CLEO Signoff Going Away per ATF?


PDA






Bubbles
January 25, 2011, 10:22 AM
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."

If you enjoyed reading about "CLEO Signoff Going Away per ATF?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TexasRifleman
January 25, 2011, 11:43 AM
That's uhh... shocking to say the least. Certainly hope that's true.

ny32182
January 25, 2011, 11:48 AM
Hmm. If that is true I wonder if I could transfer them from trust to personal tax-free.

Bubbles
January 25, 2011, 03:40 PM
Hmm. If that is true I wonder if I could transfer them from trust to personal tax-free.
I doubt it. You and the trust are two different legal entities.

kenny87
January 25, 2011, 05:31 PM
I would say if this is true its because they really want to discourage trusts, I have heard they hate that method from a few people so eliminating this would basically make a individual registration a problem free method.

TexasRifleman
January 25, 2011, 06:16 PM
I would say if this is true its because they really want to discourage trusts

Maybe. It's also possible they fear some court action against the unfairness of needing the signature. There is some movement in California against "may issue" for exactly that.

Requiring the CLEO signature is for all practical purposes "may issue" for NFA items. Not everyone has the money or information handy to go the trust route.

May have nothing to do with that, but it's an interesting possibility.

lilguy
January 25, 2011, 06:50 PM
Has the CLEO sign off requirement been negated in all instances, such as a C+R license ?

smince
January 25, 2011, 06:52 PM
Has the CLEO sign off requirement been negated in all instances, such as a C+R license ? I didn't have to get a CLEO sign-off on my C&R. I just sent a copy of my application to mine and never heard anything back from them.

Carter
January 25, 2011, 06:59 PM
And when would this happen?

The Sheriff around here is Nazi about NFA items. Even fires his own employees if he finds out they have them or try to get them.

I'd also prefer not to spend the money on a trust if I didn't have to.

TexasRifleman
January 25, 2011, 07:08 PM
Has the CLEO sign off requirement been negated in all instances, such as a C+R license ?

There has never been a CLEO signoff requirement for a C&R.

As for when, seems still just a rumor at this point. The source quoted above is just a post on anther Internet forum.

Was hoping someone would contact NFATCA and ask.

GoingQuiet
January 25, 2011, 07:26 PM
I called ATF NFA branch and they knew nothing about this - so I'll put it in the "Hopeful" pile.

GoingQuiet
January 25, 2011, 07:27 PM
There has never been a CLEO signoff requirement for a C&R.

As for when, seems still just a rumor at this point. The source quoted above is just a post on anther Internet forum.

Was hoping someone would contact NFATCA and ask.
Texas - I believe what is being asked is the signature requirement on C&R eligible NFA firearms.

I've facilitated NFA transfers for a few customers for NON C&R NFA items and when they need a signature I point them in the right direction for that C&R Machinegun.

TexasRifleman
January 25, 2011, 07:44 PM
You are probably right. My mistake, didn't catch that.

springwalk
January 26, 2011, 01:42 AM
:rolleyes: Your crazy if you think the goverment will ever make it easier for their citizens to aquire an item that is so regulated to the point in which are silencers. As of late the Atf has been cracking down and tightening up on trusts cuz the local LE probably petitioned the ATF as a Trust is a run-around and a middle finger to them when they use the discreation to not sign-off on your toy purchase. Expect things to only get worse, not better in this ever dictatorial nation we live in:barf:.

UnknownGunMan
January 26, 2011, 02:12 AM
If you register your NFA items as a Corporation (Ex: LLC), you don't need no stinking CLEO signature :)

Girodin
January 26, 2011, 02:57 AM
The Sheriff around here is Nazi about NFA items. Even fires his own employees if he finds out they have them or try to get them.


That would probably make for very a nice law suit if it was the actual reason for a termination.

Bubbles
January 26, 2011, 03:30 PM
Ok, I got some more info from "the locals" this morning - it's amazing what one can find out when .gov is shut down for snow and we're all home and available for calls. :D

The big concern by ATF with LLC's and trusts is in-state Form 4's. There's really not a good way to do a background check on John Smith's RLT, and with a private party in-state transfer to a trust there's no CLEO, no FFL/SOT involved, no 4473, no NICS, NADA. This has folks at ATF in a bit of a tizzy. They can't go against the law on this and outright refuse to do transfers to trusts or corps, so they're trying to figure out the best way to 1) get the local CLEO involved without forcing a signoff (hence the "notification" requirement), and 2) force FFL/SOT's to run NICS on a trust tranfer.

Implementing this change will require an update to the CFR's, which were originally written decades ago, well before criminal records were computerized, and when the CLEO pretty much "knew" who the bad folks were in their jurisdictions. It's being billed as an update because now the feds have access to that info, but as I pointed out, they want the CLEO's to have these records (hence the change from "approval" to "notification" on a Form 1 or Form 4), and they want FFL/SOT's to run folks who buy from them via a trust through NICS.

There's a process for a CFR rule change including publishing the change, getting public comment, etc. This change is still in the earliest stages, but word is, it's coming.

Zoogster
January 26, 2011, 10:27 PM
would say if this is true its because they really want to discourage trusts,

That was my guess when I first heard about it awhile ago.
The ATF does not want a separate legal entity to own firearms. A separate legal entity is a lot harder to restrict, confiscate from, or otherwise manage in many situations.
Trusts can be drawn up in many different legal ways, some harder for the authorities to deal with than others.


I see bubbles acquired information would support that.




A trust can also name multiple trustees. Providing NFA firearm ownership to a whole group or multiple individuals. Multiple members of a family, a business, organization, group, etc



If John Doe creates a well made trust that technically owns the weapons they can cease to be his weapons, and so the ATF has to deal not with John Doe, but with the trust itself. Which may have multiple trustees that can put up a much better legal fight than John Doe alone ever would have.
If John Doe has multiple people named on the trust and passes away those weapons can still be managed by others on that trust.
If John Doe becomes a prohibited person and the trust is a separate legal entity with multiple trustees, those people still retain ownership and use of the property of the trust.
The government cannot come seize them as his assets because they are not his, they belong to a well written trust.
Doing so would be to the detriment of multiple trustees that are beneficiaries of the trust, and in no way connected to John Doe's legal troubles.
John Doe would simply be prohibited himself and not allowed to use the firearms still owned by the trust.



Trusts scare the ATF.
The proposed changes are more anti-gun not less.

The proposed changes may even make it quite difficult for multiple trustees to effectively use or manage assets owned by the trust.
If a NICs check is required each time the property changes hands between trustees it removes a primary benefit of a well written trust altogether.



A big result of the changes would be the ATF only has to deal with and strong arm individuals, not deal with complicated legal trusts which are their own entity and may be represented and backed by many people and multiple lawyers representing clients who have done nothing wrong and are still entitled to the items owned by the trust (such as NFA items.)
It is a lot easier to strong arm a lone individual, seize assets, bully, or get your way especially after charging them with a crime and locking them away from resources than to take on an entire separate entity with multiple members.

Bubbles
January 27, 2011, 12:53 AM
More from http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi?read=747127, straight from the horse's mouth:
Posted By: Jeff <jeff.folloder@nfatca.org>
Date: 1/26/11 14:15

In Response To: Interesting things afoot as re: CLEO (Wildman)

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...

Zoogster
January 27, 2011, 01:36 AM
Yes it appears the ATF wants to use the opportunity to remove many of the great options provided through a trust, which allows bypassing CLEO anyways and never notifies them.

Replacing it with a requirement to notify CLEO and local law enforcement of who owns such firearms, but not having to use a trust to avoid CLEO permission.
So then even people that go through a trust can be treated to their address being associated with NFA firearms and a need to treat the occupants as extra dangerous.


Citizens lose more than they gain in options.
How would it effect the ability to give multiple family members separate legal access and use of NFA firearms for example? (If registered to a single individual it can be illegal to let a family member borrow or use it by themselves, while a trust can provide use to more than one person.)

Davek1977
January 27, 2011, 04:48 AM
Your crazy if you think the goverment will ever make it easier for their citizens to aquire an item that is so regulated to the point in which are silencers. As of late the Atf has been cracking down and tightening up on trusts cuz the local LE probably petitioned the ATF as a Trust is a run-around and a middle finger to them when they use the discreation to not sign-off on your toy purchase. Expect things to only get worse, not better in this ever dictatorial nation we live in

"You're wrong, they will never make it easier for us" is easy enough to type, but how about actually adding something to SUPPORT that opinion? Others seem to be finding out info regarding the elmination of the CLEO signoff requirement, but all we got from you is " It won't happen". OK....now back that statement up with some sort of factual basis supporting it, because you're opinion runs contrary to the information becoming availble regarding this aspect of the NFA

waterhouse
January 27, 2011, 03:38 PM
Trusts scare the ATF.
The proposed changes are more anti-gun not less.

How so? It appears trusts will still be allowed, and people that don't have trusts and can't get CLEO sign off will now be able to get NFA items. If they traded trusts for no CLEO signature I could possibly see your point, but it looks like we are gaining something here without losing trusts.

If a NICs check is required each time the property changes hands between trustees it removes a primary benefit of a well written trust altogether.

It seems very early, and I haven't ready the exact language, but it appears at first glance that trustees will still be able to use said item. If the item is transferred to a different trust, (such as an in state sale), some sort of background check will be done.

As far as I can tell, this isn't the ATF's plan . . . the NFATCA wants it. If they are pleased with it, it sure seems like a positive to me.

MD_Willington
January 27, 2011, 09:47 PM
I'll have to admit, my Sheriff is an alright guy, he's pretty cool about this kind of stuff... too bad not everyone is.


You need to get the paperwork from the ATF and then float it by my office for review.

mopar92
January 31, 2011, 06:52 PM
I have always hated that a liberal CLEO could stop you from participating in a legal ownership of anything...

LemmyCaution
February 2, 2011, 03:22 PM
I have always hated that a liberal CLEO could stop you from participating in a legal ownership of anything...

And I've always hated that a conservative CLEO can, as well.


The change in this policy will help assure that otherwise law abiding citizens who are not necessarily chummy with or known to their local CLEO can exercise their rights. There are a lot of cases in rural areas where a negative relationship with the Sheriff while you were both in high school can come back to haunt you in adulthood. Given that the position of Sheriff is an elected one, there is plenty of opportunity for political hijinx from any political party against those they perceive to be their political enemies. Leaving the approval for something up to the whim of a single individual is never a recipe for equal protection of the law.

frankenstein406
February 2, 2011, 04:26 PM
So will this make it easier for us to get a silencer?

mopar92
February 3, 2011, 10:48 PM
Easier, a little. No signature saves me what, 10 minutes to the station?

Joe in fla
February 3, 2011, 11:31 PM
"I have always hated that a liberal CLEO could stop you from participating in a legal ownership of anything... "

No CLEO should be able to stop you from buying an NFA weapon. The government controls NFA weapons via their taxing authority, hence the $200 "tax" on NFA transfers. If it weren't for the 2nd Amendment they would have banned NFA weapons completely but the SA prohibits them from that so that had to settle with using their taxing authority to regulate them instead. The local CLEO shouldn't be able to block your NFA purchase and subsequent "tax" payment any more than he should be able to stop you from buying a pack of gum and paying tax on it!

The problem is that sheriffs have "discretionary powers" and can decide that they're simply not going to sign the paperwork just as most of them used to have the discretionary power not to issue Concealed Carry permits. Most states have now passed laws requiring that LE "shall issue" CC permits unless there is a legally sufficient reason not to. The same thing needs to happen with NFA transfer signatures. In light of the Heller ruling, I'm sure that if someone sued claiming that they were being denied their constitutional rights (per Heller) because a CLEO refused to sign for an otherwise legal transfer that they could win hands down. All it would take would before someone with enough money to pursue the case. I also think that if the Republicans win the next election with a good majority that there's a very good chance that Congress could be convinced to pass a bill requiring CLEOs to sign NFA transfers on a "shall issue" basis. Pointing out the tax revenue and manufacturing jobs created could also be a very compelling argument.

BUT to be fair to the CLEOs out there, I would like to point out that not all of them are denying signatures by choice. Handgun Control Incorporated has publicly threatened to sue any CLEO that approves a transfer if that gun is ever used in a crime. Consequently many just won't take the chance. I'm also sure that many are being pressured by their bosses (county counsel, mayor,etc) not to sign. More good reasons to press for a "shall issue" requirement regarding CLEO signatures! THEN the CLEOs would be immune from such suits since it would be part of their official job requirements.

rpd5127
February 15, 2011, 11:10 AM
I got an NFA Trust last year for $600. I have already used it 9 times and have had no problems. It's worth the $600 not to have to screw with my CLEO, who will sign for SBR's but nothing else.

geekWithA.45
February 15, 2011, 11:55 AM
The premise that one can own a fictitious legal entity that has more rights and less problems than their own natural person is truly perverse.

But if that's what our society decrees, well, then I recommend that we take maximum advantage of it.

I think I'll look into forming an "all lawful purposes" corporation whose primary purpose is to enhance my liberty and preserve my property.

CoRoMo
February 15, 2011, 03:48 PM
I got an NFA Trust last year for $600. .... It's worth the $600 not to have to screw with my CLEO...
That's the thing, this new idea strips you of that freedom. Now you'll have to go notify the CLEO. I'm in the camp of trust owned NFA gadgets too. I don't want to have to notify anyone that I haven't previously had to notify.

This is a step backward for me, a step forward for others.

nwilliams
February 15, 2011, 04:31 PM
OMG! Please tell me this is going to happen!

The one thing that has really me hesitating from going through the NFA process is the getting the CLEO signoff.

D Boone
February 18, 2011, 03:34 PM
I live in a funny state for nfa. I just sat down with my cleo the other day. All around nice guy. Much better than the last guy who wouldn't even see you, much less sign unless you were a political buddy. Still no idea whether he will sign anything. Trust makes me uneasy, I would prefer outright ownership, but I definitely understand why everyone uses them.

bbuddtec
February 18, 2011, 04:31 PM
Wouldn't buying a gun for a trust amount to a straw purchase?

smince
February 19, 2011, 09:13 AM
Wouldn't buying a gun for a trust amount to a straw purchase?Evidently not, as there are thousands legally out there :rolleyes:

General Geoff
February 19, 2011, 11:21 AM
Wouldn't buying a gun for a trust amount to a straw purchase?

You're not buying a gun for a trust. The trust is buying the gun. You are simply acting as an agent thereof by filling out the paperwork.

It's kind of like a corporate executive who decides the company needs a new copy machine. He signs a bunch of forms, but the company is buying the copier, not him.


I do agree that legal fictions can result in many a headache.

Zoogster
February 19, 2011, 07:57 PM
You're not buying a gun for a trust. The trust is buying the gun. You are simply acting as an agent thereof by filling out the paperwork.

It's kind of like a corporate executive who decides the company needs a new copy machine. He signs a bunch of forms, but the company is buying the copier, not him.


Exactly. It is a separate legal entity that the individual is merely acting on behalf of.

At the same time those assets don't belong to you, so you cannot count them as assets, qualify for loans (go into debt) based on them or all the similar things typical assets like a home or car give.
Just as you cannot be sued as an individual and lose them either, they are not yours they are the trust's assets.
You could go bankrupt and the trust would not be bankrupt, they could seize or require the liquidation of most of your stuff, put liens on it etc, yet those guns owned by the trust would be untouched.
The trust is a separate legal entity and would have to be sued itself.
You could have a divorce, and that $100,000 machinegun collection would still belong to the trust, not be an asset owned and hence divided or sold by the two people splitting up (though if they are a executor or trustee....which is normally one of the benefits of a trust, multiple legal users of what would otherwise only be legal for one person.)


The elite have been using trusts to get around a lot of things for centuries for the same reason, often well crafted by teams of lawyers.
That is why the whole so named "anti-trust" laws were created to make it more difficult to accomplish certain things.
Previously several different legal entities could avoid laws against a monopoly for example even though they were controlled by the same people because they were all different legal entities and so no one entity was technically forming a monopoly.

You lose all the benefits of owning an asset by having it belong to a trust, but you also lose the liabilities as well.
Trusts are all unique however, some are much better than others, and obviously if you can afford teams of high quality lawyers you can create the best.


What this would do is reduce some of the freedom trusts have regarding firearms, while requiring notifying a CLEO of ownership (and hence being known or in a database of local LEO as the owner of dangerous NFA items. You can be certain they will serve a warrant on someone known to own such items quite differently for example. Instead of a knock at the door, or minimal presence you might find your home subject to a tactical raid and death of your dogs by heavily armed men because of the increased perceived risk.)
Trusts are currently one of the ways to acquire the greatest amount of freedom with firearms.
Multiple people can also create a trust. You could make the Highroad trust, we could all donate $100 to it and be named trustees, and the trust could buy all types of NFA firearms we as trustees could then use.

I imagine that is one of the things they want to change. Thousands of us could have essentially mutual ownership (though legally the trust would own it) and afford things many of the individuals never could.

I know of aircraft, jets, yachts, and other things owned by trusts in similar fashion.
They are nobody's assets (except the trust's), but are available for use to all those acting on behalf of the trust.
It is like a corporation.
Of course adding too many executors or trustees can result in legal battles within the trust.
Likewise the entire trust could find itself in trouble because of someone acting on on its behalf.
So it shields the individual from some legal liabilities but opens up the assets to shared liabilities of those acting on behalf of the trust. On the same token a team of people bring together a more extensive legal defense of a trust than any long individual could.

Tirod
February 21, 2011, 10:20 AM
If a trust is composed of individuals who singly can bring detrimental actions while acting as an agent, then those powers need to be restricted and written into the trust. A trust of 1,000 people who own 100 full auto weapons and hosts a legal demo had better protect itself when a minor shoots a small full auto sub gun unsupervised, eh?

The freedoms collectively expressed in the trust are really a shield for some to act irresponsibly, which is exactly the point of anti-trust laws. Speculate that a group of ethnic extremists could create a trust to purchase a large number of full auto weapons without any notification to the BATF. Perfectly legal for them, horribly unsafe for the large urban area they live in when emerging from their status as moles and terrorists. "Like, who knew, man?" isn't acceptable from a Chief LEO in the aftermath.

A trust does NOT have the privacy rights of a citizen, which are notably absent in the Constitution. If the purpose of government is to prevent evil, and trusts were already shielding the identity of known felons circumventing anti-possession statutes, it's a requirement to notify an Authority Having Jursidiction, or it becomes liable by negligence.

The government acts like the shielded members of a trust already, their depredations and illegal acts are already a witness to what wrongs can occur. If that's fine by you, may I point out the Rangel Vote on NFA items in 1984 (how ironic is that?) Trusts have been circumventing laws since the 1880's, and are being used already to circumvent the lack a CLEO signoff. It's all about circumventing abuse of power, it can be abused to circumvent legal restrictions, too.

Life is a compromise, adding thousands of NFA owners whose rights were previously restricted illegally is better than complaining about a few non-existent losses of privacy that have no constitutional basis. Attempting to restrict knowledge that someone owns NFA items and participating in public forums about it seems a bit counterintuitive, to boot.

TexasRifleman
February 21, 2011, 10:25 AM
So now I'm wondering about this whole thing honestly. It came from one source, an NFA collectors group, and since then there has been nothing else.

Wonder if it was just rumor?

Bubbles
February 21, 2011, 10:36 AM
Nope, it'll just be a while. Remember that DoJ is kicking around the idea. Then they have to draft the new regulations, propose them, have a 90 day public comment period, etc.

Monkey_King
February 25, 2011, 11:24 PM
bubbles, I don't know that much about NFA trusts so this may be worded improperly. I have been considering a trust for a sbr. If this new rule/law passes would it retroactively register any NFA trusts or only new trusts with CLEO? I know it is a bit hypothetical since it hasn't happened yet, but you seem to know quite a bit about what is coming.

Bubbles
February 26, 2011, 11:53 PM
I don't know. It depends on how DoJ writes the rules.

sturmruger
February 27, 2011, 05:14 PM
This sounds like a good thing to me. I don't want to have to setup a trust, sounds like a lot of headaches to me.

mopar92
April 24, 2011, 01:45 PM
Any news on this? My examiner said she hadn't heard a thing about the sig going away! Strange!

GoingQuiet
April 24, 2011, 06:16 PM
Any news on this? My examiner said she hadn't heard a thing about the sig going away! Strange!
I don't mean to discount Jeff Folloder in his statement - but this falls in my "I'll believe it when ATF issues a press release on it" since it would make things a LOT easier and it would drive those who oppose our beliefs up the wall at the same time.

wally
April 24, 2011, 08:18 PM
Unless the fingerprint and photo requirements are removed as well the trust is sure a lot more convenient. I've done it both ways.

AlexanderA
April 25, 2011, 05:20 PM
Here in Fairfax County, VA, the Sheriff does the CLEO signoffs, and he has an established procedure for doing so. (It does add several weeks to the process.) In neighboring Arlington County and Alexandria, however, the CLEO's generally won't sign. People there almost have to use trusts to get NFA weapons.

What we need in Virginia is a procedure for CLEO signoff at the state level, the way they do it in Maryland. This takes the personal preferences of the Sheriff or the local Chief of Police out of the equation. After all, the State Police are already responsible for administering the after-the-fact state MG registration.

We have a pro-gun state Attorney General, Ken Cuccinelli, that would probably be willing to consider centralizing CLEO signoffs at the state level (I think it could be done administratively). But there would be no point in pushing the issue if the ATF is getting ready to abolish CLEO signoffs altogether.

Karl Hungus
April 26, 2011, 07:19 PM
So far I've been waiting five weeks for CLEO to sign my form 4s. I'm betting the ATF will abolish CLEO sign-off before my CLEO actually gets around to signing it.

Clockwerk
April 27, 2011, 12:48 PM
I just printed out a form for C&R and it says that it requires notification and signature from a CLEO as well also require a form be sent to the CLEO. :(

Maverick223
April 27, 2011, 01:12 PM
^Nope, you must only notify your local CLEO at the same time as you send in the form to the ATF (he has no say in the matter unless you have criminal charges pending and/or prior convictions). Furthermore you must request the original form from the ATF (free, just go to their document request page on their website), as a copy is not acceptable (at least not anymore).

:)

Clockwerk
April 27, 2011, 03:14 PM
OH so basically u send one completed form to the ATF and the second to your CLEO? Rather than obtaining a signature and then sending it off.

Maverick223
April 27, 2011, 06:56 PM
That's it. It's just a notification...not a permission slip. ;)

Clockwerk
April 27, 2011, 08:43 PM
Thank goodness haha! Now if they could do that for NFA items :(.

Maverick223
April 27, 2011, 09:52 PM
That's the idea. I certainly hope that it gets the nod because my CLEO doesn't grant requests for NFA items (but I will eventually set up a trust if all else fails). :cuss:

bpsig
April 27, 2011, 11:05 PM
I certainally hope so. my local leo has become a complete pc a wipe. giving me a lecture about harrassing his staff for calling on forms . Since they lost them and found. 3 months now way over days allotted to process and refusing to return. nor give good reason waiting on call back from atf and local state police maybe they can light up his oc but and make give back. going to do trust i guess so can bypass this b.s.
worried about damage local community would suffer ? *** FOR A SBR ?
When i have an issue suppressed m-4 at work.:banghead::cuss::fire:

up date finally got a person on phone. Wanted to know why needed it and was then told had to have there { leo departments } permission to own or buy. ugh nope you can't give me permission only say if have record or criminal . I hate election change overs people get in and don;t know laws or job. refuse to learn and follow them. thinely vealed contempt exhibited by leo heads for wanting them to either process forms or return them surely attitudes when trying to keep them from jail acts like they are beneath talking to me.

doom
April 28, 2011, 12:33 AM
I certainly hope this passes as well, Illinois only allows AOW's, and the thought of being able to add a forward pistol grip to an AR-pistol and possibly building my own pen-gun is tempting. This would really benefit people like myself that don't have $600+ to organize a well-written trust.

Cop Bob
April 28, 2011, 06:47 PM
I had a converstaion with a couple of ATF Agents a couple of months ago.. I asked them about difficulties in obtaining the proper licensing and paperwork for a suppressor.. they were actually quite nice and helpful.. They indicated to me that the CLEO sign off would NOT be required... but it still takes awhile to get it through the Federal process.. I have not started the process, but I expect to sometime in the near future...

Maybe the rumor is true...?

As far a CLEO sign off in my area, all the area chiefs got together many years ago and just came out with a joint multi-county wide policy, no ATF, Class III/NFA sign-offs period, even for LEO's....

However I have several friends who lately have bought Class III guns and were advised by the dealers that handled the transfers for them, to 1st go get a refusal from their CLEO, and demand the refusal in writing... then they were given what amounts to a form letter supplied by the dealer, and basically threaten them with legal action for denying them a Constitutional right guaranteed and allowed under Federal law... This they returned to their CLEO, who readily signed the ATF forms and they got their guns... Seems as though this got them off the hook within the long standing agreement... This was in Brazoria County I do believe..

I know that when I bought my 1st Machine Gun in the late 70's our chief would not, no way in heck sign even for his own officers... so we went to a LE friendly Federal Judge, whose only reply when asked was, "for you Boys, anything, where do I sign?"

We later got a Class III license through our gun shop, and transferred several more to ourselves as the owners of the shop, and when we closed up shop and surrendered our license, we were able to retain "Dealer Samples"... I kept them for many years until the price of transferable guns wet so high I cashed in on the profits...

Clockwerk
April 28, 2011, 07:32 PM
Thats a good thought /idea you got about going to the judge haha. You're not too far from me. I wonder if the CLEO in Houston is like that.

RadioHack
May 4, 2011, 12:04 AM
I hope this comes to pass, the CLEO's as a rule will not sign off on Form 1's.

mopar92
June 9, 2011, 09:26 PM
What do you mean as a rule, 2 sheriff's ,2 sign offs for me... Where's the rule?

AlexanderA
June 10, 2011, 02:48 AM
The Sheriff is often an elected official, the Police Chief is not. Depending on the sentiments of the area's voters (pro- or anti-gun), the Sheriff may be more (or less) likely to sign. We have a situation in Fairfax County, Virginia, where the Sheriff is the go-to guy for CLEO signoffs. He's actually established a procedure (with application forms available over the Internet) of conducting his own independent background investigation through designated people in his office. But he's pretty reasonable about it. This is somewhat surprising, since the area is generally antigun. I guess that one explanation for that is that, with the high prices of NFA items (especially machine guns), he realizes that he's dealing with a very affluent and influential segment of the population (think potential campaign contributions).

Nevertheless, it would be better if we could just dispense with the CLEO signoff requirement altogether. It does nothing that the ATF's own clearance process doesn't do.

mopar92
June 10, 2011, 07:25 AM
Oh trust me, I know... That's bs that they can stop you from what you are federally allowed...

BearAZ737
November 30, 2011, 04:35 PM
So I called my local police department last week to get the Chief LEO's signature and they finally called back today ( thanksgiving break for them too) and the man who handles these applications told me I didn't need the Deprtments signature!?!? He told me to send it in as is with everything else completed minus the signature and it would be ok?? Has anyone encountered this before?:confused: Won't the ATF just bounce it back to me?

DesertFox
November 30, 2011, 04:47 PM
Have you considered setting up a NFA trust for such items? I know that you do not need the CLEO sig in that instance.

Birch Knoll
November 30, 2011, 04:52 PM
They might be confusing it with an FFL application. Applicants are required to provide the CLEO with a copy of their FFL application, but the CLEO does not sign.

Yes, your Form 1 does require a CLEO signature, and it won't be processed without it. However, this does not mean that your CLEO must sign it. He can simply refuse to do so, if he wishes.

This is one reason people set up NFA trusts; no CLEO signature is needed.

Sam1911
November 30, 2011, 05:14 PM
You might want to read this: http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=569547

Wonders never cease!

jojo200517
November 30, 2011, 05:29 PM
Sam I remember that from a while back and went and read it again. Did it officially become true that you no longer need CLEO signoff on form 1's or form 4's?

According to what i'm finding over at the ATF's website you still need signature.

Q: Is the chief law enforcement officer required to sign the law enforcement certification on ATF Form 1 or ATF Form 4?

No, law enforcement officers can be compelled to sign the law enforcement certification under Federal or State law. However, ATF will not approve an application to make or transfer a firearm on ATF Forms 1 or 4 unless the law enforcement certification is completed by an acceptable law enforcement official who has signed the certification in the space indicated on the form.

Edit : linky to the above i quoted http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/national-firearms-act-firearms.html

BearAZ737
November 30, 2011, 05:43 PM
He knows its for an SBR and said "its how we've been doing it for years"??

Sam1911
November 30, 2011, 06:42 PM
Actually I don't know. I'd not be surprised that the ATF hasn't updated their website...but I haven't seen an official notice either. Perhaps Bubbles or one of our other SOT3 members can share anything they've heard on the subject.

BearAZ737
December 1, 2011, 03:07 PM
Sooo I called the ATF this morning and spoke to a lady who confirmed that you do still need the CLEO to sign off of your Form 1's & 4's.. I don't know why that guy is telling me I don't.

Does your local department have to do a background check before the CLEO signs off? Or is it just a authorization type deal? The man I am corresponding with thinks its a background check and wants the ATF to do it.. But I know that is not correct

Sam1911
December 1, 2011, 03:10 PM
Good job! Did she happen to say anything about the matter being under review?

BearAZ737
December 1, 2011, 03:23 PM
Unfortunately she hadn't, she just said fairly adamantly it is still a must or the forms will be sent back

GoingQuiet
December 1, 2011, 03:41 PM
Bubbles - like myself is an 02. :-p

The answer is YES CLEO signature still required on Form 1

Birch Knoll
December 1, 2011, 03:45 PM
Sooo I called the ATF this morning and spoke to a lady who confirmed that you do still need the CLEO to sign off of your Form 1's & 4's.. I don't know why that guy is telling me I don't.Because he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about.

Does your local department have to do a background check before the CLEO signs off? Or is it just a authorization type deal? If he'd just read the CLEO certification, he'd know: "I have no information indicating that the maker will use the firearm or device described on this application for other than lawful purposes. I have no information that Possession of the Firearm described in Item 4 on the Front of this Form would place the maker in Violation of State or Local Law."

Sam1911
December 1, 2011, 03:47 PM
Thanks GQ! That's what I was beginning to suspect.

BearAZ737
December 1, 2011, 04:35 PM
ttolhurst-
Thanks! I figured he was confused, I'm not sure how to tell him he is mistaken and that if they look me up the system or something they will know I'm good to go. He is being nice about it so I think I can explain it to him, just getting my facts in order first! You guys have been a huge help

30 cal slob
December 5, 2011, 11:12 AM
Yaay! :evil:

Longer wait times, boo! :banghead:

;)

got this in an e-mail this morning.


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

Grassi is editor of our companion news service The Tactical Wire (www.thetacticalwire.com)

wally
December 5, 2011, 11:19 AM
Better get off my duff and do those last two SBR forms this weekend!

I went the trust route, although I did have a Harris county full auto done in the '80s, because my first wife's grandfather had the political juice to get the form signed for me.

Its why I became an NRA member, it system was/is being abused.

Sam1911
December 5, 2011, 11:55 AM
Several threads merged.

30 cal slob
December 5, 2011, 12:48 PM
sam, thanks and apologies for the dupe.

Bubbles
December 5, 2011, 03:13 PM
Something could happen to derail the process but it's not clear that anyone wants to.
Except maybe the Brady Campaign or VPC. I'm waiting to see how they'll word this email alert.

Sam1911
December 5, 2011, 03:21 PM
sam, thanks and apologies for the dupe. Not at all. I was kind of meaning to merge a couple of threads anyway and you just brought it back to mind.

RhinoDefense
December 6, 2011, 02:32 AM
This won't be implemented for a year or so according to the ATF.

30 cal slob
December 6, 2011, 09:11 AM
If you register your NFA items as a Corporation (Ex: LLC), you don't need no stinking CLEO signature :)
One of the other changes being contemplated by ATFE is the requirement for all persons listed on a trust to provide photos and fingerprints, just like any individual filing.

Of course, with the CLEO signature requirement going away, that pretty much negates the need for a trust for most folks.

Brockak47
December 7, 2011, 08:04 PM
now if they could just let us buy new manufacture MG's =p

BP44
December 9, 2011, 03:03 AM
Never see that one, but I sure hope Im wrong

whubbard
December 20, 2011, 11:52 PM
Has there been any official word that the ATF will actually be getting rid of the CLEO requirement. At this time it seems as though all we're hearing are rumors?

crazy-mp
December 21, 2011, 01:02 AM
When the Form4/Form1 is submitted you would have to send a duplicate copy of it to the CLEO just like you do on an FFL application. You would also submit all the names on your trust with your application.

Not in effect at this time.

There is no "effective date" at this time, its in the process of being approved and getting to the register at that point there will be papers published about it, it is beyond the "proposal" phase though, govt takes time to make these things go from paper to law etc...

This information was from the NFA Trade Collectors Association, the group that advocated and pushed for this change.

sturmruger
June 1, 2012, 12:31 AM
Why hasn't anything happened with this yet??

Ian
June 1, 2012, 08:40 AM
Because it's still percolating through the federal bureaucracy.

Walther P99
June 1, 2012, 08:48 AM
I called the ATF on this a few months ago and they knew nothing about it. So I went about setting up a Trust...

wally
June 1, 2012, 11:40 PM
I called the ATF on this a few months ago and they knew nothing about it. So I went about setting up a Trust...

Unless you are going to stop at one, the hassle of fingerprint cards and photos, even with a reasonable CLEO, is IMHO the #1 reason to go with a Trust.

For years Houston was a no go, but I got one signed by having relatives with political clout, when the Trust route became available that is what I did when I once again could afford class 3 toys, as only so many favors can be redeemed. Our new DA was signing, but she lost in the primary, no telling what the new guy will do :(

If you enjoyed reading about "CLEO Signoff Going Away per ATF?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!