Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

ATF sends NFA trust rule change proposal to Whitehouse

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by scndactive, Aug 26, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. scndactive

    scndactive Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    113
    Location:
    TEXAS
    http://thehill.com/blogs/regwatch/pending-regs/318133-white-house-reviewing-draft-gun-control-rul

    The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) is working on a new regulation that would require more background information when the weapons are sold to someone through a corporation or legal trust

    Sorry if this is a duplicate, or just plain hot air. Ran across it while looking into getting a suppressor. Can anyone confirm or deny?

    Story was written 8/21/13, and says the proposal was sent on 8/20/13, but the document in the link to .gov is dated 07/00/13 ???? what the.......:scrutiny:

    http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201210&RIN=1140-AA43
     
  2. Arizona_Mike

    Arizona_Mike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    3,333
    This was proposed a few times before and died, the most recent being 2012. It would negate the new dealer-to-trust all electronic system as well so it is probably a parallel efford by someone in the administration and not a ATF priority.

    Mike
     
  3. crazy-mp

    crazy-mp Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    820
    Location:
    Missouri
    This is partly true new changes in F4's would eliminate the sheriff sign off and make it notification, so you would drop papers off that said I am getting a suppressor, SBR etc. With that change all members of a trust LLC or corp would have to submit fingerprints. This may be the "more background information".
     
  4. scndactive

    scndactive Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2007
    Messages:
    113
    Location:
    TEXAS
    Notification to the CLEO instead of sign off sounds great, but what will you do when they ask for proof of notification, and the CLEO refuses?

    Neither the ATF nor this administration will ever do any thing to expand our 2A rights.
     
  5. taliv

    taliv Moderator

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2004
    Messages:
    22,364
    i'm surprised they didn't revoke the citizenship card too
     
  6. crazy-mp

    crazy-mp Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    820
    Location:
    Missouri
    When you apply for a FFL, no matter what kind you have to notify the local sheriff, what they do with the application I have no idea. It most likely varies from department to department, most probably shred it a few might have a file cabinet with them, and there will probably be a couple that will keep a file with who bought what, like I said no evidence of any but just a guess.
     
  7. Aaron Baker

    Aaron Baker Member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2008
    Messages:
    695
    Location:
    Lexington, KY
    Requiring fingerprints and photographs for all trustees makes no sense.

    It would become standard for the grantor to amend the trust to remove all trustees before submitting the paperwork, then amend the trust again a week later to add back the trustees.

    The ATF can't re-write state trust law, no matter how badly they may want to.

    Aaron
     
  8. Arizona_Mike

    Arizona_Mike Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2013
    Messages:
    3,333
    I think I was right about this being political. It's being rolled out by the president along with a new ban on reimportation of surplus guns. At a time the process is taking more than a year (several weeks for the check, 8-10 weeks to go pending and 9mo from pending to approved) this is the last thing the system needs.
     
  9. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,411
    Location:
    Texas
    It's purely political. The president is acting like a child and trying to punish those who are in opposition to him. He got butt-hurt when people rejected calls for gun control. None of the changes will decrease crime. They are only punitive measures enacted against the law abiding.
     
  10. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
  11. AlexanderA
    • Contributing Member

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    3,261
    Location:
    Virginia
    I've read the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. Contrary to earlier reports, the CLEO signoff requirement is not being eliminated. Instead, it's being extended to "responsible parties" of trusts and corporations. (The only tweak is that the CLEO statement will not contain the words that the CLEO "has no knowledge" that the weapon will be used illegally -- the statement will still have to certify that possession would not violate state or local law.)

    There is nothing in the proposed regulations that would address the problem of willful non-signing by CLEO's. If you're in a jurisdiction in which the CLEO refuses to sign, you won't have the option of getting around this by forming a trust. In cases like that, we'll be back to trying to find compliant alternatives, such as judges or DA's, that are willing to sign. Or, we'll be forced to move to a friendlier jurisdiction, or to give up the idea of owning an NFA weapon.

    The economic effect will be to make an illiquid NFA market even more illiquid. Eventually, prices will have to come down -- but this won't help you if you can't get "permission."
     
  12. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    If you wish to comment on the proposed regulation, Reference Docket Number ATF41P and follow instructions at www.regulations.gov or see page 49 of the above-linked PDF for how to send a hardcopy (confidential comment) that will not be public record.
     
  13. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,411
    Location:
    Texas
    I think the non-compliant CLEO deal can be resolved if states pass "shall-sign" laws that require a CLEO to sign off on NFA items provided the person in question is not prohibited.

    This would effectively negate the issue of CLEOs not signing.
     
  14. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    The Texas legislature doesn't meet again until 2015 - and some states just aren't ever going to pass that law - which means less demand for NFA items and ultimately fewer companies making them.
     
  15. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Tom Odom at the Prince Law Blog has prepared an analysis of procedural problems with the proposed rule change: http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/08/30/procedural-issues-with-atfs-draft-proposal/

    This proposed rule change has not been published in the Federal Register yet so it appears the comment period has not yet started.

    Additionally, the Prince Law Blog has prepared sample letters to send to ATF for FFLs (http://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sba-1-letter.docx) and for individuals who were denied a CLEO sign off (http://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/cleo-letter.docx)

    Please do not just cut and paste these letters; but instead use them as a rough template to form your own personalized letters including specific relevant details. Remember ALl information will be public record so you may need to exercise INFOSEC during submission.
     
  16. wacki

    wacki Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,693
    Location:
    Reminiscing the Rockies
    What is INFOSEC? How do you implement it anyway?
     
  17. Telekinesis

    Telekinesis Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,464
    Location:
    Birmingham, Alabama
    I assume it means Information Security. Kinda like OPSEC. Basically act like your comments are going to be published (because well, they will be). Don't threaten to start a civil war and don't give out personal information and you should be fine.
     
  18. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    By INFOSEC, I mean Information Security. Your comments and any identifying information will be published. So if your comment is "My collection of 140 collectible machineguns is no threat. - Signed John Q. Public at 123 Robme Way" be prepared to see that published in an internet searchable format.
     
  19. zignal_zero

    zignal_zero Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    578
    Location:
    West Central Florida
    Actually it already is ILLEGAL for a CLEO to refuse to sign. This does not stop them from refusing, just like deputies perform illegal searches every day. By refusing to sign, he is suggesting there IS a reason you are forbidden or that he DOES have knowledge of why you should be prohibited.

    Years ago, in South FL, several NFA enthusiasts filed a class action suit against the CLEO. He lost and began signing forms.
     
  20. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Do you happen to know the parties in that case, what district of Florida it occurred in or any other identifying information?
     
  21. MErl

    MErl Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2006
    Messages:
    1,283
    Nothing to stop them from requiring another BG check and associated fees before they sign though. Yes a 90 day wait and $100 is better than not signing at all, unless there is another option like a trust.
     
  22. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
  23. zignal_zero

    zignal_zero Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    578
    Location:
    West Central Florida
    Bartholomew -

    I know one of the people who was personally familiar with the case. I'm not sure whether or not he was one of the litigants. Unfortunately, he paid $299 for his Powder Springs M10 so this happened so long ago, details may be hard to acquire. I will try to make contact with him, tho, and see what particulars I can come by.
     
  24. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    zignal, if you can I would appreciate it. I am trying to collect all the cases dealing with CLEO sign off litigation in one place for obvious reasons. So any lead you could provide me would be great.
     
  25. zignal_zero

    zignal_zero Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2008
    Messages:
    578
    Location:
    West Central Florida
    No prob, man, happy help any TitleII enthusiasts I can. I'm pretty busy, so it might take a couple days for me to get in touch with him but I will do my best :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page