User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 8:55:34 PM EDT
[#1]
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1536761_ATF_41P__NFA_CLEO_sign_off_requirement_for_Trusts__updated_5_26_15.html
ETA: Just realized that this thread and the update in the other are 7 minutes apart. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 9:04:46 PM EDT
[#2]
I always forget the thread in GD
 , won't hurt here though |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 10:24:35 PM EDT
[#3]
Thanks NFATCA!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/26/2015 11:19:54 PM EDT
[#4]
SO when are they going to respond to all of our comments?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 7:58:15 AM EDT
[#5]
And how can they put a double zero value as a date?
"Final Action = 12/00/2015" Well - that day will never come!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 12:37:43 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And how can they put a double zero value as a date? "Final Action = 12/00/2015" Well - that day will never come! Yeah that doesn't make much sense. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 2:54:29 PM EDT
[#7]
Maybe I'm just overly optimistic but this part of 41P should get rid of the CLEO's who use the sign-off as a defacto ban...
"The proposed § 479.63, where the applicant is an individual, maintains the CLEO certificate but omits the requirement for a statement about the use of a firearm for other than lawful purposes. The certificate must state that the official is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph accompanying the application are those of the applicant and that the official has no information indicating that possession of the firearm by the maker would be in violation of state or local law. The CLEO’s certification that he or she ‘‘is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph accompanying the application are those of the applicant,’’ is an existing requirement. ATF intends to modify Form 1 to include certification to that effect by the CLEO for individuals (which has always been a requirement but was not reflected on the current form). As discussed below, ATF will include the same certification on Form 5320.23 for responsible persons of a legal entity. I see that part as a good thing since it will essentially get rid of the main reason for going the trust route in the first place. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 3:29:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I see that part as a good thing since it will essentially get rid of the main reason for going the trust route in the first place. My main reason for the trust is to allow chosen members of my family to have legal access to the NFA items if I'm not there. If I have to get all of them together, and take pictures, get fingerprints, and a CLEO signature every time I want to add something to my trust, it will be a huge PITA!!! On the other hand, if they could create some way where you would need to only do that once, it might be workable. (but I'm still against the change!) Bob S. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 4:30:12 PM EDT
[#9]
Yep, the reason I went with a Corp was so my brother, dad, mom, and wife could use my NFA toys without my immediate presence.
My sheriff will sign at the drop of a hat, but having to get them all fingerprinted and photographed on top of a signature would be a major PITA!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 9:43:50 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_1_5/1536761_ATF_41P__NFA_CLEO_sign_off_requirement_for_Trusts__updated_5_26_15.html ETA: Just realized that this thread and the update in the other are 7 minutes apart. You rang? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/27/2015 10:28:43 PM EDT
[#11]
EDIT
sorry, wrong thread |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 4:09:43 PM EDT
[#12]
So this will affect trusts and require CLEO sign off for trustees....w/o re-reading the rule, do you know if the cost of the stamp also still going up ($200 to $500)?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 4:40:31 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted: So this will affect trusts and require CLEO sign off for trustees....w/o re-reading the rule, do you know if the cost of the stamp also still going up ($200 to $500)? Stamp price is not going up. It is a tax so the price of the stamp cannot be raised without a vote by congress. Basically if you buy something, everyone on the trust/llc would have to be fingerprinted, photos, CLEO sign off etc |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2015 5:04:10 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So this will affect trusts and require CLEO sign off for trustees....w/o re-reading the rule, do you know if the cost of the stamp also still going up ($200 to $500)? Never heard anything about the tax going up. As far as I know the tax was never in question, it is set by law and would literally take an act of congress to change. I figure the main issues are: #1 the number of trusts already with NFA property and multiple trustees, how or can you back track it? What about LLCs? #2 You can add and remove trustees at will, how are they going to handle that? They already can barely keep up with existing requirements. #3 There is no evidence to support the reason they want to make the change. #4 the shear number of commits they must go through. #5 E-forms was set up to simplify and speed up the NFA process (for them not us), finger prints and CLEO sign off are going to remove that tool. I can imagine the issues in trying to set up a "scan document" that you print, have signed, then scan back in for the E-file to continue to work, never mind the ability to just rescan the document multiple times for multiple forms. Same with finger prints, one set of FBI cards scanned in multiple times for multiple forms. If they force you to mail copies in, they are defeating the purpose of the system (save them labor). I figure they will keep kicking the can down the road for 2 more years; hell we're already a year and a half into this BS. If a Dem gets elected for President (who might/will push it) then they'll just drop e-forms except for FFL to FFL transfers and FFL form 1s, if a Rep get elected for president 41p be dropped all together. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:56:16 AM EDT
[#15]
Tax going up would require an act of congress (literally), that ain't gonna happen.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 8:47:43 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Tax going up would require an act of congress (literally), that ain't gonna happen. If the Dems have the votes, they will take it to the hole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 8:17:17 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If a congressionally approved NFA tax increase is in the cards we will see an outright ban. If the Dems have the votes, they will take it to the hole. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Tax going up would require an act of congress (literally), that ain't gonna happen. If the Dems have the votes, they will take it to the hole. bigcbass, is right, aint gonna happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 8:40:13 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe I'm just overly optimistic but this part of 41P should get rid of the CLEO's who use the sign-off as a defacto ban... CLEOs who do not sign are generally anti-gun and do not care what the form says. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 8:50:35 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
CLEOs who do not sign are generally anti-gun and do not care what the form says. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Maybe I'm just overly optimistic but this part of 41P should get rid of the CLEO's who use the sign-off as a defacto ban... CLEOs who do not sign are generally anti-gun and do not care what the form says. This...... Which is why the Shall Sign law should have been just as aggressively pursued in Texas as much or more than OC...... Great, you can open carry a handgun..... But if, and under this administration, when 41P takes effect and you can't get a signature your SOL.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 8:58:00 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: CLEOs who do not sign are generally anti-gun and do not care what the form says. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Maybe I'm just overly optimistic but this part of 41P should get rid of the CLEO's who use the sign-off as a defacto ban... CLEOs who do not sign are generally anti-gun and do not care what the form says. It has nothing to do with whether or not they care, it has to do with the wording of the statement and the fact that it removes objectivity from the situation. With the current wording, a CLEO can say "I can't know for sure if Mr. Smith plans to use this illegally so I'm not signing off." With the proposed wording, they can't use such an excuse and if they try, they'll face backlash. From a legal standpoint, the wording is EVERYTHING. Doesn't matter if the chiefs care or not. The objectivity of the existing statement is the only reason CLEO's have been able to get away with refusing to sign-off. I know that the knee-jerk reaction since day one has been to see 41P as a terrible thing and I agree that it does suck but if it changes the rules for CLEO sign-off, that is a silver lining. The rest of it is a shit-sandwich but the heyday of the easy trust loophole was eventually going to end one way or another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:05:25 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has nothing to do with whether or not they care, it has to do with the wording of the statement and the fact that it removes objectivity from the situation. With the current wording, a CLEO can say "I can't know for sure if Mr. Smith plans to use this illegally so I'm not signing off." With the proposed wording, they can't use such an excuse and if they try, they'll face backlash. From a legal standpoint, the wording is EVERYTHING. Doesn't matter if the chiefs care or not. The objectivity of the existing statement is the only reason CLEO's have been able to get away with refusing to sign-off. I know that the knee-jerk reaction since day one has been to see 41P as a terrible thing and I agree that it does suck but if it changes the rules for CLEO sign-off, that is a silver lining. The rest of it is a shit-sandwich but the heyday of the easy trust loophole was eventually going to end one way or another. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Maybe I'm just overly optimistic but this part of 41P should get rid of the CLEO's who use the sign-off as a defacto ban... CLEOs who do not sign are generally anti-gun and do not care what the form says. It has nothing to do with whether or not they care, it has to do with the wording of the statement and the fact that it removes objectivity from the situation. With the current wording, a CLEO can say "I can't know for sure if Mr. Smith plans to use this illegally so I'm not signing off." With the proposed wording, they can't use such an excuse and if they try, they'll face backlash. From a legal standpoint, the wording is EVERYTHING. Doesn't matter if the chiefs care or not. The objectivity of the existing statement is the only reason CLEO's have been able to get away with refusing to sign-off. I know that the knee-jerk reaction since day one has been to see 41P as a terrible thing and I agree that it does suck but if it changes the rules for CLEO sign-off, that is a silver lining. The rest of it is a shit-sandwich but the heyday of the easy trust loophole was eventually going to end one way or another. Doesn't matter..... Form doesn't say CLEO SHALL SIGN.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:07:14 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Doesn't matter..... Form doesn't say CLEO SHALL SIGN.... Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Maybe I'm just overly optimistic but this part of 41P should get rid of the CLEO's who use the sign-off as a defacto ban... CLEOs who do not sign are generally anti-gun and do not care what the form says. It has nothing to do with whether or not they care, it has to do with the wording of the statement and the fact that it removes objectivity from the situation. With the current wording, a CLEO can say "I can't know for sure if Mr. Smith plans to use this illegally so I'm not signing off." With the proposed wording, they can't use such an excuse and if they try, they'll face backlash. From a legal standpoint, the wording is EVERYTHING. Doesn't matter if the chiefs care or not. The objectivity of the existing statement is the only reason CLEO's have been able to get away with refusing to sign-off. I know that the knee-jerk reaction since day one has been to see 41P as a terrible thing and I agree that it does suck but if it changes the rules for CLEO sign-off, that is a silver lining. The rest of it is a shit-sandwich but the heyday of the easy trust loophole was eventually going to end one way or another. Doesn't matter..... Form doesn't say CLEO SHALL SIGN.... It does matter. If 41P passes, you'll see. The only reason CLEOs haven't been challenged on this is because of the trust route being an easier alternative. As soon as the sign-off is required no matter what, and the wording is changed on the statement, the first dickless chief who refuses to sign will have a lawsuit on his hands and after he loses, the rest of the CLEOs will fall in line because they'll see it as political suicide OR a change will be made by ATF if that doesn't work. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:19:23 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It has nothing to do with whether or not they care, it has to do with the wording of the statement and the fact that it removes objectivity from the situation. With the current wording, a CLEO can say "I can't know for sure if Mr. Smith plans to use this illegally so I'm not signing off." With the proposed wording, they can't use such an excuse and if they try, they'll face backlash. From a legal standpoint, the wording is EVERYTHING. Doesn't matter if the chiefs care or not. The objectivity of the existing statement is the only reason CLEO's have been able to get away with refusing to sign-off. You just got your FFL right? How many CLEOs have you personally talked to about signing? Zero? I have talked to dozens. Those that do not sign do not care what the form says. They do not sign. PERIOD. Are you in NTX? Go ask Dallas Sheriff Valdez if she will sign. She will not even take your call. She would not even sign a form for close friend of hers who wanted to buy something from me. They are not required to sign. They do not read the form. They just say no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:21:38 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It does matter. If 41P passes, you'll see. The only reason CLEOs haven't been challenged on this is because of the trust route being an easier alternative. As soon as the sign-off is required no matter what, and the wording is changed on the statement, the first dickless chief who refuses to sign will have a lawsuit on his hands and after he loses, the rest of the CLEOs will fall in line because they'll see it as political suicide. Newbie FFL is funny. This has been challenged for decades. It has been litigate for decades. Gun owners have lost everytime. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:22:39 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: You just got your FFL right? How many CLEOs have you personally talked to about signing? Zero? I have talked to dozens. Those that do not sign do not care what the form says. They do not sign. PERIOD. Are you in NTX? Go ask Dallas Sheriff Valdez if she will sign. She will not even take your call. She would not even sign a form for close friend of hers who wanted to buy something from me. They are not required to sign. They do not read the form. They just say. The chief does not sign the form. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It has nothing to do with whether or not they care, it has to do with the wording of the statement and the fact that it removes objectivity from the situation. With the current wording, a CLEO can say "I can't know for sure if Mr. Smith plans to use this illegally so I'm not signing off." With the proposed wording, they can't use such an excuse and if they try, they'll face backlash. From a legal standpoint, the wording is EVERYTHING. Doesn't matter if the chiefs care or not. The objectivity of the existing statement is the only reason CLEO's have been able to get away with refusing to sign-off. You just got your FFL right? How many CLEOs have you personally talked to about signing? Zero? I have talked to dozens. Those that do not sign do not care what the form says. They do not sign. PERIOD. Are you in NTX? Go ask Dallas Sheriff Valdez if she will sign. She will not even take your call. She would not even sign a form for close friend of hers who wanted to buy something from me. They are not required to sign. They do not read the form. They just say. The chief does not sign the form. Read the post I just edited above yours. I know they refuse to sign based on idiotic personal reasons but I don't care what they say currently. Soon enough, it won't matter what their bullshit opinion is. Between court cases and the ATF, their opinion will no longer be part of the equation and they'll have to sign whether they want to or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:25:08 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Newbie FFL is funny. This has been challenged for decades. It has been litigate for decades. Gun owners have lost everytime. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: It does matter. If 41P passes, you'll see. The only reason CLEOs haven't been challenged on this is because of the trust route being an easier alternative. As soon as the sign-off is required no matter what, and the wording is changed on the statement, the first dickless chief who refuses to sign will have a lawsuit on his hands and after he loses, the rest of the CLEOs will fall in line because they'll see it as political suicide. Newbie FFL is funny. This has been challenged for decades. It has been litigate for decades. Gun owners have lost everytime. Quit being a dick. I may be a new FFL but I've been following the gun world including the NFA legal scene for 15 years. I was on this site before you were, newbie.  How many times have CLEOs been sued over refusing to sign? How many people are willing to do that instead of just forming a trust? The gun owners haven't won this battle because the wording in the sign-off statement is too objective. When that changes, so will the outcomes of the cases. That wording will change everything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:29:29 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Between court cases and the ATF, their opinion will no longer be part of the equation and they'll have to sign whether they want to or not. What court case? Every court case has sided with CLEO not signing. ATF cannot force them to sign. ATF will tell you to try someone else. Go talk to some CLEOS and get back to us. Valdez will never sign. Aceveda will never sign. And there is nothing you can do about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:29:42 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Read the post I just edited above yours. I know they refuse to sign based on idiotic personal reasons but I don't care what they say currently. Soon enough, it won't matter what their bullshit opinion is. Between court cases and the ATF, their opinion will no longer be part of the equation and they'll have to sign whether they want to or not. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It has nothing to do with whether or not they care, it has to do with the wording of the statement and the fact that it removes objectivity from the situation. With the current wording, a CLEO can say "I can't know for sure if Mr. Smith plans to use this illegally so I'm not signing off." With the proposed wording, they can't use such an excuse and if they try, they'll face backlash. From a legal standpoint, the wording is EVERYTHING. Doesn't matter if the chiefs care or not. The objectivity of the existing statement is the only reason CLEO's have been able to get away with refusing to sign-off. You just got your FFL right? How many CLEOs have you personally talked to about signing? Zero? I have talked to dozens. Those that do not sign do not care what the form says. They do not sign. PERIOD. Are you in NTX? Go ask Dallas Sheriff Valdez if she will sign. She will not even take your call. She would not even sign a form for close friend of hers who wanted to buy something from me. They are not required to sign. They do not read the form. They just say. The chief does not sign the form. Read the post I just edited above yours. I know they refuse to sign based on idiotic personal reasons but I don't care what they say currently. Soon enough, it won't matter what their bullshit opinion is. Between court cases and the ATF, their opinion will no longer be part of the equation and they'll have to sign whether they want to or not. Brother, you may not like or agree with what Renegades says.... But the man knows what he's talking about.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:31:04 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The gun owners haven't won this battle because the wording in the sign-off statement is too objective. When that changes, so will the outcomes of the cases. That wording will change everything. No they have not won it because there is no law requiring them to sign. In some jurisdictions, it is illegal for them to sign. it has nothing to do with the wording. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:32:00 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How many times have CLEOs been sued over refusing to sign? How many people are willing to do that instead of just forming a trust? Plenty. How many times have they lost? ZERO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:32:22 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What court case? Every court case has sided with CLEO not signing. ATF cannot force them to sign. ATF will tell you to try someone else. Go talk to some CLEOS and get back to us. Valdez will never sign. Aceveda will never sign. And there is nothing you can do about. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Between court cases and the ATF, their opinion will no longer be part of the equation and they'll have to sign whether they want to or not. What court case? Every court case has sided with CLEO not signing. ATF cannot force them to sign. ATF will tell you to try someone else. Go talk to some CLEOS and get back to us. Valdez will never sign. Aceveda will never sign. And there is nothing you can do about. Yeah, because of the current wording of the statement. I'm not going to sit here and argue with the "sky-is-falling!" crowd because I've done it before and it's pointless. Just mark my words in case I'm not around to say "Told ya so." The sky has fallen a few hundred times on ARFCOM and, without fail, people's fears are largely unfounded. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:35:01 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Plenty. How many times have they lost? ZERO. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: How many times have CLEOs been sued over refusing to sign? How many people are willing to do that instead of just forming a trust? Plenty. How many times have they lost? ZERO. Can you provide a source for one? I'd like to read the particulars. No bullshit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:37:14 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yeah, because of the current wording of the statement. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Between court cases and the ATF, their opinion will no longer be part of the equation and they'll have to sign whether they want to or not. What court case? Every court case has sided with CLEO not signing. ATF cannot force them to sign. ATF will tell you to try someone else. Go talk to some CLEOS and get back to us. Valdez will never sign. Aceveda will never sign. And there is nothing you can do about. Yeah, because of the current wording of the statement. For the umtpeeth time, it has nothing to do with words. It has to do with there is no law requiring them to sign. You really need to research this further because you really do not understand it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:38:09 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Can you provide a source for one? I'd like to read the particulars. No bullshit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
How many times have CLEOs been sued over refusing to sign? How many people are willing to do that instead of just forming a trust? Plenty. How many times have they lost? ZERO. Can you provide a source for one? I'd like to read the particulars. No bullshit. The fact you are unaware of any yourself is just an indication of how little you know about this, no offenses intended. I suggest you search Bardwell site. Google "CLEO NFA lawsuit" also turns up lots of info. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:45:27 PM EDT
[#35]
How will they fingerprint my unborn child?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 9:46:42 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The fact you are unaware of any yourself is just an indication of how little you know about this, no offenses intended. I suggest you search Bardwell site. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: How many times have CLEOs been sued over refusing to sign? How many people are willing to do that instead of just forming a trust? Plenty. How many times have they lost? ZERO. Can you provide a source for one? I'd like to read the particulars. No bullshit. The fact you are unaware of any yourself is just an indication of how little you know about this, no offenses intended. I suggest you search Bardwell site. One case from 2000 is all I could find there related to CLEO sign-off... I'm not Google ignorant and I can't find shit where multiple CLEO's have been sued for refusing to sign. If you're going to act like I'm clueless because I haven't heard of the "plenty" of cases, please direct me to some because the Bardwell site had jackshit to offer. If you're going to smugly act like I don't know what I'm talking about, show me the evidence. Googling "CLEO NFA Lawsuit" like you suggested turns up nothing but a bunch of shit about 41P. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 10:00:19 PM EDT
[#37]
Sorry I do not keep a spreadsheet on this to win internet arguments.
It is accumulated knowledge. If you have been NFA active for 15 years you should have accumulated it too. I would suggest SAR as a good source. Also blogs by Barnes, Prince, Goldman. Halbrook filed the lawsuit for 1934 group, check his site. LMO was also a big supporter, maybe Lomont. You could also ask on subguns. Any lawyer with access to findlaw or lexis can do it in seconds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 10:08:34 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Sorry I do not keep a spreadsheet on this to win internet arguments. It is accumulated knowledge. If you have been NFA active for 15 years you should have accumulated it too. I would suggest SAR as a good source. Also blogs by Barnes, Prince, Goldman. Halbrook filed the lawsuit for 1934 group, check his site. LMO was also a big supporter, maybe Lomont. You could also ask on subguns. Any lawyer with access to findlaw or lexis can do it in seconds. I just finished looking at Halbrook's site and the case from 2000 is still the only one mentioned there. If it has happened "plenty" of times, it's certainly not easy to find on the web even though the single case from 2000 is talked about in a few places. This was not intended as an argument. I genuinely wanted to see the particulars of why all these supposed lawsuits were lost by gun owners but you used it as an opportunity to question my credibility. It would be nice if, out of all those plenty of lawsuits, some of them were mentioned (even in passing on a forum) somewhere online but oh well. I guess I'll just have to take your word for it. We'll see what happens if the pile of shit passes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 10:16:13 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
If it has happened "plenty" of times, it's certainly not easy to find on the web even though the single case from 2000 is talked about in a few places. CLEO has been around since 1934. Most lawsuits were filed decades ago and are not on-line. They are in binders in law libraries. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 10:20:55 PM EDT
[#40]
I just remember one lawsuit. I think that well-known idiot in TN filed one when his CLEO would not sign, and TN is shall sign state.
eta Leonard Embody |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 10:24:36 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: CLEO has been around since 1934. Most lawsuits were filed decades ago and are not on-line. They are in binders in law libraries. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: If it has happened "plenty" of times, it's certainly not easy to find on the web even though the single case from 2000 is talked about in a few places. CLEO has been around since 1934. Most lawsuits were filed decades ago and are not on-line. They are in binders in law libraries. One would think there would be many more recent cases since NFA ownership has increased exponentially since 2000ish. It hasn't been an issue since everyone just goes the trust route. In the case I found from 2000, it was basically an FFL suing the CLEO because he was losing business... I'm sure that didn't end well. Here's where I'm coming from with my argument: If the law changes and the ONLY way to get an NFA item is by having a CLEO sign off, the first few refusals will result in lawsuits. The lawsuits will be looked at similar to Heller and will be argued from a "denial of 2A rights to an individual" angle. I'm not saying the CLEOs will have a sudden change of heart thanks to the new wording... I'm saying that the new wording combined with the sign-off being the only way to get NFA will force a change due to CLEOs being sued. One way or t'other, the situation will work out. Either the ATF will change something or the CLEOs will receive something saying they have to sign. ATF isn't going to let millions in revenue from tax stamps go away because of overzealous CLEOs. They didn't spend all that money on the E-file system and hiring new people just to watch the number of applications drastically drop. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 10:26:39 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
One would think there would be many more recent cases since NFA ownership has increased exponentially since 2000ish. How about 2013? My google fu is strong tonight. http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=118285 Leonard Embody says: August 23, 2013 at 15:21 My sheriff would not sign off on some form 4 NFA documents. In Tennessee they are required to execute all NFA documents. I sued him and the judge said he didn’t have to sign off. I sent the forms in and the NFA branch would not approve the transfer. I later sent off the forms using a trust and viola approved. No fingerprints or pictures. LOL |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/31/2015 10:35:36 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: How about 2013? My google fu is strong tonight. http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=118285 Leonard Embody says: August 23, 2013 at 15:21 My sheriff would not sign off on some form 4 NFA documents. In Tennessee they are required to execute all NFA documents. I sued him and the judge said he didn’t have to sign off. I sent the forms in and the NFA branch would not approve the transfer. I later sent off the forms using a trust and viola approved. No fingerprints or pictures. LOL Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: One would think there would be many more recent cases since NFA ownership has increased exponentially since 2000ish. How about 2013? My google fu is strong tonight. http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=118285 Leonard Embody says: August 23, 2013 at 15:21 My sheriff would not sign off on some form 4 NFA documents. In Tennessee they are required to execute all NFA documents. I sued him and the judge said he didn’t have to sign off. I sent the forms in and the NFA branch would not approve the transfer. I later sent off the forms using a trust and viola approved. No fingerprints or pictures. LOL You trust that he's telling the truth about that? This is the same guy that has been in and out of the courts over an open carry case. Everything I search for regarding Embody comes up with that case. Who knows what's true with that dipshit... seems he goes out trolling for lawsuits. Another point: if he did sue his sheriff, it's not surprising that he lost. Apparently Embody chooses to represent himself in these idiotic cases and does so with the utmost dipshittedness. https://excoplawstudent.wordpress.com/tag/leonard-embody/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2015 12:41:18 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sorry I do not keep a spreadsheet on this to win internet arguments. It is accumulated knowledge. If you have been NFA active for 15 years you should have accumulated it too. I would suggest SAR as a good source. Also blogs by Barnes, Prince, Goldman. Halbrook filed the lawsuit for 1934 group, check his site. LMO was also a big supporter, maybe Lomont. You could also ask on subguns. Any lawyer with access to findlaw or lexis can do it in seconds. Are you sure you don't keep spreadsheets? I think over on TGT you said you do... haha. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2015 2:30:16 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you sure you don't keep spreadsheets? I think over on TGT you said you do... haha. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sorry I do not keep a spreadsheet on this to win internet arguments. It is accumulated knowledge. If you have been NFA active for 15 years you should have accumulated it too. I would suggest SAR as a good source. Also blogs by Barnes, Prince, Goldman. Halbrook filed the lawsuit for 1934 group, check his site. LMO was also a big supporter, maybe Lomont. You could also ask on subguns. Any lawyer with access to findlaw or lexis can do it in seconds. Are you sure you don't keep spreadsheets? I think over on TGT you said you do... haha. No I have binders full of women. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/1/2015 6:19:02 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You just got your FFL right? How many CLEOs have you personally talked to about signing? Zero? I have talked to dozens. Those that do not sign do not care what the form says. They do not sign. PERIOD. Are you in NTX? Go ask Dallas Sheriff Valdez if she will sign. She will not even take your call. She would not even sign a form for close friend of hers who wanted to buy something from me. They are not required to sign. They do not read the form. They just say no. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It has nothing to do with whether or not they care, it has to do with the wording of the statement and the fact that it removes objectivity from the situation. With the current wording, a CLEO can say "I can't know for sure if Mr. Smith plans to use this illegally so I'm not signing off." With the proposed wording, they can't use such an excuse and if they try, they'll face backlash. From a legal standpoint, the wording is EVERYTHING. Doesn't matter if the chiefs care or not. The objectivity of the existing statement is the only reason CLEO's have been able to get away with refusing to sign-off. You just got your FFL right? How many CLEOs have you personally talked to about signing? Zero? I have talked to dozens. Those that do not sign do not care what the form says. They do not sign. PERIOD. Are you in NTX? Go ask Dallas Sheriff Valdez if she will sign. She will not even take your call. She would not even sign a form for close friend of hers who wanted to buy something from me. They are not required to sign. They do not read the form. They just say no. You nailed it... my Sheriff here has a simple policy... NO SIGNATURE... period. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2015 10:35:18 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm clueless because I haven't heard of the "plenty" of cases, please direct me to some because the Bardwell site had jackshit to offer. If you're going to smugly act like I don't know what I'm talking about, show me the evidence. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Can you provide a source for one? I'd like to read the particulars. No bullshit. The fact you are unaware of any yourself is just an indication of how little you know about this, no offenses intended. I suggest you search Bardwell site. I'm clueless because I haven't heard of the "plenty" of cases, please direct me to some because the Bardwell site had jackshit to offer. If you're going to smugly act like I don't know what I'm talking about, show me the evidence. Because I know RenegadeX is usually right most of the time, he gave you info to go find it yourself, but I'll help you find the humble pie you need to eat. http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/nfa_faqhtml.html#Obtaining_The_Law_Enforcement_Certification There are several cases on this issue. The first is Steele v. NFA Branch, 755 F.2d 1410 (11th Cir. 1985), ....transferor ...had not asked everyone acceptable to ATF... the case was disposed of on those grounds. The Steele decision was followed in the case Westfall v. Miller, 77 F.3d 868 (5th Cir. 1996), in which a transferee, not transferor, sued over non-approval of a Form 4 without the certification. Again Westfall did not ask everyone listed in the regulation. Again his case was thrown out for lack of standing. ....This certification is not really a big deal for the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) making it, and it DOES NOT expressly make the CLEO legally responsible for the weapon or your use of it, or its theft. ....I have not heard of any successful lawsuit against a CLEO for signing the certification for a gun that was criminally misused. That is, in my opinion, a spurious excuse for not signing. . |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2015 11:55:45 AM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I have not heard of any successful lawsuit against a CLEO for signing the certification for a gun that was criminally misused. That is, in my opinion, a spurious excuse for not signing. . Yeah I was not shining him on, it is all there, you just have to look. Also on the Bardwell site is the lawsuit (Searcy vs Dayton) )against the chief who signed for Waller, showing they are NOT [eta] liable for what they signed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2015 12:15:53 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Because I know RenegadeX is usually right most of the time, he gave you info to go find it yourself, but I'll help you find the humble pie you need to eat. http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/nfa_faqhtml.html#Obtaining_The_Law_Enforcement_Certification There are several cases on this issue. The first is Steele v. NFA Branch, 755 F.2d 1410 (11th Cir. 1985), ....transferor ...had not asked everyone acceptable to ATF... the case was disposed of on those grounds. The Steele decision was followed in the case Westfall v. Miller, 77 F.3d 868 (5th Cir. 1996), in which a transferee, not transferor, sued over non-approval of a Form 4 without the certification. Again Westfall did not ask everyone listed in the regulation. Again his case was thrown out for lack of standing. ....This certification is not really a big deal for the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) making it, and it DOES NOT expressly make the CLEO legally responsible for the weapon or your use of it, or its theft. ....I have not heard of any successful lawsuit against a CLEO for signing the certification for a gun that was criminally misused. That is, in my opinion, a spurious excuse for not signing. . Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Can you provide a source for one? I'd like to read the particulars. No bullshit. The fact you are unaware of any yourself is just an indication of how little you know about this, no offenses intended. I suggest you search Bardwell site. I'm clueless because I haven't heard of the "plenty" of cases, please direct me to some because the Bardwell site had jackshit to offer. If you're going to smugly act like I don't know what I'm talking about, show me the evidence. Because I know RenegadeX is usually right most of the time, he gave you info to go find it yourself, but I'll help you find the humble pie you need to eat. http://www.titleii.com/bardwell/nfa_faqhtml.html#Obtaining_The_Law_Enforcement_Certification There are several cases on this issue. The first is Steele v. NFA Branch, 755 F.2d 1410 (11th Cir. 1985), ....transferor ...had not asked everyone acceptable to ATF... the case was disposed of on those grounds. The Steele decision was followed in the case Westfall v. Miller, 77 F.3d 868 (5th Cir. 1996), in which a transferee, not transferor, sued over non-approval of a Form 4 without the certification. Again Westfall did not ask everyone listed in the regulation. Again his case was thrown out for lack of standing. ....This certification is not really a big deal for the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) making it, and it DOES NOT expressly make the CLEO legally responsible for the weapon or your use of it, or its theft. ....I have not heard of any successful lawsuit against a CLEO for signing the certification for a gun that was criminally misused. That is, in my opinion, a spurious excuse for not signing. . I'm not refusing to admit I was wrong and I'm not trying to be argumentative but... In both of those cases, the plaintiff did not follow the full process before trying to sue the CLEO. There's also a big difference between 3 hard-to-find cases and "There are plenty of cases... you just don't know enough about it." That's the statement I took issue with. If 41P passes as currently worded, and a CLEO refuses to sign, and people can not get anyone else on the list to sign, I don't see how a court case can go against the plaintiff with the new wording of the CLEO certification statement. That's the whole point I've been trying to make but apparently it came across as "if the statement says X, the CLEOs will sign without a fight." As it currently stands, it looks like there has never been a proper case brought against a CLEO for refusing to sign because people jumped to that solution without following ATF's list of other signers and gave the defense an easy way to get the case thrown out. Again, I'm not arguing, I'm trying to look at this from a legal research POV. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2015 12:24:42 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
As it currently stands, it looks like there has never been a proper case brought against a CLEO for refusing to sign because people jumped to that solution without following ATF's list of other signers and gave the defense an easy way to get the case thrown out. Quote HistoryQuoted:
As it currently stands, it looks like there has never been a proper case brought against a CLEO for refusing to sign because people jumped to that solution without following ATF's list of other signers and gave the defense an easy way to get the case thrown out. You are merging two different issues: 1) Suing CLEO for not signing - as mentioned Valdez does not sign. Anyone can sue her over it at anytime. 2) Suing BATFE because you can not find anyone who will sign - I have never not gotten a signature for client in Texas in 25+ years, but sometimes you have to try more than one person. Quoted:
Again, I'm not arguing, I'm trying to look at this from a legal research POV. If this is true, your research should be to find where in Texas Constitution, or Texas Penal Code, a CLEO is required to sign these forms. Don't be surprised to find not only is it not there, but in some cases it is illegal. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
