CLEO Signoffs Near Gone

[starlingstalker]

The ultimate goal of the new regs will come at a price with a forecasted net loss somewhere/somehow. It's obvious that the trusts are running the NFA branch crazeeeeeeeee. ALL for Me and None for You is Coming! If they could ultimately eliminate the multiple possession provision or even the trust altogether and toss us hungry dogs a skinny boner, from a regulatory viewpoint-that's what I would pursue as an ultimate goal from a bureaucratic standpoint. The ongoing trusts ARE a work around for all those no sign LEOs that have NO clue what You will own. I have MAJOR REPEAT MAJOR reservations that the local LEOs will have some official federal notice to the local SO/PD permanently on file that flags me/You for a bit of scrutiny every time there is an emergency call with a gun crime in progress and I'm innocently close by. I'd rather keep my trusty ol trust and anonymity flying well under the local radar instead of "Yeah, there's a belt fed, some SMGs and silencers at "that" address" every time they drive by. I'm not worried about the feds. The locals are a "lot" closer. And it's MOSTLY none of their damn business, anyway. starlingstalker

[GTFord1]

Who would have predicted this?

[libertyman777]

people were using them to illegally take wildlife. Hollywood has been responsible for the criminalization of silencers.

false, the dnr WERE FEARFUL that people would poach during the great depression

So there never was a problem? The restriction of silencers is based on hypothetical fears? I've heard the .gov did not like the idea of anyone being self-reliant for food, etc. during the Great Depression. The .gov wants complete dependency of the sheeples, not independent thought and action.

The Great Depression predates me but I have heard the stories from my grandparents. They all lived in the rural South. They were already subsistence farmers and noticed very little change in their standard of living. Larger changes were seen during Reconstruction and Prohibition. It was bad here during Reconstruction but more cash was available in the local economy during Prohibition because of those that were profiting from the lack of commercial spirits.

I said all this to comment on poaching. Most poaching where I am from was/is accomplished at night. The problem was not with the report of the rifles, most used .22 shorts (the same round used to kill hogs/cattle at home) but was with the spotlight. People calling the game wardens were calling because they were seeing lights where they weren't supposed to be, not gunshots.

Don't know if this relates to suppressor laws when they were initially passed but the reasoning given has never made sense to me. It may have been different in other parts of the country.

[kwikrnu]

I seriously doubt this is going to happen. They have been considering this for years and years. If it does happen I would almost be tempted to buy a silencer as an individual so my sheriff would be notified.

[hammertime]

I have done all of my stuff as an individual. I can always move my gear into a trust if need be. I don't mind being fingerprinted. I'm all for this change if it happens. If it doesn't happen - i'll just keep on keeping on.

Bryant

[JacksonBrowne]

I don't care for CLEO 'notification'. They have no business knowing my business; that was one of the reasons I did a trust in the first place.

[SRM]

I don't care for CLEO 'notification'. They have no business knowing my business; that was one of the reasons I did a trust in the first place.

Someone always knows what you have. When you play with the goverment....

[JacksonBrowne]

The fewer the better I think.

[libertyman777]

Someone always knows what you have. When you play with the goverment....

Truth. If you want to know what they know, apply for an 01FFL. They know it all.

[ANGST]

Any updates on this at all ?

[Abiqua]

I have done all of my stuff as an individual. I can always move my gear into a trust if need be.

At $200 a pop.

[colombianito1021]

I have done all of my stuff as an individual. I can always move my gear into a trust if need be.

At $200 a pop.

Would it not be $400 an item? Just like if you were transferring it to a different party?

[doubloon]

Those notification forms are gonna piss off a lot of CLEOs who have refused for years. I love it!

And cut into their take. The first and only time I used a sheriff signoff he asked me to give him $50 for the signature.

I doubt it will piss off the ones that refused to sign, they didn't want to hassle with it before so I can't see why they'd be pissed about the permanent elimination of the hassle.

There are numerous jurisdictions that require the payment of a processing fee but I'm sure they'll easily be able to make up that revenue in speeding tickets.

[WasDustyJacket]

I have done all of my stuff as an individual. I can always move my gear into a trust if need be.

At $200 a pop.

Would it not be $400 an item? Just like if you were transferring it to a different party?

In state transfer w/o a dealer = $200

[wildfowler]

I have done all of my stuff as an individual. I can always move my gear into a trust if need be.

Why would anyone "need" to move their individually transferred items onto a trust? I could see using a trust for new purchases down the road.

[doubloon]

I have done all of my stuff as an individual. I can always move my gear into a trust if need be.

Why would anyone "need" to move their individually transferred items onto a trust? I could see using a trust for new purchases down the road.

Multiple handlers, "sharing" NFAs without transfers?

[Freefaller]

Has there been any more momentum on the elimination of the CLEO signature?

[stevejobs]

Nope.

[Twinsen]

Well hey, bad things happen to those that wait. No wait... I got that wrong. Nothing happens to those to wait.

[JohnInNH]

I have done all of my stuff as an individual. I can always move my gear into a trust if need be.

Why would anyone "need" to move their individually transferred items onto a trust? I could see using a trust for new purchases down the road.

Multiple handlers, "sharing" NFAs without transfers?

Bypass Probate and get to the beneficiary faster. Less BS after you die. It will prevent you goodies from becoming Contraband!

Having a well written NFA gun trust can be very good to have for those who will be getting them or those next in line.

[Dogtired]

It may have a more nefarious plot. The Sheriff is the Highest elected law enforcement officer in the land, and does not need to be compelled to action but the President himself.

Stolen from Wikipedia:
In the United States, a sheriff is a county official and is typically the top law enforcement officer of a county. Historically, the sheriff was also commander of the militia in that county.

For us tin foil hat types, it may be NWO stuff...

[Emilio]

I rather see the ATF clean up their stupid laws and make it simpler. (like import guns)

[silencertalk]

If this is true, maybe they want fewer people to do trusts. Maybe they want more checks for $200.

[RogaDanar]

If this is true, maybe they want fewer people to do trusts. Maybe they want more checks for $200.

The government figuring out ways to take MORE money from us? Say it ain't so!!

[Freefaller]

Is there actually progress being made?

I've seen this pop up on a few different places:

CLEO Requirement to be Discontinued

For enthusiasts of NFA-controlled firearms (e.g., machine guns, short barrel rifles and shotguns, suppressors), the requirement to get the local chief of police or sheriff's approval on the required Form 1 or Form 4 has been a problem. Started at the inception of the National Firearms Act, the idea was to get the person in front of the chief or sheriff - who was expected to know the "problem children" in his or her jurisdiction - to keep wackos from getting these special weapons. In the 30s through the 70s, that was potentially appropriate: there was no national computer database available at all hours to get criminal histories.

Now, someone buying a .22 rifle can have the National Instant (Background) Check (NICS) and leave the gunshop in fifteen minutes.

Since the CLEOs (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) approval was based on that person's supposed knowledge of local citizens and not whether or not the CLEO thought "people shouldn't own guns like that," it was (and is) often misused.

The National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association (NFATCA) has sought removal of the CLEO requirement for the last six years, according to NFATCA Executive Director and Board Member Jeff Folloder.

"There wasn't a lot of high profile aspects of the effort," he said in a phone interview. "It was a lot of drudgery and detail work trying to get the ATF to go along with removing that requirement."

They eventually did and ran the recommendation up to U.S. Department of Justice. The proposal was returned to NFA Branch for some clarifications. These were completed and the recommendation was sent back up.

Clearing the CLEO requirement off of Forms 1 and 4 has been approved by the DOJ. The revised Forms are being laid out and sent to Office of Management and Budget. They'll examine the proposed regulations and forms change and open the proceeding up for public comments. When that process is completed, they'll approve the printing run and disseminate the forms.

Something could happen to derail the process but it's not clear that anyone wants to. A problem does lurk if the proposed change - an apparently good thing - completes the bureaucratic process: There will be a run on NFA firearms from citizens who could legally own NFA guns but had a chief or sheriff who denied them the right.

Are there that many who were denied?

"The Harris County Sheriff (Texas) has never approved a Form 1 or Form 4," Mr. Folloder said. "That's potentially four million applications right there. Since there's a federal hiring freeze and the number of examiners will not increase, the increased applications will likely expand the time needed to get completed forms back from ATF/NFA."

He told people to be careful for what they wish. It looks like now we'll get it.

A call to the ATF's NFA branch for comment was not returned.

--Rich Grassi