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

CLEO sign off repealed.

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by lilguy, Oct 23, 2012.

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

    lilguy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    463
    Location:
    NE Illinois, just outside Gulag.
    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"
     
  2. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,381
    Location:
    Illinois
    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).
     
  3. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

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

    lilguy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    463
    Location:
    NE Illinois, just outside Gulag.
    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.
     
  5. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,936
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    If it requires the 'trust guys' to notify CLEO, I'd remain opposed to it.
     
  6. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,381
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  7. lilguy

    lilguy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    463
    Location:
    NE Illinois, just outside Gulag.
    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.
     
  8. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,596
    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
     
  9. Ian

    Ian Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    3,857
    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/
     
  10. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,381
    Location:
    Illinois
    Excellent write up Ian. I think that clarifies the issue.

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

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,936
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    Yep. It's not about the guns, is it.
     
  12. jmorris

    jmorris Member

    Joined:
    Sep 30, 2005
    Messages:
    9,240
    Me too. None of my NFA stuff has a CLEO sig.
     
  13. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,936
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    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.
     
  14. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,381
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  15. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,936
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    So adding the CLEO notification... isn't adding another step? Okay, I don't follow.
    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.
     
  16. Girodin

    Girodin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,546
    I would definitely be opposed to that trade off.

    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.
     
  17. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,381
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  18. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,901
    Location:
    Virginia
    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.
     
  19. lilguy

    lilguy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    463
    Location:
    NE Illinois, just outside Gulag.
    "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?
     
  20. Rob62

    Rob62 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    620
    Location:
    Georgia, USA
    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.
     
  21. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,381
    Location:
    Illinois
    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..)
     
  22. ugaarguy

    ugaarguy Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    12,006
    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.
     
  23. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,936
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    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.
     
  24. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    17,381
    Location:
    Illinois
    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.
     
  25. CoRoMo

    CoRoMo Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2007
    Messages:
    8,936
    Location:
    Californicated Colorado
    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page