Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 1/25/2011 5:24:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2011 5:39:14 AM EDT by Bubbles]
Would be great if true...

http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67372
Saw this and thought I'd share it. This is from the Senior Editor & Pres of the NFATCA.

"I am pleased to report that all branches and offices within ATF have given the official okey dokey to eliminating the CLEO signature requirements for NFA Forms. This includes Counsel's office and the National Sheriffs' Association! The package has been sent on to the Department of Justice with recommendation for approval. The package will include:

1.Elimination of CLEO signature requirement.
2.Institution of CLEO "notification" similar to an FFL application. (A copy of the form will be sent to the CLEO as opposed to asking for permission.)
3.Trusts and LLC's and corps will still be available for use.
4.In the event of #3, a NICS check will be required when the weapon is physically transferred.
Unknown is whether the Citizenship Compliance form will be eliminated and merged into the various NFA forms instead of being a separate nuisance. ATF is leaning toward elimination."


edit - fixed link
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 5:34:28 AM EDT
Too good to be true

I'd have to read the law , but can the ATF do this at discretion ?
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 5:34:37 AM EDT
ost
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 5:35:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2011 5:41:08 AM EDT by Shermantor-AR15]
Bubbles your link is broken.
Also, reading there I'm also wondering where is the source for this info?
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 5:42:18 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2011 5:43:24 AM EDT by sharps54]
http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67372
fixed link

OK, link is now fixed in OP so I'll just say I'll believe it when I see it.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 5:43:06 AM EDT
That would be a good thing. Bought my last suppresor on 11/15 and didn't get my "permission slip" back for over a month. This will truly cut down on the overall processing time.

As the ol' sayin' goes, I will believe it when I see it.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 5:44:22 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ANGST:
Too good to be true

I'd have to read the law , but can the ATF do this at discretion ?


TITLE 26 > Subtitle E > CHAPTER 53 > Subchapter A > PART II > § 5812

§ 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;
(2) any tax payable on the transfer is paid as evidenced by the proper stamp affixed to the original application form;
(3) the transferee is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, except that, if such person is an individual, the identification must include his fingerprints and his photograph;
(4) the transferor of the firearm is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe;
(5) the firearm is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; and
(6) the application form shows that the Secretary has approved the transfer and the registration of the firearm to the transferee. Applications shall be denied if the transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm would place the transferee in violation of law.
(b) Transfer of possession
The transferee of a firearm shall not take possession of the firearm unless the Secretary has approved the transfer and registration of the firearm to the transferee as required by subsection (a) of this section.



I am guessing part 6 is where the CLEO signoff is based. If that is the case it would seem this is somehting the ATF came up with and is not actually in the law. So the STF can just do away with the requirement if they wanted

OK looks better, but I think it's rumor still.

Link Posted: 1/25/2011 6:04:06 AM EDT

Originally Posted By ANGST:
Originally Posted By ANGST:
Too good to be true

I'd have to read the law , but can the ATF do this at discretion ?


TITLE 26 > Subtitle E > CHAPTER 53 > Subchapter A > PART II > § 5812

§ 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;
(2) any tax payable on the transfer is paid as evidenced by the proper stamp affixed to the original application form;
(3) the transferee is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, except that, if such person is an individual, the identification must include his fingerprints and his photograph;
(4) the transferor of the firearm is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe;
(5) the firearm is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; and
(6) the application form shows that the Secretary has approved the transfer and the registration of the firearm to the transferee. Applications shall be denied if the transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm would place the transferee in violation of law.
(b) Transfer of possession
The transferee of a firearm shall not take possession of the firearm unless the Secretary has approved the transfer and registration of the firearm to the transferee as required by subsection (a) of this section.



I am guessing part 6 is where the CLEO signoff is based. If that is the case it would seem this is somehting the ATF came up with and is not actually in the law. So the STF can just do away with the requirement if they wanted

OK looks better, but I think it's rumor still.


Yes that is where it comes from. Remember it was not the ATF that came up with this, but the IRS in 1934.

Since the signoff is not law, but CFR, it would need to be posted in the Federal Register with a RFC, and then could be be in place. I am sure they will also codify that Trusts, Corps and other entities would be required to undergo a NICS check.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 6:49:39 AM EDT
This would be for nice some people. I am fortunate and can get my CLEO signature in less than 30 mins.

I like going in and talking to the Chief, but it would be nice not to have to worry about it anymore.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 6:58:40 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 7:09:48 AM EDT
This would be great news, make everyone involved lives simpler (both the applicant and CLEO). Keeping my finger's crossed.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 7:20:33 AM EDT



the only thing i don't like is the whole "a copy will be sent to the CLEO" thing. how many local LEA's are going to start keeping files on NFA owners because, "...well, they send these to us for a reason."


Link Posted: 1/25/2011 7:22:33 AM EDT
Gonna have to save up some money for a SBR if this turns out to be true.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 7:22:57 AM EDT
Still has a way to go before they ok it, but it is a step in the right direction.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 7:26:53 AM EDT
The only thing that's not great is that NICS is now required for trusts, corps, LLCs etc...I can't imagine the frustration of "delayed" after waiting months for your item.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 7:29:05 AM EDT
This would make sense, trust make it easy and take the power away from the CLEO to make the decision, well informed or not.


The fact that it makes sense makes me question it.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 7:30:06 AM EDT
Tagged for future info.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 7:30:43 AM EDT
Originally Posted By bullyforyou:



the only thing i don't like is the whole "a copy will be sent to the CLEO" thing. how many local LEA's are going to start keeping files on NFA owners because, "...well, they send these to us for a reason."




I'm sure most keep a copy of your Form _ already, just like most things they put their signature on.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 7:32:56 AM EDT
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 7:56:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Bubbles:
Would be great if true...

http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67372
Saw this and thought I'd share it. This is from the Senior Editor & Pres of the NFATCA.

"I am pleased to report that all branches and offices within ATF have given the official okey dokey to eliminating the CLEO signature requirements for NFA Forms. This includes Counsel's office and the National Sheriffs' Association! The package has been sent on to the Department of Justice with recommendation for approval. The package will include:

1.Elimination of CLEO signature requirement.
2.Institution of CLEO "notification" similar to an FFL application. (A copy of the form will be sent to the CLEO as opposed to asking for permission.)
3.Trusts and LLC's and corps will still be available for use.
4.In the event of #3, a NICS check will be required when the weapon is physically transferred.
Unknown is whether the Citizenship Compliance form will be eliminated and merged into the various NFA forms instead of being a separate nuisance. ATF is leaning toward elimination."


edit - fixed link


The part highlighted above needs more definition. By defining physical, does it mean every time someone checks an asset out of the armory, they would have to call up a NICS check? I am sure someone bureaucratic could twist it to be operable that way.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 8:07:53 AM EDT
I wouldn't get excited at all until the dude from silencertalk posts a link to where he got his information.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 8:12:11 AM EDT

Originally Posted By LonghornAR:
Originally Posted By Bubbles:
Would be great if true...

http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67372
Saw this and thought I'd share it. This is from the Senior Editor & Pres of the NFATCA.

"I am pleased to report that all branches and offices within ATF have given the official okey dokey to eliminating the CLEO signature requirements for NFA Forms. This includes Counsel's office and the National Sheriffs' Association! The package has been sent on to the Department of Justice with recommendation for approval. The package will include:

1.Elimination of CLEO signature requirement.
2.Institution of CLEO "notification" similar to an FFL application. (A copy of the form will be sent to the CLEO as opposed to asking for permission.)
3.Trusts and LLC's and corps will still be available for use.
4.In the event of #3, a NICS check will be required when the weapon is physically transferred.
Unknown is whether the Citizenship Compliance form will be eliminated and merged into the various NFA forms instead of being a separate nuisance. ATF is leaning toward elimination."


edit - fixed link


The part highlighted above needs more definition. By defining physical, does it mean every time someone checks an asset out of the armory, they would have to call up a NICS check? I am sure someone bureaucratic could twist it to be operable that way.

Problem is requiring a NICS check means a change in the law (Act Of Congress). On the other hand, eliminating the CLEO signoff does not (CFR change).


Link Posted: 1/25/2011 8:12:43 AM EDT

Originally Posted By carterbrunelle:
I wouldn't get excited at all until the dude from silencertalk posts a link to where he got his information.

+1

Hopefully not Prince Law Blog.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 11:50:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By SSeric02:
Originally Posted By bullyforyou:



the only thing i don't like is the whole "a copy will be sent to the CLEO" thing. how many local LEA's are going to start keeping files on NFA owners because, "...well, they send these to us for a reason."




I'm sure most keep a copy of your Form _ already, just like most things they put their signature on.


i know my sheriff does not keep a copy of my forms currently, and i'm sure many don't. that said, if the BATFE is sending them something, i'd bet they are inclined to hold on to it...

i suppose it's a minor issue in contrast to the difficulties many have with getting sign-offs.


Link Posted: 1/25/2011 1:40:17 PM EDT
idk if the ATF sends copies of approved forms to my locals but my sheriff copied my form 4 when he signed it..
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 1:40:56 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
Problem is requiring a NICS check means a change in the law (Act Of Congress). On the other hand, eliminating the CLEO signoff does not (CFR change).
Trusts and corps already require a NICS check as no background check has been performed on the purchaser.

Kharn
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 1:41:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 1/25/2011 1:42:20 PM EDT by Kharn]
double tap

Kharn
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 2:05:41 PM EDT
I never understood the need for CLEO sign-off anyway.

Link Posted: 1/25/2011 3:35:30 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Kharn:
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
Problem is requiring a NICS check means a change in the law (Act Of Congress). On the other hand, eliminating the CLEO signoff does not (CFR change).
Trusts and corps already require a NICS check as no background check has been performed on the purchaser.

Kharn


Really? I was under the impression that they don't run a NICS check...
I know that my SOT doesn't think he has to.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 3:42:04 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ZedsDeadBaby:
I never understood the need for CLEO sign-off anyway.



The requirement came about in the 30's before the days of NICS. Essentially NICS eliminated any need for it.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 3:52:38 PM EDT
Wow, that would be great for a lot of people.

Maybe this is how they are thinking of fixing the national budget... $200 at a time.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 5:24:33 PM EDT
This is now on the original link. Pretty cool!

The NFATCA has been working for several years to make this happen. I am proud to say that we have pushed this agenda item further with better results than we ever have before. ATF and its various branches have reviewed all of the potential issues and suggestions that we have presented. At this point, ATF has actually submitted the issue to the Department of Justice for final approval. We have never been able to get this issue out of ATF's "universe" before. At this point, it could be a matter of weeks or months before we receive final approval. I am hoping that the timing of the November release of several updated NFA forms is a good coincidence. That was the long answer. The short answer is yes, the process is in full swing.

Jeff Folloder
NFA Trade and Collectors Association
Website: http://www.nfatca.org
Direct: 281.492.8288
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 5:31:45 PM EDT
This would be fantastic!
The local Grand Poobah won't sign the form.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 6:44:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By bullyforyou:
Originally Posted By SSeric02:
Originally Posted By bullyforyou:



the only thing i don't like is the whole "a copy will be sent to the CLEO" thing. how many local LEA's are going to start keeping files on NFA owners because, "...well, they send these to us for a reason."




I'm sure most keep a copy of your Form _ already, just like most things they put their signature on.


i know my sheriff does not keep a copy of my forms currently, and i'm sure many don't. that said, if the BATFE is sending them something, i'd bet they are inclined to hold on to it...

i suppose it's a minor issue in contrast to the difficulties many have with getting sign-offs.


would it be BATFE sending them a copy of the form, or would be more like when we submit an 03FFL, we send a copy of the app to the CLEO, and if htye have a problem with it, the CLEO can contact ATF with additional info.,

Link Posted: 1/25/2011 7:42:36 PM EDT
Originally Posted By AJE:
Wow, that would be great for a lot of people.

Maybe this is how they are thinking of fixing the national budget... $200 at a time.


you can be certain this will be expensive real quick for some - me included - more stuff with less hassle
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 8:06:39 PM EDT
Originally Posted By raysheen:

Originally Posted By Kharn:
Originally Posted By RenegadeX:
Problem is requiring a NICS check means a change in the law (Act Of Congress). On the other hand, eliminating the CLEO signoff does not (CFR change).
Trusts and corps already require a NICS check as no background check has been performed on the purchaser.

Kharn


Really? I was under the impression that they don't run a NICS check...
I know that my SOT doesn't think he has to.


Mine does.
Link Posted: 1/25/2011 8:49:32 PM EDT
From an ATF standpoint I guess it would make sense for them. I always wondered why they fought the lawsuit against the 1934 group so vigorously just a couple years back.

My only guess is that with the advent of the "trust" transfer the removal of the CLEO signature is the lesser of two evils.

I would guess that at least 50% of F1s and F4s are going to trusts or corps now a days, which include no mugshot or fingerprints. On top of that a person to person F4 transfer in state via a Trust or Corp requires no NIC check, so you can technically purchase a machinegun with limited to no background check. I have done one individual to individual transfer to a corp in State and the ATF has pretty limited information at their disposal other than the incorporation docs that are filed at the State level.

Most people are going with trusts because of the CLEO issue and with the advent of Quicken and $500 NFA Lawyer Trusts has just sped of the process of people not wanting to mess with a CLEO sig. As the ball started rolling you have to figure the ATF isn't thrilled about guns being transferred to unchecked legal entities.

If they did away with the CLEO sig you would probably have more people just submit as individuals vs setting up a trust. Obviously there will always be thoes who want trust or corps for other reasons, but the more people who submit as individuals with pics and fingerprints I would assume the better in the minds of the big wigs at the ATF.

Link Posted: 1/25/2011 8:58:58 PM EDT
Originally Posted By jbntex:
From an ATF standpoint I guess it would make sense for them. I always wondered why they fought the lawsuit against the 1934 group so vigorously just a couple years back.

My only guess is that with the advent of the "trust" transfer the removal of the CLEO signature is the lesser of two evils.

I would guess that at least 50% of F1s and F4s are going to trusts or corps now a days, which include no mugshot or fingerprints. On top of that a person to person F4 transfer in state via a Trust or Corp requires no NIC check, so you can technically purchase a machinegun with limited to no background check. I have done one individual to individual transfer to a corp in State and the ATF has pretty limited information at their disposal other than the incorporation docs that are filed at the State level.

Most people are going with trusts because of the CLEO issue and with the advent of Quicken and $500 NFA Lawyer Trusts has just sped of the process of people not wanting to mess with a CLEO sig. As the ball started rolling you have to figure the ATF isn't thrilled about guns being transferred to unchecked legal entities.

If they did away with the CLEO sig you would probably have more people just submit as individuals vs setting up a trust. Obviously there will always be thoes who want trust or corps for other reasons, but the more people who submit as individuals with pics and fingerprints I would assume the better in the minds of the big wigs at the ATF.



The volume of trust probably only exists because of the ease of it.

I don't understand why the ATF would try to make it harder for themselves to collect revenue.

If they got rid of CLEO sign-off they would easily increase tax revenue. All thanks to us evil gun owners.

Nowadays the fed should be exploiting every opportunity to collect money, and do so by looking into things like this.

Link Posted: 1/25/2011 9:07:36 PM EDT
This is the best news I have heard in the gun industry since the end of the AWB.

I own a couple of suppressors on individual F4s. I was lucky enough to live in a place where the CLEO was happy to sign off on them. Not the case where I live now, unfortunately.

The great thing about individual transfers is that once they're done, there is nothing to maintain, period. You never have to do anything else, aside from 5320.20s.

Hats off to everyone that worked for this.
Link Posted: 1/26/2011 2:19:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ZedsDeadBaby:
I don't understand why the ATF would try to make it harder for themselves to collect revenue.

If they got rid of CLEO sign-off they would easily increase tax revenue. All thanks to us evil gun owners.


It's not about revenue collection. Transfer taxes are a mere drop in the bucket in the overall budget of an agency, much less .gov in general, and they do not even come close to covering the time the various federal employees spend processing the NFA forms.
Link Posted: 1/26/2011 7:22:50 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hrt4me:
Originally Posted By ZedsDeadBaby:
I don't understand why the ATF would try to make it harder for themselves to collect revenue.

If they got rid of CLEO sign-off they would easily increase tax revenue. All thanks to us evil gun owners.


It's not about revenue collection. Transfer taxes are a mere drop in the bucket in the overall budget of an agency, much less .gov in general, and they do not even come close to covering the time the various federal employees spend processing the NFA forms.


Yep. They couldn't have the outright ban they wanted in 1934 but they thought taxing each transfer would hold muster against the Constitution. Never mind that $200 back then was a considerable amount of money. Apparently they chose wisely.
Link Posted: 1/26/2011 7:42:26 AM EDT
This is awesome news if true for the low item count or new to NFA guys. I'm going to keep using my trust however.
Link Posted: 1/26/2011 11:22:28 AM EDT
the op who made the claim on silencertalk still hasn't responded to his own post. Don't get excited yet
Link Posted: 1/26/2011 11:24:02 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ANGST:
Originally Posted By ANGST:
Too good to be true

I'd have to read the law , but can the ATF do this at discretion ?


TITLE 26 > Subtitle E > CHAPTER 53 > Subchapter A > PART II > § 5812

§ 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;
(2) any tax payable on the transfer is paid as evidenced by the proper stamp affixed to the original application form;
(3) the transferee is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, except that, if such person is an individual, the identification must include his fingerprints and his photograph;
(4) the transferor of the firearm is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe;
(5) the firearm is identified in the application form in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe; and
(6) the application form shows that the Secretary has approved the transfer and the registration of the firearm to the transferee. Applications shall be denied if the transfer, receipt, or possession of the firearm would place the transferee in violation of law.
(b) Transfer of possession
The transferee of a firearm shall not take possession of the firearm unless the Secretary has approved the transfer and registration of the firearm to the transferee as required by subsection (a) of this section.



I am guessing part 6 is where the CLEO signoff is based. If that is the case it would seem this is somehting the ATF came up with and is not actually in the law. So the STF can just do away with the requirement if they wanted

OK looks better, but I think it's rumor still.




The CLEO SIGN-OFF requirement is CFR, probably bimplemented based on that rule making authority.

I hope that this goes through.
Link Posted: 1/26/2011 11:26:49 AM EDT
Originally Posted By AN94NK:
idk if the ATF sends copies of approved forms to my locals but my sheriff copied my form 4 when he signed it..


Legally, they shouldn't be sharing registration info with anyone- outside of a specific investegation (that the material is relevant to).
Link Posted: 1/26/2011 11:28:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By hrt4me:
Originally Posted By ZedsDeadBaby:
I don't understand why the ATF would try to make it harder for themselves to collect revenue.

If they got rid of CLEO sign-off they would easily increase tax revenue. All thanks to us evil gun owners.


It's not about revenue collection. Transfer taxes are a mere drop in the bucket in the overall budget of an agency, much less .gov in general, and they do not even come close to covering the time the various federal employees spend processing the NFA forms.


Transfer tax revenue goes into the general treasury, not to ATF much less NFA branch.
Link Posted: 1/26/2011 1:55:30 PM EDT
I'm looking in the february issue of small arms review if it was anywhere it would be here..... so I don't believe it
Link Posted: 1/26/2011 2:29:16 PM EDT
Originally Posted By drott:
I'm looking in the february issue of small arms review if it was anywhere it would be here..... so I don't believe it
Magazines have a 30+ day lead time, especially ones printed by a contractor.

Kharn
Link Posted: 1/26/2011 5:22:02 PM EDT
As someone pondering my first NFA toy, I am definitely interested in seeing the outcome of this.
Link Posted: 1/26/2011 5:34:24 PM EDT
Don't get to excited people. I have searched every where for more info on this, and cannot find ANYTHING, except a few forums posts that lead back to the original in silencer talk. It's not even posted on the NFATCA forums.
Link Posted: 1/26/2011 5:39:55 PM EDT
Originally Posted By aperdue:
As someone pondering my first NFA toy, I am definitely interested in seeing the outcome of this.


No doubt. I'm keen on having an SBR, and I wouldn't have to dick around with creating a trust along with everything else.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top