User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 5:34:28 AM EDT
[#1]
Too good to be true
I'd have to read the law , but can the ATF do this at discretion ? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 5:34:37 AM EDT
[#2]
ost
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 5:35:37 AM EDT
[#3]
Bubbles your link is broken.
Also, reading there I'm also wondering where is the source for this info? |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 5:42:18 AM EDT
[#4]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 5:43:06 AM EDT
[#5]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 5:44:22 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 6:04:06 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 6:49:39 AM EDT
[#8]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 6:58:40 AM EDT
[#9]
iirc the ATF knows if the items are state legal anyway.
You submit your name and fingerprints for a background check. A CLEO signoff is not needed, along with the NFA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 7:09:48 AM EDT
[#10]
This would be great news, make everyone involved lives simpler (both the applicant and CLEO). Keeping my finger's crossed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 7:20:33 AM EDT
[#11]
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." |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 7:22:33 AM EDT
[#12]
Gonna have to save up some money for a SBR if this turns out to be true.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 7:22:57 AM EDT
[#13]
Still has a way to go before they ok it, but it is a step in the right direction.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 7:26:53 AM EDT
[#14]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 7:29:05 AM EDT
[#15]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 7:30:06 AM EDT
[#16]
Tagged for future info.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 7:30:43 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 7:32:56 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
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." More than likely the same as the file with a copy of your Form 1/4 and a printed copy of your background check when you went in to have it signed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 7:56:32 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 8:07:53 AM EDT
[#20]
I wouldn't get excited at all until the dude from silencertalk posts a link to where he got his information.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 8:12:11 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Quoted: 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). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 8:12:43 AM EDT
[#22]
Quoted: 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 11:50:00 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 1:40:17 PM EDT
[#24]
idk if the ATF sends copies of approved forms to my locals but my sheriff copied my form 4 when he signed it..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 1:40:56 PM EDT
[#25]
Quoted:
Trusts and corps already require a NICS check as no background check has been performed on the purchaser.
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). Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 1:41:55 PM EDT
[#26]
double tap
Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 2:05:41 PM EDT
[#27]
I never understood the need for CLEO sign-off anyway.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 3:35:30 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: Quoted: Trusts and corps already require a NICS check as no background check has been performed on the purchaser.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). 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.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 3:42:04 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 3:52:38 PM EDT
[#30]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 5:24:33 PM EDT
[#31]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 5:31:45 PM EDT
[#32]
This would be fantastic!
The local Grand Poobah won't sign the form. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 6:44:48 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
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.,
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 7:42:36 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted:
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 8:06:39 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Trusts and corps already require a NICS check as no background check has been performed on the purchaser.
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). 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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 8:49:32 PM EDT
[#36]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 8:58:58 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/25/2011 9:07:36 PM EDT
[#38]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2011 2:19:45 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2011 7:22:50 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Quoted:
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2011 7:42:26 AM EDT
[#41]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2011 11:22:28 AM EDT
[#42]
the op who made the claim on silencertalk still hasn't responded to his own post. Don't get excited yet
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2011 11:24:02 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2011 11:26:49 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
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). |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2011 11:28:35 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2011 1:55:30 PM EDT
[#46]
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
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2011 2:29:16 PM EDT
[#47]
Quoted:
Magazines have a 30+ day lead time, especially ones printed by a contractor.
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 Kharn |
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2011 5:22:02 PM EDT
[#48]
As someone pondering my first NFA toy, I am definitely interested in seeing the outcome of this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2011 5:34:24 PM EDT
[#49]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 1/26/2011 5:39:55 PM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
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. |
|
|
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.
