CLEO sign off repealed.


PDA






lilguy
October 23, 2012, 04:28 PM
I have been reading a number of posts elsewhere about this requirement having been done away with. That we are just waiting for the final ruling to be published. I have read end of 2012 possible. This would be another luckily break for us Illinois prisoners if the SBR opening stand. Would someone please expand on this . Thanks





"The ONLY reason that the ATF would get rid of CLEO signature is to justify them taking 6 months to approve"

If you enjoyed reading about "CLEO sign off repealed." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Trent
October 23, 2012, 04:36 PM
Do you have a link to any other credible information?

(links to other forum posting are not primary sources of info, and are not credible on their own).

Bubbles
October 23, 2012, 04:56 PM
There was a lot of chatter about it earlier this year and then nothing.

A change like this goes through the process to update the Code of Federal Regulations, which includes a 60 day public comment period. As soon as it hits http://www.atf.gov/firearms/industry/ word will spread like wildfire.

lilguy
October 23, 2012, 04:58 PM
Yes Trent , please check the the website for the NFATCA . NFA Trade and collectors asso. Are they blowing smoke in their forum where the say it's a
Done deal ? Appreciate your input.

CoRoMo
October 23, 2012, 05:00 PM
If it requires the 'trust guys' to notify CLEO, I'd remain opposed to it.

Trent
October 23, 2012, 07:21 PM
lilguy;

This is the first I've heard of it. If you live where your location on here says you live, you're going to need something like this to stand a chance of getting SBR - I highly doubt you'll find any CLEO in N.E. Illinois that's going to break rank and sign the ATF form.

lilguy
October 23, 2012, 08:29 PM
I'm fortunate because a relative is a suburban police official. I would not be a total unknown like most if I used my contact. Long term it would be better for me and all other collectors if the sign off was scraped.

Jim K
October 23, 2012, 08:52 PM
The CLEO sign off is simply a matter of BATFE covering their fannies. They have all the state and local laws but were afraid that they might hit a situation where some anti-gun city council snuck a law through in the dark of the night and BATFE would approve an "illegal" transfer. By having the CLEO sign off that the transfer will not violate any local law, BATFE passes the buck, something they are very good at.

In all honesty, BATFE probably never intended that it constitute CLEO "approval" of the transfer or that it be used to solicit bribes or political contributions, even though it has been used for those purposes by corrupt CLEO's.

Jim

Ian
October 23, 2012, 09:54 PM
Removing the CLEO approval requirement is definitely in the works - I listened to the ATF raps discuss the status of that change at last year's SAR show in Phoenix. They will also be changing the process to do background checks on people named in trust documents. The whole point is that the CLEO requirement was driving people towards trusts, and they didn't feel like they had enough control over trusts. Apparently at least one felon ended up getting a transfer to a trust approved that gave them legal possession. Of course, a felon in possession is illegal regardless of the NFA transfer, but it freaked them out.

Here's my report on developments from that meeting:

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/nfa-transfers/

Trent
October 23, 2012, 10:25 PM
Excellent write up Ian. I think that clarifies the issue.

Now.. if we could only get them to re-open the MG registry ...

CoRoMo
October 24, 2012, 11:01 AM
...they didn't feel like they had enough control...
Yep. It's not about the guns, is it.

jmorris
October 24, 2012, 11:35 AM
If it requires the 'trust guys' to notify CLEO, I'd remain opposed to it.
Me too. None of my NFA stuff has a CLEO sig.

CoRoMo
October 24, 2012, 12:11 PM
The way I understand it, the 'trust guys' won't have to get a sign-off from CLEO, but they will have to submit/notify CLEO of the acquisition. Like Ian posted, the bureau wants more control there. Some say that's simple and a good enough compromise so that the non-'trust guys' no longer are subjected to a required CLEO signature.

It's one step forward and one step back.

So... we now know that this move by the ATF is not necessarily a move to free up the regulatory process. Quite the opposite. The quote from Ian in my post #11 indicates that this is about taking more control of this realm of the firearms world. So another bit of gun control sold to us as more freedom? Hmmm. Most gun owners seem to buying what the bureau is selling here.

Trent
October 24, 2012, 01:02 PM
Notification to chief LEO isn't more control; it's a notification, nothing more. You're not adding another step to the approval process.

Background checks on Trustees? Should be done anyway.

Freedom? Yes, there's more freedom being sold here - citizens across the country in counties with tyrants for CLEO's will be able to get weapons they couldn't before; potentially, this is tens of thousands of new folks.

I don't think I agree with your view, but respect that you have your opinion.

CoRoMo
October 24, 2012, 01:26 PM
So adding the CLEO notification... isn't adding another step? Okay, I don't follow.
...will be able to get weapons they couldn't before...
You've heard of 'the trust route', haven't you?

If Ian's post is to be believed, the ATF is stating that they are doing this to acquire more control.

But if you choose to believe something that the bureau isn't saying, okay.

If that is in fact their position, I guess I have to take them at their word.

Girodin
October 24, 2012, 06:01 PM
Some say that's simple and a good enough compromise so that the non-'trust guys' no longer are subjected to a required CLEO signature.

I would definitely be opposed to that trade off.

citizens across the country in counties with tyrants for CLEO's will be able to get weapons they couldn't before; potentially, this is tens of thousands of new folks.

No one who truly wants to get those weapons is currently being deprived. As mentioned, those folks can set up a trust and go that route.

Trent
October 24, 2012, 06:02 PM
Adding CLEO notification isn't adding another step in the approval process - they don't get any input, say, or control over approval/disapproval, they just get a notification.

Trust route won't work in Illinois. C&R can't be held by a trust, and that's our ONLY way of getting SBR's come Jan 1.

I read Ian's post with the view that they view CLEO refusals as an abuse of power (which it is), and they are removing it. The Trust thing is an annoyance to them, but one they can't do away with due to the inheritance factors.

Trusts were originally intended to provide a mechanism to inherit NFA firearms gracefully to your heirs. Not as a workaround to bypass background checks and obtain them where they are otherwise unobtainable. The same holds true for SOT / manufacturer FFL's in Illinois - 99% of them are simply a sham "business" to work around the ban on full auto here. But at least those guys get background checks.

If NFA weapons end up in the hands of felons (which they have, through trust loopholes), that's like pouring napalm on the damn gun control fire.

The end goal for everyone is to get the registry re-opened or to do away with the NFA /CG'68/FOPA crap entirely; but having a mechanism open that can put guns in the hands of violent felons isn't going to help that one bit.

AlexanderA
October 24, 2012, 07:48 PM
Let me chime in with the situation we have here in Virginia. We have state registration of full auto's -- the registration application has to be sent in to the State Police within 24 hours after the full auto comes into someone's possession. Therefore, an after-the-fact CLEO notification from ATF would not really be significant, or add any onerous burden, regarding full-auto transfers.

On the other hand, CLEO's in maybe half of Virginia jurisdictions won't sign NFA applications, and those that do often have their own independent clearance process, that can add another month to the total processing time. This spotty CLEO situation causes people to choose the trust route, which has its own complications.

Abolishing the CLEO signoff requirement, IMO, would definitely be a net positive in Virginia. Above all, it would tend to improve the liquidity in the NFA market.

lilguy
October 24, 2012, 10:04 PM
"Trusts were originally intended to provide a mechanism to inherit NFA firearms gracefully to your heirs. Not as a workaround to bypass background checks and obtain them where they are otherwise unobtainable. The same holds true for SOT / manufacturer FFL's in Illinois - 99% of them are simply a sham "business" to work around the ban on full auto here. But at least those guys get background checks"

Trent, would you amplify on this point. The 99% sham business figure. How do they get away with setting up a faux MGM business?

Rob62
October 24, 2012, 10:20 PM
After reading the linked info I am not certain that this is a good trade off. At least not for those of us that already have a Trust and use it to purchase NFA items. At the very least, if the BATFE is for it, I am highly suspect of it. :evil:

In context why does it matter - if one resides in a state where NFA items are legal to own, why bother with the individual purchase process at all. Just create a RLT (Revocable Living Trust) and purchase all your NFA items through it. As has been said several times with an RTL (Trust) there is no need to get a CLEO sign off before purchase, or notify them after purchase.

Felons, who may or may not have purchased an NFA item through a Trust or otherwise have already broken firearms laws when they completed the BATFE form 4473. So I see that as a moot point. For certain I do not like any ideas of tampering with or tweaking the RTL process.

If the RTL process is to remain the same, without a requirement to notify one's CLEO after purchase, I have no heartburn with that then. If this is or will be only applicable to the individual purchase process then I see that as *possibly* a good thing.

Trent
October 25, 2012, 12:54 PM
Trent, would you amplify on this point. The 99% sham business figure. How do they get away with setting up a faux MGM business?

It's off topic, but it's your thread.. so I'll be brief.

In Illinois one of the few exemptions to the machinegun prohibition is for "federally licensed manufacturers". Companies with the appropriate FFL, who pay the special occupations tax, can deal in NFA weapons.

Now, with Illinois having a ban on "fun", there's not many customers for transferrable machineguns, silencers, short barreled rifles, or AOW. There are a FEW who have made successful businesses off of NFA in Illinois (F.J. Vollmer is an interesting local example, about 30 miles from where I live.. he's got plenty of United States Vs. Vollmer cases out there to review.)

Anyway, if you're operating a firearms business for profit (e.g. qualify and obtain an FFL), have a knack for manufacturing (and don't mind the increased costs of the manufacturing FFL), and pay the special occupations tax, you can make full auto weapons, silencers, etc in Illinois. You can also DEAL in them - you have to make SOME effort to do so. You can - at the request of law enforcement agencies - order in dealer sample (post-86) machineguns for the law enforcement agency to review under your supervision, and once the demo is done you can keep those machineguns in inventory.

It's one of the few ways "around" the machinegun ban in Illinois. It's not cheap, by any stretch of the imagination, in time nor money. You've got to run a bona-fide business to go this route.

Quite a few people I know have done this in Illinois and at least a couple of them have made rather successful businesses - one that I know of even lets you rent his machineguns on his indoor or outdoor ranges, right here in Illinois! (Even has group rates and weekend camping spots available..)

ugaarguy
October 25, 2012, 02:26 PM
Trust route won't work in Illinois. C&R can't be held by a trust, and that's our ONLY way of getting SBR's come Jan 1.
Then fix your problem in your state rather than applauding an added regulatory step in other states.

I'm shopping for my first NFA item, and will go the trust route, even though my CLEO would sign off anyway. I'm doing that so I can bequeath it (and any future NFA items) to an heir of my choice.


BTW, you can't inherit something to someone. You can only inherit something from someone. You bequeath something to the entity you wish to inherit it.

CoRoMo
October 25, 2012, 02:36 PM
Adding CLEO notification isn't adding...
Is it an additional requirement or is it optional? I'm guessing it is a requirement that the 'trust guys' will have to add to their NFA procedures.

Trent
October 26, 2012, 01:47 PM
If it works like C&R and other "notifications" currently with the BATF, you'll just have an additional envelope to drop in the mailbox when you send your stuff in. Your CLEO will get a notice that you have a new toy.

It's disturbing to me that you guys view the cost of postage stamp and the time it takes to fill out a form in triplicate instead of duplicate, as too heavy a price to pay to liberate a state.

CoRoMo
October 26, 2012, 02:29 PM
I can understand that.

Please just understand that a lot of us have grown ever so tired of our fellow "pro-gun" brethren capitulating to further restrictions, regulations, and controls; inch by inch. While we'd like a line drawn in the sand and see freedoms regained, our own will berate us that this next little inch is worth giving. In so many ways, we've given inch after inch and now we find our rights so completely infringed that there really is no way back. Our side says , "Enough is enough already", the other gun owners say, "I can't believe you guys think this is too heavy a price to pay". They look at the little issue at hand. We look at the big picture.

crazy-mp
October 26, 2012, 11:19 PM
deleted

medalguy
October 26, 2012, 11:25 PM
I'm doing that so I can bequeath it (and any future NFA items) to an heir of my choice.

I don't understand this. NFA items registered to you go tax-free to your legal heir(s). This can be covered in a simple will. Why go the trust route for this reason? BTW I have an NFA trust, also hold about a dozen individually.

gandog56
October 26, 2012, 11:28 PM
One of the reasons I moved OUT of Illinois was their insane gun laws. I mean have to show a FOID card to even hold a gun in and Illinois gun shop? To have to have one to even TOUCH a box of ammo? I did like Les Baer and got the heck out of that state. Within a month of moving to Alabama, I had my concealed carry pistol permit!

Rob62
October 27, 2012, 10:13 AM
I am not a lawyer so I can't answer the technicalities of this.

However, from my understanding a Trust keeps the property in that Trust out of Probate Court - if there is an issue with the Will that requires Probate Court resolution.

AlexanderA
October 27, 2012, 04:52 PM
However, from my understanding a Trust keeps the property in that Trust out of Probate Court - if there is an issue with the Will that requires Probate Court resolution.

Good point. A will has no effect until and unless it's probated, and once it's probated, it becoms a public record. Do you really want a public record showing that a machine gun is being bequeathed to a specific person? (As a workaround, you can also not specifically mention a machine gun, if it's covered by the residuary clause.)

NFA items can also pass tax-free to an heir without a will, if you are satisfied with what state law provides as far as beneficiaries under intestate succession. For example, if your only beneficiary is a surviving spouse, normally the state provides that the surviving spouse gets everything, in the absence of a will.

jmorris
October 27, 2012, 05:53 PM
It's one step forward and one step back. It seems to me everytime a "step forward" is made we loose something.

Like the Firearm Owners' Protection Act, put in place when Reagan was pres.

Closed the door on us for FA.

As for sign off, we found the "loop hole" to own what is left for us, nothing to say thay haven't already found one (or is in the fine print) to shut us trust guys down.

Thanks but no thanks.

Kyle M.
October 29, 2012, 10:47 AM
When my uncle bought his first sbr about two years ago he went through the entire process, and then was refused a signature by the county sherriff. The county he lives in has no laws against NFA items but the sherriff is against them so he refuses the CLEO signature. My uncle was able to go through the atf and was able to get around the signature. I'll have to find out from him what exactly he did, but I'm pretty sure he just sent the paperwork to the ATF and they signed off on it.

ugaarguy
October 30, 2012, 04:17 AM
Good point. A will has no effect until and unless it's probated, and once it's probated, it becoms a public record.
As the nephew of a retired probate judge I can say you've hit the nail on the head. Whether my beneficiary chooses to keep or sell my NFA item(s) will remain their business, and not public record by my using a trust.

Justin
October 31, 2012, 11:44 AM
Is it an additional requirement or is it optional? I'm guessing it is a requirement that the 'trust guys' will have to add to their NFA procedures.

I had no idea that sending a certified letter and/or stopping by your local Sheriff's department was such an onerous burden.

Clearly this is tyranny of the first order, and not to be tolerated.

:rolleyes:

The BATFE does a lot of stupid things (their recent claims that a sport isn't a sport unless it has the same number of participants as all of the hunters in the US combined comes to mind) but I hardly see how rolling back a requirement to get a local LEO to sign off on your purchase to just a simple notification is something worth getting upset about.

It took my sheriff around three weeks to sign off on my first NFA purchase. Had I only been required to notify him, I presume my purchase would have been approved three weeks sooner.

jmorris
October 31, 2012, 12:16 PM
I had no idea that sending a certified letter and/or stopping by your local Sheriff's department was such an onerous burden.

Clearly this is tyranny of the first order, and not to be tolerated.


It's not much of a burden to put on my seatbelt before it was law but I certainly resent the fact that I have to now that it is.

MachIVshooter
October 31, 2012, 12:17 PM
Please just understand that a lot of us have grown ever so tired of our fellow "pro-gun" brethren capitulating to further restrictions, regulations, and controls; inch by inch. While we'd like a line drawn in the sand and see freedoms regained, our own will berate us that this next little inch is worth giving. In so many ways, we've given inch after inch and now we find our rights so completely infringed that there really is no way back. Our side says , "Enough is enough already", the other gun owners say, "I can't believe you guys think this is too heavy a price to pay". They look at the little issue at hand. We look at the big picture

In this instance, I don't see it as us giving anything up. As Justin said:

I had no idea that sending a certified letter and/or stopping by your local Sheriff's department was such an onerous burden

Seriously, how many postage stamps can one buy versus the cost of a trust? The CLEO will not get a say in the matter, they just get notification, same as a C&R license. It's one small inconvenience for the trust folks, but a huge alleviation for those of us who have not gone the trust route. It took me two 30 mile trips to the SO and a week's wait to get my form 1 back before sending it off. Honestly, the PITA aspect of CLEO sign off was one of the reasons it took me so long to do my SBR.

The trust route still has the advantage of not having to submit duplicate fingerprint forms with each purchase and simplifying transfer of NFA stuff from decedent to survivors, so I may still set one up even if this goes through. However, this may be a step towards deregulating certain NFA items, if the simplified process creates enough increase in applications for the less expensive stuff that shouldn't be NFA at all (SBR, SBS, AOW, Supressors).

I see it as a net positive.

CoRoMo
October 31, 2012, 01:33 PM
It's one small inconvenience for the trust folks...
It is not a huge burden... I do not disagree.

The NICS check can be immediately instant and is no real burden either. It also, is a small inconvenience at most.

I wholeheartedly oppose the NICS requirement as well however.

I realize and can live with the fact that many, if not most gun owners disagree with my views on things like NICS checks, CLEO notifications, carry permits, etc.

Guillermo
October 31, 2012, 02:10 PM
CoRoMo's signature pretty much sums up my position.

What I own is not LEO's business. NICS is just another way to deny. (I know...had to get a PIN). Carry permits are stupid. Vermont, Arizona and Alaska have it right, as should the entire country.

Justin
October 31, 2012, 03:37 PM
Yeah, well, until you get a majority of the citizens of this country to vote in lockstep with CoRoMo's sig line, we're stuck with having to work for incremental improvements in the law.

In the mean time, while it may feel good to go on an internet forum and thump your chest about how your a real 'murrican who doesn't need governmental approval to exercise his rights, the basic fact of the matter remains that if you're busted violating those laws, the judge is likely to take a dim view of your stance that all of the laws on the books are invalid.

MachIVshooter
October 31, 2012, 03:47 PM
It is not a huge burden... I do not disagree.

The NICS check can be immediately instant and is no real burden either. It also, is a small inconvenience at most.

I wholeheartedly oppose the NICS requirement as well however.

I realize and can live with the fact that many, if not most gun owners disagree with my views on things like NICS checks, CLEO notifications, carry permits, etc.

I agree with your position wholeheartedly.

However, I feel any measure that removes red tape is a step in the right direction. If you have a trust, you'll give up 5 minutes and a stamp with this new measure, but it will not make the acquisition more protracted or difficult. If you don't have a trust, the process just became a whole lot easier. Most folks who only desire a handful of NFA items don't really want to spend the time and money setting up a trust, and the CLEO sign off was just enough of a deterrent in addition to the $200 and 6 month wait that they just settled for title I guns and no suppressors. I was one such person, and it took me forever to finally go ahead and do my form 1. Removing this requirement is going to prompt a lot of us to move forward with more NFA purchases.

I hold out hope that, between the generally positive shift in perception of firearms by Americans and a drastic increase in the sales/builds of the "lesser" NFA stuff will eventually lead to SBR, SBS, AOW and supressors becoming title I items.

Or, perhaps they'll move toward an actual license rather than a tax stamp, where once you have it, buying NFA stuff is as simple as title I guns, rather than an individual stamp and 6 month wait for each item.

Who knows what the future may hold in this regard. No matter what, though, anything that removes restrictions, regulations or requirements is a step in the right direction. Their ultimate goal with this is no doubt more individually registered NFA items, but since they are not doing anything that actually makes the trust route more difficult, it is 100% up to the person buying. That's not an infringement.

jmorris
October 31, 2012, 04:01 PM
the basic fact of the matter remains that if you're busted violating those laws, the judge is likely to take a dim view of your stance that all of the laws on the books are invalid.
Can't disagree with not breaking laws, be nice to be grandfathered because what was legal is now not.

evan price
November 5, 2012, 07:30 AM
In Franklin County Ohio the Sheriff's Office is the CLEO needing to sign off, and the office famously denies all such applications. The guy running as challenger for the Sheriff's position in this election spoke at our OFCC summer party. As a reason to justify voting for him he stated that, if he were elected, the CLEO signoff problem with Franklin County would go away so people can stop doing trusts, because he needs to know who has these weapons if a crime is committed, so he can go through his records and see who he needs to look at.

Needless to say, this got a resounding wave of negativity in the crowd, and reaffirmed why the trust route is the way to go.

If you enjoyed reading about "CLEO sign off repealed." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!