CLEO sign off repealed.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
It's one step forward and one step back.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
Good point. A will has no effect until and unless it's probated, and once it's probated, it becoms a public record.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
It's one small inconvenience for the trust folks...
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
Can't disagree with not breaking laws, be nice to be grandfathered because what was legal is now not.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top