CLEO Signoff Going Away per ATF?

So will this make it easier for us to get a silencer?

Easier, a little. No signature saves me what, 10 minutes to the station?

"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.

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.

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.

I got an NFA Trust last year for $600. .... It's worth the $600 not to have to screw with my CLEO...

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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.

Wouldn't buying a gun for a trust amount to a straw purchase?

Wouldn't buying a gun for a trust amount to a straw purchase?

Click to expand...

Evidently not, as there are thousands legally out there

Wouldn't buying a gun for a trust amount to a straw purchase?

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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, 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.

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.

Any news on this? My examiner said she hadn't heard a thing about the sig going away! Strange!

mopar92 said:

Any news on this? My examiner said she hadn't heard a thing about the sig going away! Strange!

Click to expand...

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.

Unless the fingerprint and photo requirements are removed as well the trust is sure a lot more convenient. I've done it both ways.

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.

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.

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.

^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).