i just don't see how the courts can allow one person to decided if you can have a certain weapon or not. I guess someone is going to have to sue to find out.

Wow.... I cannot for a second understand the logic in their ruling for the taxpayer privacy.
The government's stand is most CERTAINLY convoluted, as the NFA REQUIRES that the manufacture of an NFA firearm requires a PRE-PAID tax.
Yes, the government doesn't 'require' a person to make an NFA item, but since the NFA requires a tax for approval (in lieu of up to 10/10,000) to exercise what is a right, it should be as null and  void as a poll tax.

Thanks for the summary. I like how they found the process reasonable. Having one person decide if you can have something or not is not reasonable. Can they go back and argue the appropriateness of the ruling?

It seems that after this regulation there should be an opportunity for legal action based on two things.  The older legal actions that I have seen were all pre Heller.  Also this change in regulations makes CLEO signature mandatory for everyone.  How is  a complete ban based on the whim of your local LE legal after Heller?

That's what I mean. Hopefully is gets fixed. I know I would like to see none of these hoops to jump through, but if you had to have some a simple BC like on a 4473 should suffice for the trustees of the trust. I don't see why you would need anything more than that.

Even though the Heller case resulted in the 'individual right' determination, the Court did say that 'reasonable restrictions' were not and infringement.
But they failed to define what 'reasonable restrictions' were.

Again, if we go back to the Miller decision, and go with the definitions that they used, any regulation/restriction of MGs, SBRs, SBSs, that have been, are currently, or are used in the future, by the military are clearly exempt from regulation.

So while the Miller decision, which is the basis for what can be regulated and be within the constitutional boundaries set forth, does allow the government to regulate/restrict firearms, it's actually the opposite of what the gun grabbers believe it to be. A rifle chambered in say  .300 WSM, under the decision set forth in Miller, can be regulated/restricted because it fails to meet the requirements set forth by the Court in Miller, but an M-16/AR-15 cannot.

But getting any court to actually reinforce that definition through a suit against the gov't will be futile.

The Miller case reasoning was based on the militia clause of the 2nd Amendment. Justice Scalia, in the Heller decision, treated the militia clause as mere excess verbiage. I think it's kind of shaky to rely on Miller any more.

It would seem to me that requiring CLEO signoff would be a violation of equal protection under the law  (14th Amendment) since there is no consistency in application of the regulation.

"nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

Where it is otherwise legal, one CLEO within a state refuses to sign off where others in adjoining counties willingly sign off without issue.

I am no lawyer, but in my simple mind it seems this would provide an argument in state court and possibly even before the SCOTUS.

The question I have is where is the outrage and lobbying from the big commercial manufacturers and class III dealers?  How have there only been a 1000 comments posted on the atf proposed rule change?  This thread has more activity.

There are two important things to remember about the comment process

1. A single well worded and well researched comment means more than 100,000 comments saying "this rule change sux!!!!"
2. A well worded comment made near the end of the commenting period is best, as they would need to spend time evaluating it, potentially pushing the date this rule goes into effect back a little further.

I have seen precious few 'well-reasoned' (or even literate) comments on the Federal Register site.



I'm still drafting mine.

I posted a comment the 1st week and it never showed up.  I did get the confirmation page that it was received.

Edit:

Just checked and it is now posted, but I know for the first week or two it wasn't posted.

Conceeding those points to you, there has still been precious little publicity of the rules change from the big boys or the gun culture in general.  You'd think that there would be a grass roots social media movement like Magpul ran against the Colorado high cap ban, regardless of when these manufacturers submit their well worded, well reasoned, official comment.  Adding a CLEO certification to the trust process is going to crush sales and probably put some manufacturers and dealers out of business, and those in jeopardy of losing their livelihoods would be rallying the troops relentlessly.

This exactly. I have not yet posted, because I am still considering all the implications of the change. I am also waiting to hit them a little closer to the end of the period.

and 3. Comments made at the the end cannot be rebutted by other commentators who might be against us.

Ok, I didn't want to start another 41P topic so I'll raise this one from the dead. (Disclaimer: I have yet to venture into the NFA realm, but I'm concerned about my rights and future purchases of NFA items)

My question is, how is the rule change going to affect "Responsible Persons" living in different States?  For example, I live in Florida where short barreled shotguns are legal, my parents live in Indiana were SBS's are illegal.  If this rule change goes through, and my parents are on my trust as "Responsible Persons" (beneficiary), will my Form 1 for a SBS be denied?  Even though my parents are not in possession of the NFA item, they would not be able to get a CLEO sign-off on a SBS in Indiana.  The SBS would be stored in Florida.

How would this work with non-NFA friendly states/counties that need to sign-off for NFA friendly states?

Has this been address?  If not, should it be brought up in the comments?

Oh, and from what I've researched, my CLEO is a No-Sign CLEO so that's why I'm looking a the Trust changes.

No, responsible persons in different states has not been addressed by the ATF.  Yes, I have read some comments about that issue.  But more comments never hurt.

MIller is still the only case that restriction of certain classes of firearms is based on, and using the Court's reasoning in the majority opinion is still the best way to fix this garbage IMO.

I specifically addressed this issue in my comment. I live in Ohio and my brother (a responsible person on my trust) lives in Indiana, Your SBS example is precisely the one I used.