CLEO signoff elimination going forward

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - CLEO signoff elimination going forward (Page 1 of 7)

Posted: 1/8/2013 6:16:08 PM EST

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43

The proposal for CLEO signoff elimination has now reached the stage of "proposed rulemaking." That means the clock is running for official adoption.

The upside is that CLEO signoffs will no longer be required for Forms 1 or 4. The signoff will be replaced by a CLEO "notification."

The downside is that all "responsible persons" of trusts and corporations will have to submit photographs and fingerprints, and have a background check done.

These two things, together, eliminate most of the incentive for forming NFA trusts. This also means a slightly lighter workload for ATF.

Posted: 1/8/2013 6:20:03 PM EST

[#1]

Is it retroactive for existing trusts? And do you have to submit photos and fingerprints per-item or when forming the trust?

Posted: 1/8/2013 6:32:59 PM EST

[#2]

Is it retroactive for existing trusts? And do you have to submit photos and fingerprints per-item or when forming the trust?

I haven't seen the text of the proposed rule. This has to be opened up for a comment period before being finally adopted.

Usually, these things are effective prospectively, from the date of adoption. I would think the photos/fingerprints of the trustees woud be submitted with each Form 1 or Form 4, that is, on a per-item basis.

Posted: 1/8/2013 6:39:37 PM EST

[#3]

Quoted:
Is it retroactive for existing trusts? And do you have to submit photos and fingerprints per-item or when forming the trust?

No, it wouldn't and couldn't be retroactive.

Posted: 1/8/2013 9:21:57 PM EST

[#4]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Is it retroactive for existing trusts? And do you have to submit photos and fingerprints per-item or when forming the trust?

No, it wouldn't and couldn't be retroactive.

Making the requirement for photos and fingerprints retroactive for existing trusts would bury the ATF
under an unbelievable workload that they'd never recover from.

Posted: 1/9/2013 1:26:20 AM EST

[#5]

This figures. I am in the process of establishing a Gun Trust right now.

Posted: 1/9/2013 2:58:08 AM EST

[#6]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Is it retroactive for existing trusts? And do you have to submit photos and fingerprints per-item or when forming the trust?

No, it wouldn't and couldn't be retroactive.

Making the requirement for photos and fingerprints retroactive for existing trusts would bury the ATF
under an unbelievable workload that they'd never recover from.

Which means if priority was given to existing items there would be no new approvals for, well, ever. Got your tin foil?

Posted: 1/9/2013 3:41:48 AM EST

[#7]

Gah, the entire reason I am getting a trust is NOT to have to go through this crap.

Posted: 1/9/2013 4:17:55 AM EST

[#8]

Awesome, thanks for fucking up the entire reason for getting a trust.

Posted: 1/9/2013 4:38:46 AM EST

[#9]

"responsible persons" of a trust or corporation must send photos and fingerprints

How would that work?

Trusts and Corporations can change dynamically. I can add people, remove people at will.

With this new requirement, are they saying people that are listed as "responsible persons" at the time of submition have to send photos and fingerprints?

If it's ongoing, how do they handle that - you have to send them in for a background check with photos and prints before you can add them?

Posted: 1/9/2013 4:49:37 AM EST

[#10]

Screw that.

Posted: 1/9/2013 5:07:09 AM EST

[#11]

Sounds like NFATCA's fault.

Posted: 1/9/2013 5:33:01 AM EST

[#12]

This is the first that I hear of the proposed fingerprint / photograph requirement for Trusts/Corps going forward. Sounds like this bill should die then, what a poison pill!

Just realized it calls for EACH responsible person in the trust/Corp to submit photographs/fingerprint cards.

Posted: 1/9/2013 6:48:04 AM EST

[#13]

Step 1. Close the trust/corp "loophole"
Step 2. Add all "assault weaopns" to the NFA registry.

Now even private sales will have to transfer on a Form 4, with a $200 tax and months of waiting.
New sales on a basic AR15 will incur a ~8+ month waiting period.

Smart. They're clearly playing chess.

Posted: 1/9/2013 7:14:28 AM EST

[#14]

This is crap. I just had my trust drafted and I'm heading into the notary to have it executed today. If they do this it'll all be for naught.

Posted: 1/9/2013 7:35:58 AM EST

[#15]

Quoted:
This is crap. I just had my trust drafted and I'm heading into the notary to have it executed today. If they do this it'll all be for naught.

There are still some benefits of a trust. If you have your brother/sister/wife/pet squirrel on the trust they can have access to the NFA items without you present.

Posted: 1/9/2013 7:37:21 AM EST

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This is crap. I just had my trust drafted and I'm heading into the notary to have it executed today. If they do this it'll all be for naught.

There are still some benefits of a trust. If you have your brother/sister/wife/pet squirrel on the trust they can have access to the NFA items without you present.

That's a liability, not a benefit.

Posted: 1/9/2013 7:43:48 AM EST

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This is crap. I just had my trust drafted and I'm heading into the notary to have it executed today. If they do this it'll all be for naught.

There are still some benefits of a trust. If you have your brother/sister/wife/pet squirrel on the trust they can have access to the NFA items without you present.

That's a liability, not a benefit.

If you're out of town and your wife has to use an SBR + suppressor to fend off a home invader, you would call it a liability?

Edit: so ironic considering your screen name, which I didn't see at first.

Posted: 1/9/2013 8:02:50 AM EST

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This is crap. I just had my trust drafted and I'm heading into the notary to have it executed today. If they do this it'll all be for naught.

There are still some benefits of a trust. If you have your brother/sister/wife/pet squirrel on the trust they can have access to the NFA items without you present.

That's a liability, not a benefit.

Only if you have a horrible family.

Posted: 1/9/2013 9:34:03 AM EST

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This is crap. I just had my trust drafted and I'm heading into the notary to have it executed today. If they do this it'll all be for naught.

There are still some benefits of a trust. If you have your brother/sister/wife/pet squirrel on the trust they can have access to the NFA items without you present.

That's a liability, not a benefit.

Only if you have a horrible family.

I disagree.

NFA firearms are reaching the point where they are becoming major financial investments.

I'd only put an immediate familiy member on a trust, and only if that person was a priimary user of the gun, somebody who was a regular and competent shooter of the item.

You'll always be happiest in life if "business is conducted in a businesslike manner".

Being casual about how money is disposed of is a fine way to fuck up your life.

This is relevant because a trust is a legal covenant, not just a permission slip to use a gun.

Posted: 1/9/2013 9:37:26 AM EST

[#20]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This is crap. I just had my trust drafted and I'm heading into the notary to have it executed today. If they do this it'll all be for naught.

There are still some benefits of a trust. If you have your brother/sister/wife/pet squirrel on the trust they can have access to the NFA items without you present.

That's a liability, not a benefit.

If you're out of town and your wife has to use an SBR + suppressor to fend off a home invader, you would call it a liability?

Edit: so ironic considering your screen name, which I didn't see at first.

How about when you send your MAC10 to a gunsmith in Nevada and the post office has the gun in their possession for 10 days?

Are you going to add the post office and the gunsmith to your trust?

Can anyone please tell me an example of a guy's wife being jailed for defending herself inside their home with her husband's NFA gun?

Or anything even remotely similar in any way?

I mean from today going back to 1934.

the whole subject is imaginary, a scummy lawyer put that bullshit up on his website and now it's a "gun factoid".

Posted: 1/9/2013 9:44:06 AM EST

[#21]

i just want to say -

I knew that this day was coming, trust members would be getting fingerprinted.

They were bound to re-establish control over who gets legal access to MGs via fingerprint and background check.

Somebody scrounged up this flukey loophole and the ATF is going to shut it down because it's not in keeping with the basic philosophy behind the 1934 law.

Posted: 1/9/2013 9:51:27 AM EST

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This is crap. I just had my trust drafted and I'm heading into the notary to have it executed today. If they do this it'll all be for naught.

There are still some benefits of a trust. If you have your brother/sister/wife/pet squirrel on the trust they can have access to the NFA items without you present.

That's a liability, not a benefit.

Only if you have a horrible family.

I disagree.

NFA firearms are reaching the point where they are becoming major financial investments.

I'd only put an immediate familiy member on a trust, and only if that person was a priimary user of the gun, somebody who was a regular and competent shooter of the item.

You'll always be happiest in life if "business is conducted in a businesslike manner".

Being casual about how money is disposed of is a fine way to fuck up your life.

This is relevant because a trust is a legal covenant, not just a permission slip to use a gun.

Meh. It's just money. My family doesn't get excited about it. Maybe I'm blessed.

Posted: 1/9/2013 9:56:05 AM EST

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This is crap. I just had my trust drafted and I'm heading into the notary to have it executed today. If they do this it'll all be for naught.

There are still some benefits of a trust. If you have your brother/sister/wife/pet squirrel on the trust they can have access to the NFA items without you present.

That's a liability, not a benefit.

Only if you have a horrible family.

The best of intentions...

No one will treat your firearms with the same respect, both for safety and legality, that you will. Allowing someone else unfettered access is just asking for trouble in one form or another. Remember, the trust is liable for whatever your trustee might decide to do with the guns while in their possession, be it accidental injury or death, or a legal violation they were not aware of in the first place.

There is no actual, practical benefit and the liability far outweighs the unusual and unlikely situation where this might prove useful.

Posted: 1/9/2013 10:19:32 AM EST

[#24]

My trustee and I shared a womb. I think we can share some guns. I don't have my third cousin on there.

When I do a restatement my dad is going on the trust.

Posted: 1/9/2013 10:19:49 AM EST

[#25]

Quoted:
Step 1. Close the trust/corp "loophole"
Step 2. Add all "assault weaopns" to the NFA registry.

Now even private sales will have to transfer on a Form 4, with a $200 tax and months of waiting.
New sales on a basic AR15 will incur a ~8+ month waiting period.

Smart. They're clearly playing chess.

I will disagree with your Step 2. As the process was started 6+ months ago to remove the CLEO sign off. I commented over in the NFA legal thread on this so just going to paste my comments here:

I know that the National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association (NFATCA) got the ball rolling on this. I'm not sure if this is what they specifically proposed but I do know that the DOJ/ATF have realized that they have approved NFA forms for a felon because they were using a trust for the application.

So looks like if this is approved, if you are using a trust or LLC aka entity for your applications the person that signs the forms also will have to submit a photo and fingerprints. Everyone will have to send a copy of all Forms that you would send to the NFA branch be sent to your CLEO (this is just like the C&R FFL). It removes the CLEO sign off requirement for individuals.

Now I wonder what the legal standing would be for the CLEO to keep those copies? I'm not aware of anything in law that would require CLEO to maintain or keep copies of NFA forms. Of course as it currently is I'm not sure if my CLEO made a copy when I submitted my forms in the past, or if they can legally keep them since they are a tax document.

With all the stuff in the news about those pistol permit holders in NY having their records release through FOIA, wonder if I could do a FOIA request to my sheriff's office and find out. Sounds like they could be violating some tax law by keeping a copy of the form?

Posted: 1/9/2013 10:31:35 AM EST

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This is crap. I just had my trust drafted and I'm heading into the notary to have it executed today. If they do this it'll all be for naught.

There are still some benefits of a trust. If you have your brother/sister/wife/pet squirrel on the trust they can have access to the NFA items without you present.

That's a liability, not a benefit.

If you're out of town and your wife has to use an SBR + suppressor to fend off a home invader, you would call it a liability?

Edit: so ironic considering your screen name, which I didn't see at first.

How about when you send your MAC10 to a gunsmith in Nevada and the post office has the gun in their possession for 10 days?

Are you going to add the post office and the gunsmith to your trust?

Can anyone please tell me an example of a guy's wife being jailed for defending herself inside their home with her husband's NFA gun?

Or anything even remotely similar in any way?

I mean from today going back to 1934.

the whole subject is imaginary, a scummy lawyer put that bullshit up on his website and now it's a "gun factoid".

Clearly it was an extreme example. I don't have any case law on it. How about this. Your wife is going to a carbine/AK class and would like to use your SBR.
You will be at home watching the kids. Sure, you could send her with a Title 1 gun. I'm just saying, there are clearly some things available with a Trust that you don't have with an individual transfer.

Posted: 1/9/2013 10:35:09 AM EST

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Step 1. Close the trust/corp "loophole"
Step 2. Add all "assault weaopns" to the NFA registry.

Now even private sales will have to transfer on a Form 4, with a $200 tax and months of waiting.
New sales on a basic AR15 will incur a ~8+ month waiting period.

Smart. They're clearly playing chess.

I will disagree with your Step 2. As the process was started 6+ months ago to remove the CLEO sign off. I commented over in the NFA legal thread on this so just going to paste my comments here:

I know that the National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association (NFATCA) got the ball rolling on this. I'm not sure if this is what they specifically proposed but I do know that the DOJ/ATF have realized that they have approved NFA forms for a felon because they were using a trust for the application.

So looks like if this is approved, if you are using a trust or LLC aka entity for your applications the person that signs the forms also will have to submit a photo and fingerprints. Everyone will have to send a copy of all Forms that you would send to the NFA branch be sent to your CLEO (this is just like the C&R FFL). It removes the CLEO sign off requirement for individuals.

Now I wonder what the legal standing would be for the CLEO to keep those copies? I'm not aware of anything in law that would require CLEO to maintain or keep copies of NFA forms. Of course as it currently is I'm not sure if my CLEO made a copy when I submitted my forms in the past, or if they can legally keep them since they are a tax document.

With all the stuff in the news about those pistol permit holders in NY having their records release through FOIA, wonder if I could do a FOIA request to my sheriff's office and find out. Sounds like they could be violating some tax law by keeping a copy of the form?

I hope Step 2 isn't going to happen. But Feinstein is already on record saying that she wants to add all the 120 "named" and guns that fail the 1 feature criteria to the NFA.

http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/files/serve/?File_id=10993387-5d4d-4680-a872-ac8ca4359119

Requires that grandfathered weapons be registered under the National Firearms
Act, to include:
o Background check of owner and any transferee;
o Type and serial number of the firearm;
o Positive identification, including photograph and fingerprint;
o Certification from local law enforcement of identity and that
possession would not violate State or local law; and
o Dedicated funding for ATF to implement registration

Posted: 1/9/2013 10:54:13 AM EST

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted:
Is it retroactive for existing trusts? And do you have to submit photos and fingerprints per-item or when forming the trust?

No, it wouldn't and couldn't be retroactive.

Yeah but if you buy anything new then boom you have to submit EVERYTHING.

Whose to say you don't take everyone off and then reedit your trust afterwards?

This is fucking retarded.

Posted: 1/9/2013 11:37:19 AM EST

[#29]

If they close the "Trust/corps" loophole, they better do a better job in it. I wouldn't mind if I only have to submit photo/finger prints ONE time, not every time. I'm sure the ATF and FBI have computers that can save that information.

Posted: 1/9/2013 11:54:32 AM EST

[#30]

Quoted:
If they close the "Trust/corps" loophole, they better do a better job in it. I wouldn't mind if I only have to submit photo/finger prints ONE time, not every time. I'm sure the ATF and FBI have computers that can save that information.

I am fine with it if they bring the registry up to 21st century standards. Online submission, payment via credit card, instant (or measured in weeks) approvals. This mailing of paperwork is ludicrous. 1930s technology, literally.

Posted: 1/9/2013 12:02:19 PM EST

[#31]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they close the "Trust/corps" loophole, they better do a better job in it. I wouldn't mind if I only have to submit photo/finger prints ONE time, not every time. I'm sure the ATF and FBI have computers that can save that information.

I am fine with it if they bring the registry up to 21st century standards. Online submission, payment via credit card, instant (or measured in weeks) approvals. This mailing of paperwork is ludicrous. 1930s technology, literally.

Yeah if they would allow us to submit it ONCE then allow us to apply online. It would make things so much easier and faster. I'm sure they have computers that can match picture IDs, finger prints and info.

Posted: 1/9/2013 12:02:35 PM EST

[#32]

Quoted:

Quoted:
If they close the "Trust/corps" loophole, they better do a better job in it. I wouldn't mind if I only have to submit photo/finger prints ONE time, not every time. I'm sure the ATF and FBI have computers that can save that information.

I am fine with it if they bring the registry up to 21st century standards. Online submission, payment via credit card, instant (or measured in weeks) approvals. This mailing of paperwork is ludicrous. 1930s technology, literally.

Seriously...

Posted: 1/9/2013 1:26:28 PM EST

[#33]

Looks like the proposal is intended to take effect by July 2013, Not sure what the public comment period is.
I should imagine they have some sensitivity to congressional inquiry, ie YOUR congress person might take an interest in such " Rule-making" by the executive branch.
.
Parenthetically, my last reading of the US condstitution did not show provision for the executive branch of our government to introduce nor enact legislation .

Posted: 1/9/2013 1:36:34 PM EST

[#34]

tag

Posted: 1/9/2013 2:25:39 PM EST

[#35]

The gun grabbers certainly have been preparing well. One of the most obvious legal challenges to the new AWB was going to be needing CLEO approval for 200,000,000 guns today, and the prospect of CLEOs just saying no.

This conveniently prevents that, and just in time.

Never forget that in the past, NFATCA big wigs have been paid ATF informants. NFATCA isn't just in bed with the enemy, they are the enemy also.

Posted: 1/9/2013 2:38:02 PM EST

[#36]

Quoted:
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43

The proposal for CLEO signoff elimination has now reached the stage of "proposed rulemaking." That means the clock is running for official adoption.

The upside is that CLEO signoffs will no longer be required for Forms 1 or 4. The signoff will be replaced by a CLEO "notification."

The downside is that all "responsible persons" of trusts and corporations will have to submit photographs and fingerprints, and have a background check done.

These two things, together, eliminate most of the incentive for forming NFA trusts. This also means a slightly lighter workload for ATF.

I have not yet received notice in the federal register regarding this proposed rule. This is a terrible rule.

Posted: 1/9/2013 2:39:42 PM EST

[#37]

Quoted:

Quoted:
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43

The proposal for CLEO signoff elimination has now reached the stage of "proposed rulemaking." That means the clock is running for official adoption.

The upside is that CLEO signoffs will no longer be required for Forms 1 or 4. The signoff will be replaced by a CLEO "notification."

The downside is that all "responsible persons" of trusts and corporations will have to submit photographs and fingerprints, and have a background check done.

These two things, together, eliminate most of the incentive for forming NFA trusts. This also means a slightly lighter workload for ATF.

I have not yet received notice in the federal register regarding this proposed rule. This is a terrible rule.

Are they throwing us a bone with the elimination of signoff but sticking it to Trusts?

Posted: 1/9/2013 2:55:47 PM EST

[#38]

Quoted:
Screw that.

This

Posted: 1/9/2013 3:00:53 PM EST

[#39]

Quoted:

Quoted:
http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43

The proposal for CLEO signoff elimination has now reached the stage of "proposed rulemaking." That means the clock is running for official adoption.

The upside is that CLEO signoffs will no longer be required for Forms 1 or 4. The signoff will be replaced by a CLEO "notification."

The downside is that all "responsible persons" of trusts and corporations will have to submit photographs and fingerprints, and have a background check done.

These two things, together, eliminate most of the incentive for forming NFA trusts. This also means a slightly lighter workload for ATF.

I have not yet received notice in the federal register regarding this proposed rule. This is a terrible rule.

Are they throwing us a bone with the elimination of signoff but sticking it to Trusts?

It's none of the Cleo business what people have. Period.

Posted: 1/9/2013 6:27:14 PM EST

[#40]

Dumb question-

what happens to all the pending applications still backlogged in the system come the propsed July 2013 implementation date of these "new, proposed" regs.-- do they have to start over? Any thoughts?

Posted: 1/10/2013 2:22:05 AM EST

[#41]

I'm calling my representatives' offices today and telling them that the BATFE intends to enact new laws, outside of congress, to force fingerprinting and photographing of gun owners, as well as establishing local gun registration databases, where neither were required before.
Just think: you'll have to notify the local cleo when you buy an NFA item, and then if the gun grabbers get their way you'll have to register everything as an NFA item. All those small local databases of registered guns will go a long way to help spread out the work load of disarming people.

Posted: 1/10/2013 3:45:19 AM EST

[#42]

I'm calling my representatives' offices today and telling them that the BATFE intends to enact new laws, outside of congress, to force fingerprinting and photographing of gun owners, as well as establishing local gun registration databases, where neither were required before.

Just think: you'll have to notify the local cleo when you buy an NFA item, and then if the gun grabbers get their way you'll have to register everything as an NFA item. All those small local databases of registered guns will go a long way to help spread out the work load of disarming people.

This is severely misguided (as well as being dishonest and misleading). The proposed change is long-awaited and beneficial for many potential NFA owners. Rants like this are divisive, confusing, and give our side a bad name.

Posted: 1/10/2013 4:28:52 AM EST

[#43]

Quoted:

I'm calling my representatives' offices today and telling them that the BATFE intends to enact new laws, outside of congress, to force fingerprinting and photographing of gun owners, as well as establishing local gun registration databases, where neither were required before.

Just think: you'll have to notify the local cleo when you buy an NFA item, and then if the gun grabbers get their way you'll have to register everything as an NFA item. All those small local databases of registered guns will go a long way to help spread out the work load of disarming people.

This is severely misguided (as well as being dishonest and misleading). The proposed change is long-awaited and beneficial for many potential NFA owners. Rants like this are divisive, confusing, and give our side a bad name.

It may be a little unfounded, but if those of us with trusts are getting thrown under the bus in the long run, then I'm not a huge fan of it...
I got a trust because our sheriff wouldn't sign forms, and he never gave a reason why, probably because he was a grumpy old codger.
Later, towards the end of his term, he started signing because he had been alienating a chunk of his constituency, but he didn't get re-elected.
New sheriff supposedly signs anything, but I still use my trust, because I don't have to do the whole ID/fingerprint runaround.

Posted: 1/10/2013 4:37:28 AM EST

[#44]

If you live in an area where the CLEO wouldn't sign off previously, then odds are he won't like the fact that he no longer has that authority with this reg. He can't stop you since all you have to do is mail a notification, but I can see where he could make a list (even if it is a mental list) of people who have NFA items.

On the flip side, people who set up a trust specifically to skip the CLEP step will now have to notify the CLEO.

Posted: 1/10/2013 8:19:36 AM EST

[#45]

Quoted:

I'm calling my representatives' offices today and telling them that the BATFE intends to enact new laws, outside of congress, to force fingerprinting and photographing of gun owners, as well as establishing local gun registration databases, where neither were required before.

Just think: you'll have to notify the local cleo when you buy an NFA item, and then if the gun grabbers get their way you'll have to register everything as an NFA item. All those small local databases of registered guns will go a long way to help spread out the work load of disarming people.

This is severely misguided (as well as being dishonest and misleading). The proposed change is long-awaited and beneficial for many potential NFA owners. Rants like this are divisive, confusing, and give our side a bad name.

Sorry but this change is fucking us. You think wait times are bad now? LLCs/Trusts having to submit all of that documentation/photos/fingerprints for members isn't going to shorten the already insane times we have now. This isn't benefiting anyone.

Posted: 1/10/2013 8:30:09 AM EST

[#46]

Quoted:
This isn't benefiting anyone.

NFATCA benefits. They are reaching across the aisle to compromise and receive a pat on the head by the ATF.

Posted: 1/10/2013 8:52:40 AM EST

[#47]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This isn't benefiting anyone.

NFATCA benefits. They are reaching across the aisle to compromise and receive a pat on the head by the ATF.

I don't know enough about NFATCA, but I suspect there is a group of NFA collectors out there that have no interest in seeing NFA eroded because that would reduce the value of their collections. I wonder how hand in hand NFATCA is with such groups.

Posted: 1/10/2013 9:30:57 AM EST

[#48]

Quoted:

Quoted:
This isn't benefiting anyone.

NFATCA benefits. They are reaching across the aisle to compromise and receive a pat on the head by the ATF.

I don't know enough about NFATCA, but I suspect there is a group of NFA collectors out there that have no interest in seeing NFA eroded because that would reduce the value of their collections. I wonder how hand in hand NFATCA is with such groups.

That's certainly possible, but it doesn't really matter because there is no way on God's green earth that the NFA registry will ever open up again.

The first job of any politician is to get re-elected and none of them is going to burn any political capital on the subject.

Personally, I would not invest too heavy in NFA guns because they could always be grandfathered out of existence like was done with "assault weapons" in California.

Posted: 1/10/2013 9:35:15 AM EST

[#49]

Quoted:

I'm calling my representatives' offices today and telling them that the BATFE intends to enact new laws, outside of congress, to force fingerprinting and photographing of gun owners, as well as establishing local gun registration databases, where neither were required before.

Just think: you'll have to notify the local cleo when you buy an NFA item, and then if the gun grabbers get their way you'll have to register everything as an NFA item. All those small local databases of registered guns will go a long way to help spread out the work load of disarming people.

This is severely misguided (as well as being dishonest and misleading). The proposed change is long-awaited and beneficial for many potential NFA owners. Rants like this are divisive, confusing, and give our side a bad name.

Sorry but this change is fucking us. You think wait times are bad now? LLCs/Trusts having to submit all of that documentation/photos/fingerprints for members isn't going to shorten the already insane times we have now. This isn't benefiting anyone.

This is my gripe! The paperwork load is going to go up by an order of magnitude. An individual is only going to have a single set of prints/photos, whereas now a trust/corp could have anything from one to ten or even more sets.
Without additional funding to the NFA Branch, or a overhaul/modernization I just fear that this will mean wait times well north of a year.

Posted: 1/10/2013 10:10:15 AM EST

[#50]

How will existing trusts who choose not to submit pic/prints be treated? We've already paid our tax. They shouldn't be able to revoke our stamp for a tax already paid. I can see not allowing new approvals without submission.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - CLEO signoff elimination going forward (Page 1 of 7)

Armory » General NFA Questions

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us