, 21:17
All this was by design. The intent of the NFA was to make it nearly impossible for people to buy these things.
Well, the game is shifting to make it eventually illegal to buy these things unless you're a government entity. It won't be by massive confiscation, it will be slow and insidious, so we won't know that we are dying until it's too late. And now, it may be too late.
thopkins22
08-30-13, 21:26
So...where's the fight going to happen? Are we going to have to wait for someone to challenge it in court?
I plan to contact my Senators and Congressmen, they aren't as powerless as we might think as the ATF reports to both the executive and congress.
If this continues, our weapons will be locked in place to us and be worthless. They won't be able to be transferred and sold. If the CLEO just flat out refuses to sign a form 4, as is the case in a LOT of counties, then you can't buy it. It's really an illegal move as I see it, one person can just say "no" for no other reason than they don't think you should have it, and that's it. More rules, less freedom. It's designed to wear us down so that we can't have them anymore, and where the existing Class 3 stuff is, is where it will stay until you die. I wonder what will happen then to the existing guns if they then need to be transferred to a family member. Will they need a CLEO signoff and background check too on the form 5 as it now stands? And if the CLEO now refuses to sign, then what? The gun gets confiscated and destroyed. That's their end game, to remove all the Class 3 from all of us within one generation.
Which is exactly why I went for a trust - it ENSURES (and I should be careful when I use that word anymore) that my next of kin (my daughter) inherits. At least surviving two generations.
Which is exactly why I went for a trust - it ENSURES (and I should be careful when I use that word anymore) that my next of kin (my daughter) inherits. At least surviving two generations.
The way I am reading it is that your next of kin would have to pass the Cleo check. If the Cleo refuses, how would the items transfer?
The way I am reading it is that your next of kin would have to pass the Cleo check. If the Cleo refuses, how would the items transfer?
1. I'd have to see if they can retroactively change what's already been done.
2. Luckily, I live where the CLEO has no problem.
So...where's the fight going to happen? Are we going to have to wait for someone to challenge it in court?
I plan to contact my Senators and Congressmen, they aren't as powerless as we might think as the ATF reports to both the executive and congress.
The way I see it my first fight is with the NFATCA. The organization must be emasculated. The officials and active members of this organization are not sufficiently skilled to represent the interests of those who they purport to represent. The federal govt agencies absolutely loves the "engagement" of these type of associations. It gives them a lot of political cover. Congressional inquiries are returned with something like the following "the NFATCA engaged with the agency on this rulemaking."
NFATCA has claimed they are being thrown under the bus by those on the internet: http://www.nfatca.org/ (also see their statement issued today). They threw themselves under the bus by starting or engaging in this disaster. The ATF then threw them under the bus, which always happens in these situations; bringing us back to the original problem, which is that the NFATCA is woefully organizationally/politically inept. They should have seen this coming and have been extremely wary of taking such action even with a friendly administration, let alone a very hostile one.
My first action is going to be to write the firearm manufacturers and dealers that I use (even if just email) and strongly urge them to oppose the NFATCA or leave the NFATCA immediately if they are currently members. The NFATCA needs to have their funds cut off. This is done by losing members and getting no new memberships.
The NFATCA reminds us in their damage control statement dated today that the NPRM is not final yet. They are correct. It has not even at the Federal Register's desk for public inspection, which is where it will appear for a couple of days before it is officially published in the Federal Register. There will undoubtedly be changes and it wouldn't surprise me to see one of two of the sharper edges taken off as agencies often throw a couple in an NPRM (proposed rule) to show that they addressed stakeholder's concerns. Even if this does happen, it does not justify NFATCA's disastrous political and practical calculations in this situation. I didn't have anything against the NFATCA until now, but unless they can show me more of a justification to engage with the ATF on this then they have to go. Now, I would actively support and contribute funds to a more competent and suitable association. They blew it, and blew it bad. As a reference point, I like to pull triggers but I have a lot more expertise in the political and regulatory process.
We can and should write the Members of Congress who will take action (i.e., many Rs and OK I'm not aware of any remaining Ds that would have a problem--maybe Pryor in Arkansas as he's up for re-election). But the ATF will hide behind the NFATCA's involvement, just like they did in NPRM. Moreover, most Members of Congress just won't care much about this unless they start to get a lot of constituent letters. Many are probably not even aware that you can own such firearms/devices.
As Scottytran mentioned, there's not a good chance that his thing gets overturned by the federal courts. The case, unless the ATF really screws up on some aspect of administrative law and OMB doesn't catch it, is a dead loser.
Totally disagree. I went the trust route so my spouse and family could use and share our legally owned firearms and suppressors. I want my wife to have the same tools at her disposal to defend herself if the need would arise.
Now, I will say I have no problem getting my finger prints done. Have had dozens of FBI clearances filed and fingerprinted over a dozen times. However the ATF needs to update how they do things. Make everyone in a trust get fingerprinted, but allow them to go to a UPS store and get it done (it seriously takes less than 3 minutes). Don’t bog down the State Police with fingerprint requests. Furthermore once you have already been in the ATF system, if should not take 6-9-12 months to get another stamp.
What would save the ATF a lot of time is put the responsibility on the class III dealers to run the background checks (mine already do that now anyways). Give them access to the Federal database and let them run the background checks (or at least subsequent checks) for each individual. This would not only speed up the ATF times, but allow the ATF to thoroughly investigate first time applicants.
Even if they rewrite trusts to get CLEO sign off and fingerprints I will still put everything in a trust….. the benefit of sharing suppressors and SBRs within the family far outweighs any extra burden IMHO.
I agree with these sentiments. My primary purpose of forming a trust was so I could include my family and not have to worry about the possibility of something happening to me and my family not being able to possess my investments.
I sent off paperwork for a lower a few weeks ago, and my check still has not cleared. I think that if this is "law", that it should have a date in which it is to be enacted tied to it.....not a "from this day forward" kind of deal. The future will tell whether they cash my check and proceed, or return my paperwork.
domestique
08-31-13, 20:07
Generally the NRA has never backed the NFA crowd.
But it looks like the ATF pissed off the NRA when they included the import bans and the potential to cause trouble for the CMP.
http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2013/8/obama-to-nix-imports,-require-fbi-checks-for-firearms-trusts-new-director-of-batfe-sworn-in.aspx
Hopefully ths means the NRA will help the NFA guys out.
Edit: Second read it I wouldn't be surprised if the NRA through gun trusts under the bus in hoped to get importation removed from the EO
I warned about the NFATCA when I first heard about them "engaging" the BATFE about this nonsense. They should have kept their traps shut.
Robb Jensen
09-01-13, 12:22
Keyword: proposes
I warned about the NFATCA when I first heard about them "engaging" the BATFE about this nonsense. They should have kept their traps shut.
Hey,,, they only poked the bear... who knew it would bite them! :rolleyes:
http://www.nfatcaforums.org/showthread.php?84-NFATCA-Official-Statement-on-Presidential-Action
The problem is that no one or nothing seems to be able to keep this President in check. I would not be surprised if this gets enacted.
Keyword: proposes
Part of me still can't help but chuckle, as if the fed has any credibility on anything firearm related post F&F....
sad times we live in
So when woild this be in play? I'm compled to do my trust tomorrow, and sbr my spare lower the next day.
domestique
09-01-13, 19:33
So when woild this be in play? I'm compled to do my trust tomorrow, and sbr my spare lower the next day.
No one knows yet.
There is a 90 day wait from until anything would actually go into effect.
IMHO these are some outcomes that could happen:
Worst: All trusts would have to resubmit all their paperwork on currently owned stamps CLEO and fingerprints now required or the stamp is void. (1%, unlikely to happen)
Bad: All trusts forms currently in progress would have to resubmit their forms with CLEO sign off and fingerprint cards even if the form is currently pending (50% chance)
Sucks: All news trust submissions will need CLEO and fingerprint cards after a certain date (but current forms that are pending are excluded) (50% chance)
Best: Everything gets shot down (10% chance)
Most Excellent: The ATF is disbanded; Suppressors and SBRs can be bought over the counter at your local Wal-Mart ( 0.00000000001% chance, but a guy can dream)
Personally I would go ahead and fill out your trust, and submit your forms. It will most likely take close to 3 months to go pending so hopefully you can sneak by and not need CLEO and fingerprint cards for this submission.
Either way, I would still go the trust route as it offers more flexibility if you have a family and letting them use your items when you are not with them.
No one knows yet.
There is a 90 day wait from until anything would actually go into effect.
IMHO these are some outcomes that could happen:
Worst: All trusts would have to resubmit all their paperwork on currently owned stamps CLEO and fingerprints now required or the stamp is void. (1%, unlikely to happen)
Bad: All trusts forms currently in progress would have to resubmit their forms with CLEO sign off and fingerprint cards even if the form is currently pending (50% chance)
Sucks: All news trust submissions will need CLEO and fingerprint cards after a certain date (but current forms that are pending are excluded) (50% chance)
Best: Everything gets shot down (10% chance)
Most Excellent: The ATF is disbanded; Suppressors and SBRs can be bought over the counter at your local Wal-Mart ( 0.00000000001% chance, but a guy can dream)
Personally I would go ahead and fill out your trust, and submit your forms. It will most likely take close to 3 months to go pending so hopefully you can sneak by and not need CLEO and fingerprint cards for this submission.
Either way, I would still go the trust route as it offers more flexibility if you have a family and letting them use your items when you are not with them.
Thanks for the tips
1slow01Z71
09-01-13, 20:29
The back-tracking the NFATCA is doing on their forum is laughable at best.
Which is exactly why I went for a trust - it ENSURES (and I should be careful when I use that word anymore) that my next of kin (my daughter) inherits. At least surviving two generations.
same here
mingheemouse
09-01-13, 22:52
For those with family members residing in, say California or New Jersey, who are on trusts or corporations holding NFA items in states that allow them, there will now be an impossible burden created. Remember, trusts are largely for estate planning, and if I put my house and guns in a trust for my grandkids to use while they are in my state (lets call it Texas) both now and once I am gone, what business does their CLEO have denying that?
The proposal calls for every "responsible person", as defined here as...
"In the case of a trust, any individual, including any grantor, trustee, or beneficiary, who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any trust instrument or other document, or under state law, to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the trust;"
...to get a CLEO sign-off from their own local CLEO. If you have people in your Trust, or Corporation in multiple jurisdictions, possibly in several states, their own CLEO must certify that the NFA item is legal to possess in their jurisdiction, regardless of where the principle place of business is or where the items are to be kept.
See p.56 of the proposal.
"(v) In the space provided on Form 5320.23, a certificate completed by the local chief of police, sheriff of the county, head of the state police, state or local district attorney or prosecutor, or such other person whose certificate may in a particular case be acceptable to the Director, for the jurisdiction in which the responsible person resides. The certificate shall state that the certifying official is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph accompanying the form are those of the responsible person and that the certifying official has no information indicating that possession of the firearm by the responsible person would be in violation of state or local law."
morbidbattlecry
09-01-13, 22:55
So what do we do? Write reps? Be a part of the "public comment" part of the process? Storm the ATF with pitchforks and torches?
So what do we do? Write reps? Be a part of the "public comment" part of the process? Storm the ATF with pitchforks and torches?Agreed! There is not the focus I had hoped. Earlier this year manf. that would be affected by laws posted links to reps, officials, etc. Members posted links to any and everything, just to be able and voice an opinion to officials. We need those same leaders with the info of who to contact, and tell that this will do nothing to fix crime problems. Put me in coach!!
Agreed! There is not the focus I had hoped. Earlier this year manf. that would be affected by laws posted links to reps, officials, etc. Members posted links to any and everything, just to be able and voice an opinion to officials. We need those same leaders with the info of who to contact, and tell that this will do nothing to fix crime problems. Put me in coach!!
The problem is that the organization which should be leading the opposition against this is the one that effectively participated in it. Whether they like it or not, nfatca's fingerprints are all over this.
Unfortunately, because of the political cover that the NFATCA's involvement gives the ATF members of congress that may have been willing to take action will be less likely to do so. They don't want to waste political capital on a rule that most of them have little to no familiarity with. There's a handful of MOC that may engage, but it would likely be half heartedly. Thus, my considerable irritation (post on previous page) with NFATCA's gross political imcompetence/miscalculation.
This thing is going to happen. The only question is what the final rule will look like. The ATF already has a pretty good idea. I'm sure they have a list of what they are willing to give on and what they won't.
Yes. File comments. Write your members of congress who will care. The messaging will be important. Needs to be simple and short. Comments, on the other hand, should be reasonably sophisticated or point out practical problems, etc.
Again, the problem is that this type of work costs a lot of money and should have already been organized and the group that folks are supposed to look to played an instrumental role in the development of the proposal. Setting something up like this takes time and money. I have done numerous such initiatives in other fields. Unless an organization is already working to throw some wrenches in the process or someone turns up with millions to make up for lost time. Well...
In sum, I'm not saying we are screwed ... OK I guess I really am. The rules are going to change, the only question is how much.
The problem is that the organization which should be leading the opposition against this is the one that effectively participated in it. Whether they like it or not, nfatca's fingerprints are all over this.
Unfortunately, because of the political cover that the NFATCA's involvement gives the ATF members of congress that may have been willing to take action will be less likely to do so. They don't want to waste political capital on a rule that most of them have little to no familiarity with. There's a handful of MOC that may engage, but it would likely be half heartedly. Thus, my considerable irritation (post on previous page) with NFATCA's gross political imcompetence/miscalculation.
This thing is going to happen. The only question is what the final rule will look like. The ATF already has a pretty good idea. I'm sure they have a list of what they are willing to give on and what they won't.
Yes. File comments. Write your members of congress who will care. The messaging will be important. Needs to be simple and short. Comments, on the other hand, should be reasonably sophisticated or point out practical problems, etc.
Again, the problem is that this type of work costs a lot of money and should have already been organized and the group that folks are supposed to look to played an instrumental role in the development of the proposal. Setting something up like this takes time and money. I have done numerous such initiatives in other fields. Unless an organization is already working to throw some wrenches in the process or someone turns up with millions to make up for lost time. Well...
In sum, I'm not saying we are screwed ... OK I guess I really am. The rules are going to change, the only question is how much.Ok I just don't want to accept defeat just yet. I'm not tryn to be offensive. I was hoping to hear ways to try and fight, not ways we're defeated. Get industries involved, form Pro-group to be an actual ally, start petitions, get legal minds involved, try and get some NFATCA's employees fired. I don't care if I'm pissin the wind, just give me a target. There was a lot of people that were sure that gun grabbers would walk away with some form of national AWB/mag cap/trade show/etc. Lets all be optimistic and think thru the problem, and how were gonna win. Go team!
thopkins22
09-02-13, 01:51
There was a lot of people that were sure that gun grabbers would walk away with some form of national AWB/mag cap/trade show/etc. Lets all be optimistic and think thru the problem, and how were gonna win. Go team!
Exactly. As of six months ago there were people that thought that the best case scenario was that high capacity semi-automatic rifles would be made NFA items.
I for one refuse to be put in a situation where my ability to own something that is legal under local law, state law, and federal law is at the whims of a politically appointed police chief or elected sheriffs etc... This is the reason I created a trust in the first place...I would have bought NFA items years ago if there was someone signing here. As it stands my paperwork went out April 1, and I'm steadfastly refusing to call and ask about my status...it'll either happen or it won't.
A compromise that would look much less bleak would be adding NICS checks to trusts as opposed to CLEO sign off(are we sure they don't run a check on Grantors/beneficiaries now?) Obviously it's still a step in the wrong direction, but better than where we're heading IMO.
john armond
09-02-13, 07:50
Hey guys,
I have been reading this site for a few years now, but don't think I have ever posted anything, so here goes;
I live in NC, work for the DOJ (but not with the ATF) and have three NFA items pending at this time. I started the NFA process in January 2013 (being a LEO in the DOJ doesn't help at all, just to let you know). The first form is a Form 1 on a Trust, and the second two are Form 4 on a Trust. On this trust are myself, my wife, and my two minor children, upon reaching their 21st birthdays. All three were filled out the same as far as the "Transferor's name and address." In each form I put the trust name and address, plus my name.
On 06-24-2013 the Form 1 was sent back or corrections. The ATF stated they wanted me to "Remove the individuals name from section 3B." They only wanted the name of the Trust in the address box, and not my name.
Now, on 08-19-2013 both of the Form 4s were sent back to my dealer. I spoke to my dealer and asked if they needed my name removed just like the Form 1. He informed me that the ATF actually requested my wife's information be added to both Form 4s! I don't know what this means, or if it means anything at all. We both found it a little weird, especially since it occurred previous to the presidential order and statement from the ATF were made.
On a side note, does anybody know if for a local ATF agent would meet the "any other person whose certification is acceptable to the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives" requirement for "Law Enforcement Certification?" I ask this because my local CLEO will not sign off for anyone.
Ok I just don't want to accept defeat just yet. I'm not tryn to be offensive. I was hoping to hear ways to try and fight, not ways we're defeated. Get industries involved, form Pro-group to be an actual ally, start petitions, get legal minds involved, try and get some NFATCA's employees fired. I don't care if I'm pissin the wind, just give me a target. There was a lot of people that were sure that gun grabbers would walk away with some form of national AWB/mag cap/trade show/etc. Lets all be optimistic and think thru the problem, and how were gonna win. Go team!
Hey, im with you. Here's some thoughts.
It is all about leverage. The organizations that got us to this point have to feel some heat.
My initial blast is going to be directed at NFATCA. I will send a nice thank you card to the organization, but a much more extensive one to their board. I plan to send emails to the firearm manufacturers and dealers that I use to let em know of my displeasure with what nfatca has done and recommend that they withdraw their membership and support if they are members. If nfatca starts catching a lot more heat, leadership may change, and they may go back to ATF saying this isn't what we signed up for and then they may start aggressively opposing the action in its current form, but to some extent they are linked to this. But it would be nice for them to start making a lot of noise about how they've been screwed over and misrepresented by the ATF, although that entails admitting making an error in judgment something which they do not seem keen about doing. This is easier to do if new leadership can blame things on former leadership.
A change in nfatca leadership and their loud opposition to being used and abused by the ATF would really help because it takes away some of the ATFs cover story and political cover.
If you are in AL, write Sens. Sessions and Shelby. Sen. Sessions can cause good problems when he wants to. IIRC, he is on the budget committee and maybe if he's invested enough in this issue he could get something stuck in appropriation bill language or maybe more but he is in the minority. Write Mike Rogers as well.
My focus will be with UT sen. Mike Lee (I wouldn't have even bothered with my former sens. in VA).
Then submit comments.
It would be nice if someone put together some talking points and a letter template. Oh, and also something for comments.
I'm all about an optimistic approach or at least Im willing to joust at windmills. Either way, I'm planning on doing my part.
Eurodriver
09-02-13, 09:02
Anyone that couldn't see this happening is a damn fool.
I brought this up two or three years ago on here.
1. The NFATCA is to blame. They stirred shit on an issue that it didn't need to be.
2. People using trusts/corps for convenience reasons, that could otherwise get a CLEO sign off, are also to blame. They flooded the system with unnecessary trusts/corps and also stirred the shit.
3. There is no way to fight this. Someone will spend millions on lawyers and the outcome will be no change.
4. This is exactly how the machinegun ban got passed. Idiots stirred the shit on FOPA rules that don’t matter and then it gave an avenue for the hughes amendment.
Damn, I'd hate to be around you as a Jew in 1930s Germany.
Hey guys,
I have been reading this site for a few years now, but don't think I have ever posted anything, so here goes;
I live in NC, work for the DOJ (but not with the ATF) and have three NFA items pending at this time. I started the NFA process in January 2013 (being a LEO in the DOJ doesn't help at all, just to let you know). The first form is a Form 1 on a Trust, and the second two are Form 4 on a Trust. On this trust are myself, my wife, and my two minor children, upon reaching their 21st birthdays. All three were filled out the same as far as the "Transferor's name and address." In each form I put the trust name and address, plus my name.
On 06-24-2013 the Form 1 was sent back or corrections. The ATF stated they wanted me to "Remove the individuals name from section 3B." They only wanted the name of the Trust in the address box, and not my name.
Now, on 08-19-2013 both of the Form 4s were sent back to my dealer. I spoke to my dealer and asked if they needed my name removed just like the Form 1. He informed me that the ATF actually requested my wife's information be added to both Form 4s! I don't know what this means, or if it means anything at all. We both found it a little weird, especially since it occurred previous to the presidential order and statement from the ATF were made.
On a side note, does anybody know if for a local ATF agent would meet the "any other person whose certification is acceptable to the Director, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms and Explosives" requirement for "Law Enforcement Certification?" I ask this because my local CLEO will not sign off for anyone.
YOU need to make official comment when the time comes. Your CLEO's flat-out refusal (and you need to name him) to sign off is EXACTLY why this rule should NOT be implemented. It would carry more weight than others because of your DOJ connection.
2. People using trusts/corps for convenience reasons, that could otherwise get a CLEO sign off, are also to blame. They flooded the system with unnecessary trusts/corps and also stirred the shit.
Or you know some of us don't like to ask yet one more government cunt for the permission to own something which shouldn't be banned anyway.
How does this affect me and my wife? We got married back in April and I was planning on adding her to the trust. Can I still do so? What about the NFA items already on the trust; are they now void and illegal?
How does this affect me and my wife? We got married back in April and I was planning on adding her to the trust. Can I still do so? What about the NFA items already on the trust; are they now void and illegal?
Nothing has changed yet. Add her to the trust and carry on smartly.
Nothing has changed yet. Add her to the trust and carry on smartly.
Roger that.
Hey, im with you. Here's some thoughts.
It is all about leverage. The organizations that got us to this point have to feel some heat.
My initial blast is going to be directed at NFATCA. I will send a nice thank you card to the organization, but a much more extensive one to their board. I plan to send emails to the firearm manufacturers and dealers that I use to let em know of my displeasure with what nfatca has done and recommend that they withdraw their membership and support if they are members. If nfatca starts catching a lot more heat, leadership may change, and they may go back to ATF saying this isn't what we signed up for and then they may start aggressively opposing the action in its current form, but to some extent they are linked to this. But it would be nice for them to start making a lot of noise about how they've been screwed over and misrepresented by the ATF, although that entails admitting making an error in judgment something which they do not seem keen about doing. This is easier to do if new leadership can blame things on former leadership.
A change in nfatca leadership and their loud opposition to being used and abused by the ATF would really help because it takes away some of the ATFs cover story and political cover.
If you are in AL, write Sens. Sessions and Shelby. Sen. Sessions can cause good problems when he wants to. IIRC, he is on the budget committee and maybe if he's invested enough in this issue he could get something stuck in appropriation bill language or maybe more but he is in the minority. Write Mike Rogers as well.
My focus will be with UT sen. Mike Lee (I wouldn't have even bothered with my former sens. in VA).
Then submit comments.
It would be nice if someone put together some talking points and a letter template. Oh, and also something for comments.
I'm all about an optimistic approach or at least Im willing to joust at windmills. Either way, I'm planning on doing my part.Thanks! Sens. Sessions and Shelby was top of list, but kinda forgot about Rogers. Template letter(!), talking points, and petitions! Now were talkin.
Love that book!
Maybe get SteyrAug to start up petition to go along with his; "Together Forever" by Rick Astley petition! https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=134549&page=2 :D:D
morbidbattlecry
09-02-13, 15:43
Thanks! Sens. Sessions and Shelby was top of list, but kinda forgot about Rogers. Template letter(!), talking points, and petitions! Now were talkin.
Love that book!
I agree completely. I know its fun to play the blame game but, we need to stay focused on this one. There is no good way to stop this from happening. Most legislators are not going to care, there is no legal process to challenge this that i know of and we are at the whim of the ATF.
I also feel we need to be fairly clear about what we want. And i'm not talking the abolishment of the ATF. I think we need ask for a way to bypass the CLEO if need be. Something like an appeals process. Where is said CLEO won't sign but your record is clean then your still god to go or something.. I don't know i'm thowing out ideas here. I'm sure someone can come up with something way better.
Any letters to reps, like what has said before, need to be consice and to the point, Less then a paragraph would be the best. Don't bother writing to democrats because well that should self explanatory.
And we need to find out when the public comment period starts. I tried looking at the ATF, and GPO site and couldn't find a damn thing. So god speed to anyone that tries to figure that out.
Like the LAV says "Stay in the fight". It seams like gun ownership and freedoms will not go away with one large bill. Its going to be a death by a thousand cuts. And we need to patch up and fix every one we can find.
john armond
09-02-13, 20:07
Here is a link my old PD Sgt sent me. It has some form letters and other information.
http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/09/01/national-firearms-act-day-of-reckoning-information/
Mods, if I am not supposed to be posting this, please pull it down and accept my apologies.
morbidbattlecry
09-02-13, 20:38
Here is a link my old PD Sgt sent me. It has some form letters and other information.
http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/09/01/national-firearms-act-day-of-reckoning-information/
Mods, if I am not supposed to be posting this, please pull it down and accept my apologies.
Awesome link with alot of good information.
luckydube56
09-02-13, 21:07
Here is a very detailed article on the issues this potential change will cause.
http://soldiersystems.net/2013/09/01/what-last-weeks-executive-action-nfa-trust-corporate-transfers-means-to-you/
I got no answers (I'm no lawyer) but the article gives one enough ideas on how to argue a point by way of questions.
Aside from CLEO's not wanting to put their signature on a form 1 or 4 for political reasons, there is also the consideration that CLEOs simply do not have time to run a check and sign off on everyone that appears on a Trust multiplied by number of Trusts. Especially when they're being asked to do so for free, or at the very least, being told to cram in an extra few hours of work into their day. Can this be construed as the Federal Government imposing their will on Local Government? Maybe, except for the fact the CLEO can tell the Feds "it ain't my job". So the Feds are knowingly creating a rule that requires something that simply isn't feasible in many cases; is there some basis to consider this a Constitutional violation by placing undue obstructions in our ability to acquire NFA items?
They're trying to turn a 'loophole' into a catch 22.
GlocksInMySocks
09-02-13, 21:58
there is also the consideration that CLEOs simply do not have time to run a check and sign off on everyone that appears on a Trust multiplied by number of Trusts. Especially when they're being asked to do so for free, or at the very least, being told to cram in an extra few hours of work into their day.
This is my concern. I could see once NFA friendly CLEOs becoming unwilling to sign off because it would become a full time job to simply take care of it.
Think cities like Dallas, TX. Massive gun states where a CLEO is taking care of 1.2 million people
SeriousStudent
09-02-13, 22:47
This is my concern. I could see once NFA friendly CLEOs becoming unwilling to sign off because it would become a full time job to simply take care of it.
Think cities like Dallas, TX. Massive gun states where a CLEO is taking care of 1.2 million people
If you are wanting a CLEO sign-off in Dallas, it's never going to happen. The Chief at DPD and the Dallas County Sheriff will never put their name on that dotted line.
Google "Sheriff Lupe Valdez" and tell me what you find out about her.
Anybody who wanted to do a trust in Dallas county is screwed. This directly affects two friends of mine. IG was right. He warned that nothing good would come of this, and he was right.
GlocksInMySocks
09-02-13, 22:50
If you are wanting a CLEO sign-off in Dallas, it's never going to happen. The Chief at DPD and the Dallas County Sheriff will never put their name on that dotted line.
Not saying Dallas specifically, but presumably any city where the chief previously would sign off. Example, OKC.
SeriousStudent
09-02-13, 23:30
I hear you. The sad thing is, that most every large city in Texas has a Democrat city council or county commissioners. The CLEO reflects that. They aren't going to sign off on anything.
It makes me sad - Texas has a reputation as this big firearms paradise, but there are still a lot of pitfalls here.
But switchblades did become legal yesterday - woot! :D
luckydube56
09-03-13, 00:54
This is my concern. I could see once NFA friendly CLEOs becoming unwilling to sign off because it would become a full time job to simply take care of it.
Think cities like Dallas, TX. Massive gun states where a CLEO is taking care of 1.2 million people
You read my mind.
CLEO who had previously been NFA friendly might be inclined to take a pass on sign off if they have to start running the checks on everyone on the Trusts. Then a few months later when you want something else they gotta run thru it again? Gimme a break. I almost wouldn't blame them.
Not to mention, you'd end up having a large backlog of forms for the CLEO to sign off on before you enter the massive NFA backlog system.
18 month total wait times a reality?
if you read page 24 i believe, it also says you need to re-submit any time you add someone to the trust/llc even after possession....
how does one submit fingerprints and mug shots for a 6 month old on a trust? :rolleyes:
Perhaps we can just pissed off the ATF into change by sending forms 1,4,5 with the words "refused to sign" in the CLEO sign slot. Flood them with that until they get pissed off? Probably pointless but damn it I just want these people to have a bad day.
john armond
09-03-13, 09:56
I just got off the phone with the NFA branch of the ATF. I was told they have not been given any marching orders as to how things are going to be affected. In fact it appears, at least from the person I spoke to, they were only made aware of the Ex Order stating prints and photos will be required with a Trust, etc. This person didn't seem to know about the director issuing a statement regarding CLEO sign off for everything. Unfortunally not even the NFA branch seems to know what the NFA branch is doing. This appears to be top down without any input from the agents that will be affected (typical .gov). I will say the two people (one in praticular) I spoke with were EXTREMELY helpful, and I did get some good news regarding one if my pending items. I was also quoted some "OFFICIAL" wait times:
90 days to approval on a corrected form
90 days to pending on newly submitted forms
9 months to approval once pending status has been achieved
anywhere from 7 to 90 days for checks sent in with forms to be cashed
All in all this person said we are looking at a year, or more, from mailbox to mailbox for new submissions
Like I said, these are the "official" wait times, although it appears the actual times may only be slightly shorter, maybe by two or three weeks depending on the "unofficial" time I was given.
They did hire the new inspectors, but they still have to go through their in house training plus Glynco, so they will not be effective for some time. Hell, the person I spoke to told me they had people die while waiting to get their forms processed.
All in all this person said we are looking at a year, or more, from mailbox to mailbox for new submissions
They can spy on your email in an instant but process 4 simple sheets of paper and it takes year.
You gotta love the government. Drunk with power and a pampered lifestyle. DC needs a massive all inclusive detox intervention.
Hell, the person I spoke to told me they had people die while waiting to get their forms processed.
Does anyone know exactly what the process is from start to finish. IOW, would it be possible to actually outline the steps necessary to receive the papers and process them form the moment the envelop is opened. I honestly can't seem to imagine a process that you could stretch out to a year if you tried. It sounds like a union joke where it takes 5 people and two weeks to pick a gum wrapper up of the floor and throw it in the trash.
1slow01Z71
09-03-13, 10:37
if you read page 24 i believe, it also says you need to re-submit any time you add someone to the trust/llc even after possession....
how does one submit fingerprints and mug shots for a 6 month old on a trust? :rolleyes:
I would like to know this as well. My 3 year old son and soon to be born any day second son are/will be on my trust. How the hell am I suppose to adhere to this if it does go through?
thopkins22
09-03-13, 11:36
There's a thread that contains some form letters and information on what to say and whom to say it to.
https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=138003
I'd like to see a little more community on this like we saw with the bills that didn't stand a chance in hell earlier this year. Now something is actually happening, and there just seem to be a few people wondering what they'll do in the future and a bunch that just don't seem to care.
Tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of people are going to be harmed by this, and I refuse to take it sitting down.
Perhaps we need to open a thread in GD so as to get some traffic?
john armond
09-03-13, 14:11
Does anyone know exactly what the process is from start to finish. IOW, would it be possible to actually outline the steps necessary to receive the papers and process them form the moment the envelop is opened. I honestly can't seem to imagine a process that you could stretch out to a year if you tried. It sounds like a union joke where it takes 5 people and two weeks to pick a gum wrapper up of the floor and throw it in the trash.[/QUOTE]
From my conversations with the NFA branch it seems to go like this
Your paperwork is received and your check is sent to a seperate area for deopsit.
Once your paperwork is received it is stamped in the upper right hand corner with a number. This number is your position in line. This number is also placed on a folder that contains all relevant paperwork pertaining to your application.
This folder then goes to someone (I believe he/she is called an RP)who reviews your paperwork for completeness, correctness, etc. These people are not ATF agents, but contractors (I just found that out today). They will be the ones that send back the form if there are any problems. These are also the people who you send your corrected forms back to.
The forms are then rechecked to make sure all corrections have been properly made. When the form is cleard for correctness it is then sent to the examiner for approval/denial. The good news, if there can be any, is that once your corrected form is returned it goes right back in line where it was. You do not have to wait behind everyone who got their forms right the first time (ask me how I know). :D
Once the examiner gets your paperwork they perform your background check and approve/deny as appropriate, as far as I understand it.
The applications are processed on a "days" basis, for instance I was told today tht my paperwork was a "day 42" but my examiner was working on "day 18." Exactly how this system works, I don't know, but I was told that examiners keep track of these "days" and have sent paperwork back for being out of sequence.
One of the reasons they want to keep everything in the proper sequence is so applicants or dealers don't complain about people getting forms back before people that sent them first.
In fact I have several forms pending at this time, and the RP had all of my folders in front of him while we were talking. I asked him if he could just clip them all together, but alas he couldn't. :(
Now, according to the "Paperworr Reduction Act" that the ATF is bound by:
"The estimated average burden associated with this collection of information 4 hours per respondent or recordkeeper, depending on individual circumstances. Comments concerning the accuracy of this burden estimate and suggestions for reducing this burden should be addressed to Reports Management Officer, Document Services Branch, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Washington, DC 20226."
This is found on the bottom of the second page of the application instructions of a Form 1, and I assume Form 4.
That is the basics of the system as it has been explained to me by the people I talked to in the NFA. I may be missing some info, and if anybody knows if I stated something wrong, or has any additional info please feel free to correct me.
I have been a member for several years, and these are my first four posts. I hope everyone is finding any info I have presented as helpful as the info I received while researching parts of this site. :no:
CLEO who had previously been NFA friendly might be inclined to take a pass on sign off if they have to start running the checks on everyone on the Trusts. Then a few months later when you want something else they gotta run thru it again? Gimme a break. I almost wouldn't blame them.
I know more than one CLEO who will not sign right now for those reasons. Too much work, hassle. They tells people to form a trust/corp.
john armond
09-03-13, 14:29
They can spy on your email in an instant but process 4 simple sheets of paper and it takes year.
You gotta love the government. Drunk with power and a pampered lifestyle. DC needs a massive all inclusive detox intervention.
Does anyone know exactly what the process is from start to finish. IOW, would it be possible to actually outline the steps necessary to receive the papers and process them form the moment the envelop is opened. I honestly can't seem to imagine a process that you could stretch out to a year if you tried. It sounds like a union joke where it takes 5 people and two weeks to pick a gum wrapper up of the floor and throw it in the trash.
Sorry guys I was trying to quote this post with my reply about the process just above.
The NFA branch and the VA people who render disability ratings must be in the same building and use the same methodology...
DontCome2MyHouse
09-03-13, 17:10
Sorry if this has been answered already, but what happens if this goes through while your NFA paperwork is still in-process and not yet approved?
I did my part and mailed ALL my representatives.
john armond
09-03-13, 17:17
Sorry if this has been answered already, but what happens if this goes through while your NFA paperwork is still in-process and not yet approved?
I did my part and mailed ALL my representatives.
The answer I got from the NFA branch this morning was that they didn't know, and until they are told differently things are still business as usual
thopkins22
09-03-13, 17:17
Sorry if this has been answered already, but what happens if this goes through while your NFA paperwork is still in-process and not yet approved?
I did my part and mailed ALL my representatives.
Nobody knows. Though in the meantime John Armond is correct, things seem to be proceeding as normal.
I would like to know this as well. My 3 year old son and soon to be born any day second son are/will be on my trust. How the hell am I suppose to adhere to this if it does go through?
wondered that myself as my 6 year old is on my existing trust.
I sent off paperwork for a lower a few weeks ago, and my check still has not cleared. I think that if this is "law", that it should have a date in which it is to be enacted tied to it.....not a "from this day forward" kind of deal. The future will tell whether they cash my check and proceed, or return my paperwork.
My check was processed today. I am sure that the NFA Branch will continue to move at a snails pace as usual, and continue to get slower. At some point, a below the radar announcement will be made illustrating the new infringements and give a date in which they will be implemented. I don't believe that they will be able to go back to impose these new infringements upon stamps approved prior to all of this, but who knows. I am anxiously awaiting a serial number from Noveske. In the mean time, I'm starting to think that it may not be a bad idea to SBR all of my lowers before it is too late.
I wonder when the point will come that a person that makes a statement regarding a "hard-reset", will be considered a terrorist?
My check was processed today. I am sure that the NFA Branch will continue to move at a snails pace as usual, and continue to get slower. At some point, a below the radar announcement will be made illustrating the new infringements and give a date in which they will be implemented. I don't believe that they will be able to go back to impose these new infringements upon stamps approved prior to all of this, but who knows. I am anxiously awaiting a serial number from Noveske. In the mean time, I'm starting to think that it may not be a bad idea to SBR all of my lowers before it is too late.
I wonder when the point will come that a person that makes a statement regarding a "hard-reset", will be considered a terrorist?
You may be waiting a while for that Serial number from Noveske. Megan tells me they won't hardly send one until it's shipped (in case they find defects while testing and have to replace)...Been waiting for mine since ordering in December....arrgh....but some things are worth waiting for :)
You may be waiting a while for that Serial number from Noveske. Megan tells me they won't hardly send one until it's shipped (in case they find defects while testing and have to replace)...Been waiting for mine since ordering in December....arrgh....but some things are worth waiting for :)
I know what you mean. I ordered in November. My dealer contacted me a month ago to tell me that they got a batch of serial numbers...and, contacted me again to tell me that mine wasn't in the batch.
Luckily, my CLEO did sign off on my first NFA purchase before I decided to form a trust. I know a lot of you are not so lucky. The assault on our "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has gone way past "just the tip".
Rwatts62081
09-04-13, 22:14
I was wondering who all would be considered as CLEO's by the ATF? Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, District Attorney, judges? Anybody else?
SeriousStudent
09-04-13, 22:53
I was wondering who all would be considered as CLEO's by the ATF? Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, District Attorney, judges? Anybody else?
This is a very good starting point for researching that question - the BATFE NFA handbook.
http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/nfa-handbook/index.html
john armond
09-05-13, 18:24
This is a very good starting point for researching that question - the BATFE NFA handbook.
http://www.atf.gov/publications/firearms/nfa-handbook/index.html
I asked the NFA branch if I could have an ATF agent from my local branch sign off, and was told that was a no-go. The reasoning I was given was that the ATF would have no way of knowing if you have been charged with anything doing to domestic violence, or have a DV order out against you. I guess that makes sense, but if that is the case than they should let CCW holders and LEOs bypass the CLEO because they can't have a CCW or be active LEO with DV orders against them. At least this is how my state and PDs that I have worked for have been.
Maybe a CCW should bypass the CLEO sign off....that is an idea. Of course if the proper info was put in and showed up on a NCIC or NICS check the NFA should not need CLEO.
I asked the NFA branch if I could have an ATF agent from my local branch sign off, and was told that was a no-go. The reasoning I was given was that the ATF would have no way of knowing if you have been charged with anything doing to domestic violence, or have a DV order out against you.
Makes no sense. CLEO signoff is not an indicator of a BG Check being performed.
Note certification is about FUTURE use of firearm, not past BG Check of individual.
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/BATFE/LEOCertification.png (http://s839.photobucket.com/user/Umbrarian/media/BATFE/LEOCertification.png.html)
john armond
09-05-13, 18:41
Makes no sense. CLEO signoff is not an indicator of a BG Check being performed.
Note certification is about FUTURE use of firearm, not past BG Check of individual.
http://i839.photobucket.com/albums/zz314/Umbrarian/BATFE/LEOCertification.png (http://s839.photobucket.com/user/Umbrarian/media/BATFE/LEOCertification.png.html)
Not sure it has to make sense, it is the .gov BTW, but that is what I was told. If the DV or othe charges are the case, then why wouldn't the DOJ supervisor I work for, or the police chief I am sworn with work. Sure, it's not in he town I live, but I couldn't keep my job, or at least be actively working if I had charges against me.
It's a bit odd but ATF still has not placed this "at the desk" for public inspection which occurs a couple of days before a proposal is filed in the federal register. We will find out from the FR the dates of the comment period and gemerally the date of publication of the propsal is also when the proposal is open for comment.
It cleared OMB on 8/29/13 with no required or suggested changes, which means theres nothing left to do except publish it in the the FR. The holiday must be holding it up.:confused:
thopkins22
09-05-13, 23:48
It'll go up when CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are showing 24/7 coverage of the fireworks display that will be cruise missile strikes inside of Syria.
They're just waiting for the "hey! look over here!" to work. Or it could be government at it's best like transfers...it's going to take three or four months to go pending. :p
Yea. Late this afternoon, the IRS dropped an employer reporting proposal under the health care reform law at the desk today. I'm sure that would get 20x the level of coverage than ATFs proposal. So maybe tomorrow, plus its a Friday so they get at least the weekend to hide.
I was wondering who all would be considered as CLEO's by the ATF? Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, District Attorney, judges? Anybody else?
local chief of police or
county sheriff, the head of the State police, the State or local district attorney or prosecutor, “or such
other person whose certificate may in a particular case be acceptable to the Director.”97 Examples of
certifying officials, other than those specifically mentioned in the regulations, who have been found to
be acceptable are State attorneys general, heads of district State police offices and certain State court
judges. Judges’ certifications have been accepted if the judges preside over courts of general
jurisdiction having original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases or the authority to conduct
criminal jury trials in felony cases. Generally, State magistrates and constables do not have such
authority. NOTE: no official’s certification will be accepted unless the official has jurisdiction over the
place where the applicant resides. The signature on each copy of the certification must be an original
signature in ink.
i always wondered if you needed the cops to do the FP card, or could you do it your self...
reading this.
FBI Form FD-258, fingerprint card. A completed Form FD-258 containing the fingerprints of
the applicant must be submitted in duplicate with the Form 1. The fingerprints should be taken by
someone qualified to do so and must be clear, unsmudged and classifiable. The person taking the
fingerprints must also enter the identification data regarding the applicant and must complete the
fingerprint cards by signing as the person taking the fingerprints.
i would say, ANYONE could do the FP card, and long as they are clear
I would like to know this as well. My 3 year old son and soon to be born any day second son are/will be on my trust. How the hell am I suppose to adhere to this if it does go through?
not just that, u would need to get a cleo sign off for a infant...
This is all very depressing seeing as I formed a trust so my wife could use my NFA items. Additionally, we don't have kids so I wanted a clear line of inheritance should we both die.
Naturally, my luck ensures that we live in one of the Texas cities where a CLEO willing to sign NFA forms is as rare as hen's teeth.
All this to say, I love my Mini4, but yesterday I sent in a request to withdraw my first form 1 that was pending on a SBR. I will no longer support Washington with my hard earned dollars beyond my mandatory taxes. My measly $200 is a drop in the ocean of debt but I am going to put that money into quality self defense ammo that will work just as well from a 16" barrel as it would from a 12.5" barrel.
I guess this really means that they have won since they have deterred me from owing an evil SBR.
It's a bit odd but ATF still has not placed this "at the desk" for public inspection which occurs a couple of days before a proposal is filed in the federal register. We will find out from the FR the dates of the comment period and gemerally the date of publication of the propsal is also when the proposal is open for comment.
It cleared OMB on 8/29/13 with no required or suggested changes, which means theres nothing left to do except publish it in the the FR. The holiday must be holding it up.:confused:
As of 9:00am this morning it is now at the table. Here she is: https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/09/09/2013-21661/background-checks-for-responsible-persons-of-a-corporation-trust-or-other-legal-entity-with-respect
It will be published in the federal register on 9/9/13.
So I read through the proposed rule and it doesn't mention anything about forms that are ready pending or already approved. Unless I missed it. Any info on this?
So I read through the proposed rule and it doesn't mention anything about forms that are ready pending or already approved. Unless I missed it. Any info on this?
This seems to be the million dollar question.
The only hint of info I've seen is from a lawyer named Robert K Merting who claimed to have spoken with Brenda Friend. This is from an NFA blog....so I'm taking it for what it is worth..
"This afternoon I spoke with Brenda Friend, the attorney at the ATF responsible for answering questions on this initiative. According to Ms. Friend, the proposed rule should be published soon for a 90 day comment period and will appear on the ATF website before an official publication by the Government Printing Office. Once the 90 day comment period is up the ATF will have to consider ALL comments and respond. A flood of comments could drastically slow this down. Ms. Friend specifically confirmed that the rule would not be retroactive and those transactions already approved will stand. "
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Attorney Merting has responded, “Josh, During my conversation with Brenda she did acknowledge that pending applications would be processed, but she could not say what date would be pending. (i.e. deposit in the mail, receipt at ATF, or cashing of the tax check.) She suggested that “normally” final rules are announced 30 days ahead of time.”
Again this could be bullshit but irregardless it brings up a great point.....Brenda Friend is the ATF Attorney that is attached to the rule changes. She is the one we need to get ahold of regarding the concrete fate of our pending/paid for/newly minted forms and e forms.
I didnt get a chance to try her number today to see if a lowly serf could speak with her for a few moments......
I'm sending her a letter anyway regarding lack of clarification. I may get a response to my letter in 9 months after it goes pending once or twice ........:rolleyes: Here is her info if anyone else wants to try too.
Brenda Raffath Friend
Mailstop 6N-602
Office of Regulatory Affairs,
Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue, NE, Washington, DC
20226;
ETA here is the full anal address. For comment packets WHEN APPLICABLE add ATTN: ATF 41P. I'm marking my 1st letter differently.
Ms. Friend's digits
Phone:202 648-8408
SeriousStudent
09-06-13, 23:18
Split66, thanks very much for that info. I'm going to draft a letter for her this weekend.
Split66, thanks very much for that info. I'm going to draft a letter for her this weekend.
Awesome. I'm due at work later on, so I'll start ringing their numbers Monday morning and try to get through. I'll post results if a miracle occurs and I speak with her. Perhaps I can turn on the charm and bring this thing to a halt, or at least get a few thousand form 1/4's pushed through in a hurry.....
Who's in?
http://www.thenextwomen.com/sites/default/files/images/stories/190506017v5_350x350_front-300x300.jpg
:eek:
SeriousStudent
09-07-13, 00:19
If you are that charming, and you pull it off, I will personally buy you a case of whiskey. :D
Hate to dump on this, but she can't really do anything to stop this. She's not the person in charge, only the contact. The decision would be made at a much higher level. The people/person who could kill this proposal wouldn't have their info listed in the proposal. Moreover, the ATF is not bound by anything she may purportedly say. If she does provide any info ask if the info will be published. Her response should tell you a lot.
SeriousStudent
09-07-13, 02:00
Hate to dump on this, but she can't really do anything to stop this. She's not the person in charge, only the contact. The decision would be made at a much higher level. The people/person who could kill this proposal wouldn't have their info listed in the proposal. Moreover, the ATF is not bound by anything she may purportedly say. If she does provide any info ask if the info will be published. Her response should tell you a lot.
Oh, I am sure you are right, but I have never been very good at rolling over and playing dead. I suspect none of us here are.
The letter will be a tune up to the other ones I'll write.
Looks like the NRA is going to wade into the fray. Got this in an email from them last night.
On August 29, the White House announced what it claimed was a “common sense” executive action to “keep the most dangerous firearms out of the wrong hands.” According to the official press release, prohibited persons are able to avoid background checks on machine guns and other classes of firearms heavily regulated under the National Firearms Act by registering those firearms to trusts or corporations. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives was therefore said to be issuing a proposed regulation to close this supposed loophole and require “individuals associated with trusts or corporations that acquire these types of weapons to undergo background checks, just as these individuals would if the weapons were registered to them individually.”
Unfortunately, the proposed rule now posted on BATFE’s website is hardly “common sense” and instead displays the Obama administration’s typical knee-jerk anti-gun bias and instinct to further burden and discourage lawful gun ownership. The firearms at issue in the rule are already covered by stringent federal regulations that require federal authorization, and special taxes for manufacture and transfer. While they can be registered to trusts or corporations (just as any lawful property can be owned by a trust or corporation), this does not change the fact that people who are prohibited from possessing firearms cannot receive or handle NFA firearms without violating current law. The idea that someone who wishes to obtain firearms for criminal purposes would pay for the creation of a trust, spend $10,000 or more to obtain any of a dwindling number of machine guns already in the NFA registry and available for civilian transfer, pay a $200 transfer tax on that firearm, register it with the federal government, and wait six or more months to take delivery is simply laughable.
The White House press release attempts to justify this proposal by asserting that in 2012 alone, BATFE “received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations.” Yet BATFE does not cite even one instance in which any of those registered firearms was used to commit a crime. Instead, BATFE’s proposal cites a case in which it denied a transfer of a silencer to an individual who it determined was ineligible to possess a regulated firearm and then denied a subsequent transfer to a trust created by the same person. This near miss (which obviously was caught under existing regulations and resulted in harm to no one—unlike the Obama-Holder Justice Department’s own activities in the “Fast and Furious” operation) is the pretext on which the administration now proposes to enact far-reaching requirements that by its own reckoning would affect tens of thousands of other transfers that did not raise any red flags whatsoever. Simply requiring more red tape, as the proposed rule would, does not address the reality that the most dangerous and determined criminals will always be one at least step removed from whatever process is imposed upon the law-abiding.
The NRA will be releasing a more detailed response to BATFE’s proposed rule once the formal comment period is underway. In the meantime, we strongly support the right of peaceable, law-abiding persons to acquire these highly regulated firearms in the way that best suits their particular circumstances, whether through individual transfers or the registration of the firearms to a legal entity such as a corporation or trust. We look forward to working with the NFA community in the long process of changing or stopping this proposal. Finally, we urge the Obama administration to rethink its misguided policy of gun control by any means possible, and instead seek real solutions to real dangers by focusing on those who actually commit crime.
Looks like the NFA is going to wade into the fray. Got this in an email from them last night.
That's what was needed. They've got the $$$ and contacts. Lets hope it will be more than a half hearted effort. Either way, this is a very good development!
Hate to dump on this, but she can't really do anything to stop this. She's not the person in charge, only the contact. The decision would be made at a much higher level. The people/person who could kill this proposal wouldn't have their info listed in the proposal. Moreover, the ATF is not bound by anything she may purportedly say. If she does provide any info ask if the info will be published. Her response should tell you a lot.
Yeah I know she has no real power....... :) Good idea on the publishment of clarification. Thanks!
All this to say, I love my Mini4, but yesterday I sent in a request to withdraw my first form 1 that was pending on a SBR. I will no longer support Washington with my hard earned dollars beyond my mandatory taxes. My measly $200 is a drop in the ocean of debt but I am going to put that money into quality self defense ammo that will work just as well from a 16" barrel as it would from a 12.5" barrel.
I guess this really means that they have won since they have deterred me from owing an evil SBR.So, you whipped out the white flag of surrender even before the battle began?
:confused:
Good move!
:rolleyes:
1slow01Z71
09-07-13, 11:37
Looks like the NFA is going to wade into the fray. Got this in an email from them last night.
I believe you meant NRA not NFA. That is very good news, for a while I thought they were going to leave the NFA crowd hanging out to dry.
I believe you meant NRA not NFA. That is very good news, for a while I thought they were going to leave the NFA crowd hanging out to dry.
Yeah, sorry about that. Got NFA on the brain. Corrected. :p
So, you whipped out the white flag of surrender even before the battle began?
:confused:
Good move!
:rolleyes:
I wonder if it will take 8-9 months to get your refund. Wouldn't surprise me.
I wonder if it will take 8-9 months to get your refund. Wouldn't surprise me.
I requested cancellation of an approved Form 1, and I received it back about 2 weeks later.
The refund check came about a week after that.
Here is the official proposed regulation as published in today's Federal Register: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-09-09/pdf/2013-21661.pdf
All comments must be submitted on or before December 9, 2013.
Make sure to follow the comment format rules (pg. 55026):
C. Submitting Comments
Comments may be submitted in any of three ways:
• Mail: Send written comments to the address listed in the ADDRESSES section of this document. Written comments must appear in minimum 12 point font size (.17 inches), include your mailing address, be signed, and may be of any length.
• Facsimile: You may submit comments by facsimile transmission to (202) 648–9741. Faxed comments must:
(1) Be legible and appear in minimum 12 point font size (.17 inches);(2) Be on 81⁄2″ x 11″ paper;
(3) Contain a legible, written signature; and (4) Be no more than five pages long.
ATF will not accept faxed comments that exceed five pages.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: To submit comments to ATF via the Federal eRulemaking portal, visit http://www.regulations.gov and follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Lawnchair 04
09-09-13, 10:50
^ is there a hard date set yet for these proposed changes? I might try to pick up another suppressor before things get crazy.
comment period ends Dec 9, 2013.
sometimes there will be revisions or another comment period.
I suggest given them enough comments to keep them reading well into 2014.
BuckFarack
09-09-13, 17:40
Don't forget to tell them how racist and discriminatory it is to send pictures and finger prints.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.