User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/1/2014 12:19:22 PM EDT
[#1]
Look up the NFA act of 1934, it'll list who all can sign, there are actually quit a few people on there. Personally, going trust or LLC will minimize all that hassle.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2014 12:21:34 PM EDT
[#2]
FPNI.
Trust is the easy way. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2014 12:32:24 PM EDT
[#3]
Get a trust and f* the police.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2014 12:34:24 PM EDT
[#4]
Quoted:
I took all my paperwork down today to get his signature and get fingerprinted, and he acted like I stupid for even asking. What are my other options? I am going to try the sheriff and state police next but I have a feeling it will be the same. You may try the WV HTF to see if anybody has had any luck. They may not post the answer, but they'll usually send an IM. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2014 12:35:31 PM EDT
[#5]
Thanks guys
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2014 4:07:58 PM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
I took all my paperwork down today to get his signature and get fingerprinted, and he acted like I stupid for even asking. What are my other options? I am going to try the sheriff and state police next but I have a feeling it will be the same. Where are you in WV? Also, just do a trust. It's what I did. I can email you a blank copy and you just fill in the blanks with your name and your trust name and then go get it notarized. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2014 4:31:53 PM EDT
[#7]
I explained to my local chief that he is not approving it and that his signature only means the item is legal within his jurisdiction of authority.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2014 7:44:26 PM EDT
[#8]
Get a trust. Its the correct way to go. $97
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2014 8:04:51 PM EDT
[#9]
I am sure this has probably been discussed, but why hasn't anyone used this requirement as a way to challenge this law? I mean it seems like having this requirement is a restriction on the second ammendment since I cannot even go throught the legal process due to this requirement. It may not overturn the NFA but it seems like we could at least chip away at it by having this removed. Of course I am not a lawyer and may be completely wrong.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/1/2014 8:52:28 PM EDT
[#10]
Not to hijack this thread, but if anyone is in Indiana, there's an arfcommer there who is an attorney and does trusts. IM hmaverick, and he'll fix you up.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2014 4:50:35 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am sure this has probably been discussed, but why hasn't anyone used this requirement as a way to challenge this law? I mean it seems like having this requirement is a restriction on the second ammendment since I cannot even go throught the legal process due to this requirement. It may not overturn the NFA but it seems like we could at least chip away at it by having this removed. Of course I am not a lawyer and may be completely wrong. The courts don't like guns, unlike say abortions, and so unless a common item like a pistol is banned, they don't throw out gun laws. The legal community in general dislikes guns, as it's run by leftists, and that's where judges come from and the culture they live in. Now abortions they love, so throw out most laws against that. Imagine if you had to get the signature of the chief medical examiner of your country for an abortion, but they could refuse to sign if they didn't want to. And you could not go to another state to get one done. That law would be instantly struck down. So no hope on the legal front. Get a trust, get your can, then take a picture of it and sent it to the shit cop as a fuck you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2014 5:44:19 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
FPNI. Trust is the easy way. Yep. We have "shall sign" here in TN for NFA stuff, and i've never had to wait more than 10 days to get a signature back, but i got tired of prints, photos, and a run down to the courthouse every time...so i went with a trust. It's much easier. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/2/2014 6:17:56 AM EDT
[#13]
Agreed. I had reservations about one of our police chiefs, but he signed quickly. They even called and offered to mail my packet back to me once. They were closing for a bit of snow and didn't want me to wait.
That being said, when the bug bites again, I'll setup a trust or LLC to skip that little bit of wait |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2014 2:34:08 PM EDT
[#14]
Go to your Sheriff then. Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2014 3:46:59 PM EDT
[#15]
Trust. Many, many benefits to a trust.
Like e-filing your form 1..... |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2014 4:07:33 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistorySure, if you live in Oregon or Washington |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/3/2014 5:01:08 PM EDT
[#17]
Get quicken will maker 2008 for 15 bucks off amazon. It has a living trust maker in it that defaults all the items and names to the proper places while walking you through the process. Notarize it and the hell with the local lawdog
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2014 1:12:42 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Look up the NFA act of 1934, it'll list who all can sign, there are actually quit a few people on there. Personally, going trust or LLC will minimize all that hassle. No it won't, in fact it will not even say someone needs to sign. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2014 1:13:38 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am sure this has probably been discussed, but why hasn't anyone used this requirement as a way to challenge this law?. They have, they lost. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2014 2:08:38 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No it won't, in fact it will not even say someone needs to sign. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Look up the NFA act of 1934, it'll list who all can sign, there are actually quit a few people on there. Personally, going trust or LLC will minimize all that hassle. No it won't, in fact it will not even say someone needs to sign. See below................... https://www.atf.gov/content/firearms/firearms-industry/guides/publications-firearms-national-firearms-act-handbook https://www.atf.gov/files/publications/download/p/atf-p-5320-8/atf-p-5320-8-chapter-3.pdf Section 3.2.3 Also 3.2.6.1. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2014 2:13:54 PM EDT
[#21]
Found the other signatures that are acceptable.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2014 2:31:08 PM EDT
[#22]
For the record, the NFA Handbook is not the National Firearm Act of 1934. Just like the Forms are not the actual law, neither is the Handbook.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/4/2014 7:54:26 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The courts don't like guns, unlike say abortions, and so unless a common item like a pistol is banned, they don't throw out gun laws. The legal community in general dislikes guns, as it's run by leftists, and that's where judges come from and the culture they live in. Now abortions they love, so throw out most laws against that. Imagine if you had to get the signature of the chief medical examiner of your country for an abortion, but they could refuse to sign if they didn't want to. And you could not go to another state to get one done. That law would be instantly struck down. So no hope on the legal front. Get a trust, get your can, then take a picture of it and sent it to the shit cop as a fuck you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I am sure this has probably been discussed, but why hasn't anyone used this requirement as a way to challenge this law? I mean it seems like having this requirement is a restriction on the second ammendment since I cannot even go throught the legal process due to this requirement. It may not overturn the NFA but it seems like we could at least chip away at it by having this removed. Of course I am not a lawyer and may be completely wrong. The courts don't like guns, unlike say abortions, and so unless a common item like a pistol is banned, they don't throw out gun laws. The legal community in general dislikes guns, as it's run by leftists, and that's where judges come from and the culture they live in. Now abortions they love, so throw out most laws against that. Imagine if you had to get the signature of the chief medical examiner of your country for an abortion, but they could refuse to sign if they didn't want to. And you could not go to another state to get one done. That law would be instantly struck down. So no hope on the legal front. Get a trust, get your can, then take a picture of it and sent it to the shit cop as a fuck you. Do a google search on "the 1934 Group." Back around the year 2000, they raised almost $60k for a lawsuit to challenge the CLEO sign off in federal court .... and we lost. 
But the federal lawsuit did inspire attorney Bob Howell to go over the original legislation with a magnifying glass and discover that trusts were a lawful, viable alternative ... and Bob then spent almost a year convincing ATF that they had to accept trusts. Some of us have been actively working for NFA owners for many, many decades. Sigh. Anyway, BTDT, got the T-shirt ..... 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/6/2014 1:54:39 PM EDT
[#24]
you should have went to the sheriff 1st
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2014 9:29:40 AM EDT
[#25]
Are you Kanawha County? Everyone I know here that is into NFA has done trusts. If you want a local attorney that will do them PM me. I think he charges $350 though.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2014 10:44:22 AM EDT
[#26]
What county I am interested as well?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/7/2014 11:15:05 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you Kanawha County? Everyone I know here that is into NFA has done trusts. If you want a local attorney that will do them PM me. I think he charges $350 though. Yup, had to go the trust route - no one who is considered a CLEO for NFA purposes will sign off in Kanawha County. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/11/2014 8:16:27 PM EDT
[#28]
I'm up in wood county. I have a trust another member sent me. I'm working on getting it filled out.
This was originally to make my pistol a sbr, since my chief is completely against it I think I'm gonna ad a can to it as well 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/14/2014 11:47:57 AM EDT
[#29]
Not shocked up there either. Get your trust and then send him a polite letter telling him thanks for it were not for him you would not have went to the trouble of filling out a trust and making sure he has no right now to know about ANY thing you acquire from here on out.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2014 11:15:41 AM EDT
[#30]
I tried my police chief first and got shot down also, and I worked for him! Had to go to the sheriff and had no problems. Different chief now though, so who knows?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/16/2014 4:12:53 PM EDT
[#31]
Move to Oklahoma. This year our legislature passed, the governor vetoed and the legislature over rode said veto enacting a law requiring CLEO's to sign NFA applications where the applicant was not otherwise prohibited from ownership of the item being specified in the form.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/23/2014 10:23:48 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do a google search on "the 1934 Group." Back around the year 2000, they raised almost $60k for a lawsuit to challenge the CLEO sign off in federal court .... and we lost.
But the federal lawsuit did inspire attorney Bob Howell to go over the original legislation with a magnifying glass and discover that trusts were a lawful, viable alternative ... and Bob then spent almost a year convincing ATF that they had to accept trusts. Some of us have been actively working for NFA owners for many, many decades. Sigh. Anyway, BTDT, got the T-shirt ..... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I am sure this has probably been discussed, but why hasn't anyone used this requirement as a way to challenge this law? I mean it seems like having this requirement is a restriction on the second ammendment since I cannot even go throught the legal process due to this requirement. It may not overturn the NFA but it seems like we could at least chip away at it by having this removed. Of course I am not a lawyer and may be completely wrong. The courts don't like guns, unlike say abortions, and so unless a common item like a pistol is banned, they don't throw out gun laws. The legal community in general dislikes guns, as it's run by leftists, and that's where judges come from and the culture they live in. Now abortions they love, so throw out most laws against that. Imagine if you had to get the signature of the chief medical examiner of your country for an abortion, but they could refuse to sign if they didn't want to. And you could not go to another state to get one done. That law would be instantly struck down. So no hope on the legal front. Get a trust, get your can, then take a picture of it and sent it to the shit cop as a fuck you. Do a google search on "the 1934 Group." Back around the year 2000, they raised almost $60k for a lawsuit to challenge the CLEO sign off in federal court .... and we lost.
But the federal lawsuit did inspire attorney Bob Howell to go over the original legislation with a magnifying glass and discover that trusts were a lawful, viable alternative ... and Bob then spent almost a year convincing ATF that they had to accept trusts. Some of us have been actively working for NFA owners for many, many decades. Sigh. Anyway, BTDT, got the T-shirt ..... Has anyone tried to file a law suit to take advantage of the new case law affirming the 2nd amendment and the right to armed self defense? I would think the machine gun ban and leo sign off requirements could be successfully challenged.. A lot has happened since the 2000 court case that was lost: - The supreme court's Heller decision and other court cases have affirmed a persons right to own a weapon. - NFA items are more common now than in 2000. The long wait times for NFA approvals and the increase in NFA applications received by the ATF prove the increase in ownership of NFA items. Hunters use suppressors for hunting and suppressed SBR's are used for defense. Now that gun ownership is a right that has been blessed by the supreme court it could be argued that the CLEO signoff is a violation of the 2nd amendment. Although, someone might argue that the signoff requirement is a reasonable restriction put in place to prevent crime. Since many cleos refuse to sign simply because they don't want to, I don't see how any court could consider the signoff requirement a reasonable restriction/requirement for gun/suppressor ownership. Can the recent pro 2nd amendment rulings be used in court to challenge NFA laws and regulations? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/24/2014 2:00:22 AM EDT
[#33]
I heard this quote somewhere. But going after nfa laws right now is like asking a girl to do anal on the first date. We don't even have proper carry reciprocity yet. Nfa stuff seems to be a ways off.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2014 5:35:11 PM EDT
[#34]
What is the point of a LEO signature? It seems its a carry over from a bygone era, where the local sherriff would be able to determine whether the applicant was local trouble or some such thing. The form itself with Computer database has all pertinent info and the ATF can learn anything they need about your criminal history. Isn't the verbiage of the form say it must be presented to any ATF officer, not Local LEO Indicating Local LEO don't have much to do with it from an enforcement perspective?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/12/2014 5:51:44 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not shocked up there either. Get your trust and then send him a polite letter telling him thanks for it were not for him you would not have went to the trouble of filling out a trust and making sure he has no right now to know about ANY thing you acquire from here on out. Yep ^ also send a family pic of all the SBR's you end up with to him 
|
|
|
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.
