After a long battle with ATF, they've finally agreed to END THE CLEO SIGNOFF REQUIREMENT. This started in the late 1990s with the now-semi-inactive 1934 Group and today with the NFATCA. While this will NOT help us with machine guns in Wisconsin, everything else will be fair game!

So what's left before this happens?

1. New forms need to be designed by OMB.

2. The new rules need to be published in the Federal Register.

Here's food for thought- there are TEN EXAMINERS who handle the ENTIRE UNITED STATES. This not only includes civilians, but also police department and other governmental transfers. Think a 6-7 month wait is bad now? This change will make WI's CCW wait look like child's play! (And do you expect this administration to put more money into more examiners for civilian transfers..? Governmental-dedicated, sure–– but for us??!)

My recommendation - no matter what you're buying/building - is to start your paperwork ASAP. There's no way to know when OMB will get those new forms out or when the new rules will be published in the Federal Register.

Final thought- this is going to increase the demand of and for NFA weapons and probably of host guns- not just MP5 semis for guys to drop sears into, but also things like popular-to-SBR items (i.e. Draco, etc). If there's something you want, I'd give serious thought to getting it handled sooner versus later.

FYI,

Mike

Where's the link to this great news?

This information comes directly from Jeff Zimba, one of the editors of Small Arms Review, who got it from Jeff Follider of the NFATCA (National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association). I consider Mr. Zimba, Mr. Follider, and the NFATCA all to be reliable sources.

Mr. Zimba posted this on Subguns here.



This is good news for those who want to have their firearms in their own names instead of owning through a third party entity. It also doesn't mean that those who want multiple owners can't do trusts or corps- it just makes life easier for those who want personal ownership.

And as a proponent of NFA firearms ownership, I see more potential owners as a GREAT thing!

Mike

The CLEO signature was a major factor in my not wanting to get a suppressor. I didn't want to go through the hassle of forming a trust. I guess I need to start saving my pennies, maybe next year I will jump in.

....in ATF's opinion. For many decades, the law was not interpreted in this way. Recently, ATF changed their interpretation based on feedback received from JB Van Hollen.

IIRC. Am I wrong? Basically, a practice that has been going on for well over a decade, was arbitrarily decided to be null and void.

Exceptions. Sections 941.25 and 941.26 shall not prohibit or interfere with the manufacture for, and sale of, machine guns to the military forces or the peace officers of the United States or of any political subdivision thereof, or the transportation required for that purpose; the possession of a machine gun for scientific purpose, or the possession of a machine gun not usable as a weapon and possessed as a curiosity, ornament or keepsake; or the possession of a machine gun other than one adapted to use pistol cartridges for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive.

For many years, this simply meant that machineguns adapted to use pistol cartridges for a purpose manifestly not aggressive or offensive, required the stated CLEO approval. Now, they have re-defined this section, and/or decided to ignore it.

IMHO, IANAL.

Eeugh..... Uhrm..... As much as it pains me to say it, it depends how you look at it.

Your are correct that WI's MG law was not enforced for years. I can't say well over a decade, as I remember a very short period where it cropped up and then quickly was laid to rest by - of all people - Peggy Lautenschlager (sp). We all thought it went away and was done for good. Then ATF reviewed all 50 states' laws (NC MG transfers are all but completely shut off right now) and asked JB about the law. Unlike Peggy, he insisted that it be enforced. Here we sit.

So is it a legitimate law on the books? Yes. But was it also officially, and with official sanction, ignored? Yes as well. While we can hoot and holler about ATF, they're only following the state law as ordered by our own AG, JB. Unfortunately, this one is on us and it needs to be fixed at the state level.

As for the reading of the law, I think we can all agree that it is written poorly. It shouldn't be in there in the first place. But our reading vs whoever's reading is of little consequence when our own AG says "this is how we view the law and it is to be enforced."

This NEEDS to be fixed legislatively, and I suspect it would be by now if it wasn't for these goddamned democrats and their record-setting temper tantrums.

Mike

this recent development has made me even happier that ii went the trust route...

Actually, the problem is deeper than that. The WI AG holds that "authorization" (the law's words) and "certification" (the words on the Form 1/4/5) are NOT the same thing.

Sign-offs no longer work in WI. Now only does one need a sign-off, but one needs a letter of authorization.

Even people with sign-offs aren't in compliance unless they essentially have a may-issue "authorization" in some form or another.

Mike

Mike

CLEOs can't refuse to sign the Form for arbitrary reasons, but the need for something additional beyond the sign off for a MG remains. (At least, this is what ATF told me this morning bacause of yet another MG transfer getting %$#@! up.)

Mike

Don't doubt you one bit. Was just exclaiming my disgust.

I'd kill for the ability to lawfully Form 1 my own M60.

Mike

The link is this thread: if prebans said it, it's the truth.