CLEO signoff possibly going away?

J

jim/boston

NES Member
Joined
Jan 9, 2007
Messages
453
Likes
104
Location
a little north of Boston
Feedback: 14 / 0 / 0
Some internet chatter has raised my hopes about the required CLEO signoff for NFA being dropped. This would simplify my life greatly; as well as probably cause me to spend even more on NFA. Anyone else agree?
 
jim/boston said:
Some internet chatter has raised my hopes about the required CLEO signoff for NFA being dropped. This would simplify my life greatly; as well as probably cause me to spend even more on NFA. Anyone else agree?
Click to expand...

Hey if anyone can pull it off it would be NFATCA...I am as they say "cautiously optimistic"...

Jeff <[email protected]>
Date: 1/26/11 14:15

Folks,
Glad to see the enthusiasm building. I am the person who penned the original citation. I am not the President of NFATCA, though. I am the Executive Director.

We have been hammering away at this for years and have finally achieved enough traction to get this out of ATF and onto DoJ's desk. This has *never* happened in previous efforts and should be considered a milestone. While it is not a done deal, all signs are looking good. And I would not be surprised to see positive action by DoJ before the end of the year. Some background:

ATF had previously fought the removal of the signature requirement for a variety of reasons. Some of those made a little sense, some made none, and others were just statements of what is. Several things have happened between now and then. First and foremost is the Heller and McDonald decisions by SCOTUS. Situations that intentionally deprive people of their Constitutional rights are being scrutinized a bit differently these days. But for a signature, folks who are legally able to acquire these items cannot and have no recourse or due process. That's dicey in this day and age. More importantly, folks figured out that they could legally form trusts and other legal person constructs to eliminate the signature provision. There are still very good reasons for going this route, but we were able to prove that convicted felons and the like (otherwise know as prohibited persons) were coming into possession of both Title I ans II weapons by using this route. That put ATF in the unenviable position of approving transfers that they shouldn't have.

Now we have NICs and much better systems and the idea is to utilize the best systems that we currently have and not perpetuate a system that serves no purpose. Moreover, that federal requirement for the signature was not supported at the local level: "fulfill this federal obligation using your local resources" doesn't sit well with Sheriffs. So now the gist is to have the NFA form behave like an FFL form. The Sheriff gets notified and there's not a damn thing he/she can do about it. I doubt many Sheriffs are gonna go through the pain of setting up a shiny new filing system to track bad guns in their jurisdictions because the funds just are not there. The NICS thing being done on the physical transfer for a trust, corp, etc. is, IMO, a good idea.

This is not a done deal yet. But it is getting close. And the net result is that a whole lot of folks that have never been able to own these weapons are going to be able to do so without having to go kiss the ring of a CLEO. I think that is good for all of us. I'm happy to answer questions if I can...
Click to expand...
 
glide said:
Any updates on this?
Click to expand...

I am really not trying to sound like an A-HOLE, but this was just posted on the 26th of Jan (2 weeks ago)...If you want to play in NFA you need patience...read the "letter" he is hoping for action by the end of the year, its the second week of February...patience my friend, patience
 
Now if they could eliminate the form entirely and let it happen with a NICs check we would be even closer to where it should be
 
In MA, there is still a required MG license so the whole thing still hinges on CLEOs. For all the other "free" states, this would be a great thing for NFA.

Four months and counting in this firearm hellhole.
 
But if this were to go through at least the MA CLEO wouldn't have approve each and every purchase. If he/she approves the green card you 're good to go thereafter.
 
While this is a milestone, people would still have to wait for months for the tax stamp (permission slip) from the BATF. Sickening we have to ask our "masters" for permission! Having to ask for the tax stamp is what keeps me from buying the good stuff.
 
Wait wut? So I can save the money on a trust for now and just fill out the Form 1, this might have just gotten expensive.

Oddly enough I opened this sub forum because I was just going to ask if anyone from Wareham has begged to build a SBR, I get the itch like once a month to look closer at it.
 
01SVTvert said:
Guessing this is going to go into some black hole and not see the light of day until it is brought up next year again... With BO in charge I don't see this getting through.
Click to expand...

Sounds like it's a done deal to me, (although it may be a whole before the forms are out) but it has been approved. It would be really dumb for Obama to try to block it IMHO and I'm not even sure how he would so. He's as antigun as they come, but he's also looking to be re-elected.

So, here's the question for the legal experts - for us here in MA - how does this change things in terms of SBRs? I've wanted one for a long time, but my CLEO (who gave me a class a with no restrictions) won't approve any "weird stuff" - am I'm going to just be able to send in the Form and pay my $200?? Thanks!
 
This is great news. An NFA trust still has a lot of advantages (multiple custody of an item, easier inheritance, etc) but this cuts down on a bunch of red tape for those of us who don't have a trust.
 
jar said:
There are still advantages to a trust. Also, moving an NFA item in to a trust later costs another tax stamp.
Click to expand...

I can see myself doing a trust when I am ready to start collecting stamps, but for now, I just really want a short rifle.
 
Mass-diver said:
Sounds like it's a done deal to me, (although it may be a whole before the forms are out) but it has been approved. It would be really dumb for Obama to try to block it IMHO and I'm not even sure how he would so. He's as antigun as they come, but he's also looking to be re-elected.

So, here's the question for the legal experts - for us here in MA - how does this change things in terms of SBRs? I've wanted one for a long time, but my CLEO (who gave me a class a with no restrictions) won't approve any "weird stuff" - am I'm going to just be able to send in the Form and pay my $200?? Thanks!
Click to expand...

If and when this goes through you will just fill out the form and send in your 200.00.....if you want an SBR now, just use a trust, fill out the form, and send in your 200.00! easy peasy lemon squeezy. Only MG's will be hung up because in MA you would still need a MG license (which is controlled by the COP). Have fun!
 
Looks like fingerprint cards will be needed as part of this chage for trusts, and a NICS check I think was also mentioned. Makes sense to trade the backround check on all trust forms for the drop of the CLEO part.
 
Johnny D said:
Just for broken record. Chief Signature is no longer required and I just fill out the form pay $200 and wait and I can finally get a SBR?

WINNING!

Too bad they can't put a new PDF online
Click to expand...

(From what I have read) in all likelihood, YES it's going away - but it could be a while (a year plus) before the new forms are out, and then we can expect a big back log as tons and tons of people send in Form 1s.
 
So, since my CLEO will sign anything as long as I let him try it out, I should do a Form 1 now to beat the rush when the signoff requirement does go away?
 
01SVTvert said:
Looks like fingerprint cards will be needed as part of this chage for trusts, and a NICS check I think was also mentioned. Makes sense to trade the backround check on all trust forms for the drop of the CLEO part.
Click to expand...

01SVTvert -Can you please cite a source for this info? I have been unable to find more details on this. It would be a blow to NFA trusts if that was true. I can see anti-gun CLEO's trying to use the finger print policy to subvert class-3 approvals.
 
KMM696 said:
So, since my CLEO will sign anything as long as I let him try it out, I should do a Form 1 now to beat the rush when the signoff requirement does go away?
Click to expand...
I have a CLEO like that. Before I decided to let my C&R lapse, I would send my renewal notice letters to him with, "Hey, Doug. It's that time again. When do you want to go shooting?"

Of course, this is a town of 2,600 and if there weren't trees in the way I could hit his house with a rock from my back yard.

Oh, and it's also northeast Texas. That might make a difference. [wink]
 

Similar threads

Westfield eForm 1 CLEO
Replies
4
Views
270
ayylamo2131
A
eForm 1 CLEO info for MA?
Replies
23
Views
776
Lxpony
Lxpony
CLEO Notification: Better to address to CLEO or Department Firearms Designee
Replies
5
Views
646
amm5061
A
Notification instead of signoff?
Replies
14
Views
4K
Bdh821
B
Green towns for CLEO signature
Replies
6
Views
2K
Nation On Fire
N
Back
Top Bottom