1919 A4 Forums banner
1 - 20 of 33 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
From the Facebook page of the NFATCA -

The NFATCA, along with the NRA and the American Suppressor Association, and our attorneys, Stephen Halbrook and John Frazer, are pleased to announce that the Department of Justice and ATF have removed CLEO signatures from NFA transfer requests. Although all potential possessors now require identification and background checks, the CLEO signature requirement has now been eliminated and revised to a notification process. Details will be forthcoming. Please see the AG Order. http://www.nfatca.org/pubs/ag_order_3608-2016.pdf
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,619 Posts
From the Facebook page of the NFATCA -
The NFATCA, along with the NRA and the American Suppressor Association, and our attorneys, Stephen Halbrook and John Frazer, are pleased to announce that the Department of Justice and ATF have removed CLEO signatures from NFA transfer requests. Although all potential possessors now require identification and background checks, the CLEO signature requirement has now been eliminated and revised to a notification process. Details will be forthcoming. Please see the AG Order. http://www.nfatca.org/pubs/ag_order_3608-2016.pdf
It appears that this applies only to a "trust, partnership, association, company, or corporation" and not to an individual.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
The ATF description about why this rule change has taken place is enlightening and rather amazing because ATF finally admits that the CLEO signature is a serious impediment to the efficiency of the transfer preparation and process and that CLEOs are unfairly abiitrary in their choice to sign or not. Avout time ATF got the memo!
Back in 1970 when I applied for my first transfer, getting the CLEO singnature was a major pain in the butt, although I finally did get it. The stupidity of the CLEO requirement given that an FBI check was part of the process was mighty annoying at that time and has been a thorn in the process since. After 45 years of waiting for this to happen, I am amazed and extremely pleased. This will be a great help to my business!!
Thanks ATF!!!! You got it right finally!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Applies to individuals as well. On pages 227-228 is outlined the reason for the change which is to make it less burdensome for individuals thereby reducing the need for forming trusts and corporations.
 

·
BeltFed GURU
Joined
·
4,433 Posts
Kirby,
I read the "individual " section you cite but is certainty that this change does apply to a true Individual applicant ? :confused::confused::confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,893 Posts
From the way I read it it covers trusts and legal entities, individual persons or entities within the trust, corporation, etc., and singular individuals. Even the required paperwork varies from trusts and corporations to individual persons.

So this will not effect an individual owner or CEO of a trust or Corp [no CLEO is required for a Form 1 or Form 4] at the present time. Only will effect persons directly associated with these entities??

I know this has been in the works for a long time - still kinda interesting that it is announced coinciding with some new Exec Orders today......:confused:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,619 Posts
It does indeed appear that this rule change does indeed apply to all applicants. I predict the price of machine guns will go even higher as it will become less burdensome for an individual to buy that once-in-a-lifetime toy.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
It does indeed appear that this rule change does indeed apply to all applicants. I predict the price of machine guns will go even higher as it will become less burdensome for an individual to buy that once-in-a-lifetime toy.
Maybe but I don't see a huge jump since the number of CLEOs that would sign these far outnumber those that would not.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,100 Posts
>Maybe but I don't see a huge jump since the number of CLEOs that would sign these far outnumber those that would not.<

In my experience in VT, about a third of the eligible officers inlcuding judges, and other non-LEO types will not sign for political reasons, or due to incorrect understanding of the legal consequences of their signature. Sheriffs are elected and will tow the party line if they are beholden to anit-gun locals or the democratic power structure in their area. This form of political corruption has increased a lot over the years and continues. The change in ATF requirements will eliminate this corrupt political posturing.
Over the past forty plus years, more and more CLEOs are from out of state and bring along with them irrational prejudices against firearms, especially NFA if they know about it, and greed for local power. Often these CLEOS do not believe me when I tell them on behalf of a customer, that an NFA applicant can just go and start a corp or use an exisitng one, or open a trust and bypass their office. I tell them that if they want to have some input into the system, sign the form or the applicant will bypass them.
While many states have reduced the restrictive effect of the CLEO, implementing shall sign, there has been a significant increase in CLEOs and sheriffs that will not sign throughout the country. The ratio of signers to non-signers is not dramatcially in favor of signers and has increasingly continued to get worse for applicants. The popularity of trusts and corps hasn't been entirely for suppressors and a large number of these instruments are for MGs where the CLEO, whose office or previous occupant used to sign, will no longer.
Next move is to remove suppressors from NFA control!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #12 ·
I live in the part of the country where it is all but political suicide for an elected official to take an anti gun stance which is why it is so rare to find a police chief or sheriff who will not sign a F4. That is the reason I do not expect a massive jump in applications for NFA items. You may see a jump in some regions but for the majority of the country probably not so much.

Full agreement on suppressors being removed from NFA controls, they have become very main stream in the past decade or so and much more socially acceptable making that change more acceptable to the political class.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
600 Posts
Maybe but I don't see a huge jump since the number of CLEOs that would sign these far outnumber those that would not.
I think there's a significant amount of Americans who like guns but don't even know it's legal to purchase a machine gun. I run into folks all the time that say (Aren't they illegal to own?). I think any press related to the fact they can be legally owned, as well as simplifying the purchase process could impact pricing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
I think there's a significant amount of Americans who like guns but don't even know it's legal to purchase a machine gun. I run into folks all the time that say (Aren't they illegal to own?). I think any press related to the fact they can be legally owned, as well as simplifying the purchase process could impact pricing.
Similar thing happened in 1986 with the passage of the Hughes Amendment, people who had no idea it was legal to buy a machine gun rushed out and bought one. However in this case nothing really changes other than having to get a signature, the number of available transferables remains the same and suppressors continue to be manufactured. If there is a significant jump I suspect it will be in the suppressor market.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,355 Posts
In Fairfax County Virginia, there was a Republican Sheriff named "Peed" who would not sign, probably because of Northern Virginia Liberalism. Coming next reelection time, one of his deputies, (a Democrap) opposed him was fired by Peed for opposing him, and won. New Democrap Sheriff now signs. Go figure.


Carry ON!
Gary
><>
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,467 Posts
In Fairfax County Virginia, there was a Republican Sheriff named "Peed" who would not sign, probably because of Northern Virginia Liberalism. Coming next reelection time, one of his deputies, (a Democrap) opposed him was fired by Peed for opposing him, and won. New Democrap Sheriff now signs. Go figure.


Carry ON!
Gary
><>
I know I'm from IL laughing stock of the nation due to the community organizer in chief AKA the Kenyan Usurper, Blowjobibitch and the Rahmfurher and the 50 thieves (chiraiq city council) but being less than 60 miles from the "place of stinks" I gotta tell you that over the last 20 years our state reps 2 female Democrats and now a black male Republican who was a former cop have all been strong 2nd amendment advocates the present rep John Anthony the former cop sponsored cc classes. The state Senator a female Republican is also a strong 2nd amendment sponsor. Its not so much about party as it is about location.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,177 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 ·
I know I'm from IL laughing stock of the nation due to the community organizer in chief AKA the Kenyan Usurper, Blowjobibitch and the Rahmfurher and the 50 thieves (chiraiq city council) but being less than 60 miles from the "place of stinks" I gotta tell you that over the last 20 years our state reps 2 female Democrats and now a black male Republican who was a former cop have all been strong 2nd amendment advocates the present rep John Anthony the former cop sponsored cc classes. The state Senator a female Republican is also a strong 2nd amendment sponsor. Its not so much about party as it is about location.
Location does have a lot to do with it. Our local sheriff elect, who is very pro gun, is a Democrat as most local officials are in our area. They run as Democrats to get the white hillbilly vote which is a hold over from when Roosevelt and TVA came through here in the 30s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
539 Posts
That is great news, it was a pain the last time I tried to do this and I got rejected because they had incorrectly labeled an AOW as a SBS on the original form 4. I would have had to argue it and of course you can never get the agent to call you back to discuss, so I gave up. I may have to try again now. Plus I have a suppressor to transfer.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,341 Posts
I do have one question, If a customer comes in, purchases a pre 86 sear which transfers to a trust which he and 6 other people are listed on.

Currently when the individual representing the trust pics the sear up I am required to do a 4473 and a nics check on the person picking up the sear (nics check not required on an individual transfer for NFA but is for trust)

Will I still have to do the nics check on the person picking up the item for the trust? Will I have to do a nics check on each and every member of the trust? Will they all have to be present with ID and each and everyone do a 4473?

If Person A in the trust buys and pays for the sear and Person B, also listed as part of the trust, pics the sear up is this a straw purchase?

Just thoughts
 
1 - 20 of 33 Posts
Top