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

CLEO Signoff Going Away per ATF?

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by Bubbles, Jan 25, 2011.

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

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    Would be great if true...

    http://www.silencertalk.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=67372
     
  2. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    That's uhh... shocking to say the least. Certainly hope that's true.
     
  3. ny32182

    ny32182 Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2003
    Messages:
    5,733
    Location:
    Clemson, SC
    Hmm. If that is true I wonder if I could transfer them from trust to personal tax-free.
     
  4. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    I doubt it. You and the trust are two different legal entities.
     
  5. kenny87

    kenny87 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    20
    I would say if this is true its because they really want to discourage trusts, I have heard they hate that method from a few people so eliminating this would basically make a individual registration a problem free method.
     
  6. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    Maybe. It's also possible they fear some court action against the unfairness of needing the signature. There is some movement in California against "may issue" for exactly that.

    Requiring the CLEO signature is for all practical purposes "may issue" for NFA items. Not everyone has the money or information handy to go the trust route.

    May have nothing to do with that, but it's an interesting possibility.
     
  7. lilguy

    lilguy Member

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2008
    Messages:
    463
    Location:
    NE Illinois, just outside Gulag.
    Has the CLEO sign off requirement been negated in all instances, such as a C+R license ?
     
  8. smince

    smince Member.

    Joined:
    May 19, 2005
    Messages:
    1,329
    Location:
    Northeast Alabama
    I didn't have to get a CLEO sign-off on my C&R. I just sent a copy of my application to mine and never heard anything back from them.
     
  9. Carter

    Carter Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2010
    Messages:
    1,434
    Location:
    North Carolina
    And when would this happen?

    The Sheriff around here is Nazi about NFA items. Even fires his own employees if he finds out they have them or try to get them.

    I'd also prefer not to spend the money on a trust if I didn't have to.
     
  10. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    There has never been a CLEO signoff requirement for a C&R.

    As for when, seems still just a rumor at this point. The source quoted above is just a post on anther Internet forum.

    Was hoping someone would contact NFATCA and ask.
     
  11. GoingQuiet

    GoingQuiet Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    375
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    I called ATF NFA branch and they knew nothing about this - so I'll put it in the "Hopeful" pile.
     
  12. GoingQuiet

    GoingQuiet Member

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2010
    Messages:
    375
    Location:
    Melbourne, FL
    Texas - I believe what is being asked is the signature requirement on C&R eligible NFA firearms.

    I've facilitated NFA transfers for a few customers for NON C&R NFA items and when they need a signature I point them in the right direction for that C&R Machinegun.
     
  13. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    You are probably right. My mistake, didn't catch that.
     
  14. springwalk

    springwalk Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2010
    Messages:
    265
    Location:
    lemmingville
    :rolleyes: Your crazy if you think the goverment will ever make it easier for their citizens to aquire an item that is so regulated to the point in which are silencers. As of late the Atf has been cracking down and tightening up on trusts cuz the local LE probably petitioned the ATF as a Trust is a run-around and a middle finger to them when they use the discreation to not sign-off on your toy purchase. Expect things to only get worse, not better in this ever dictatorial nation we live in:barf:.
     
  15. UnknownGunMan

    UnknownGunMan member

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2011
    Messages:
    39
    Location:
    LA
    If you register your NFA items as a Corporation (Ex: LLC), you don't need no stinking CLEO signature :)
     
  16. Girodin

    Girodin Member

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Messages:
    5,550
    That would probably make for very a nice law suit if it was the actual reason for a termination.
     
  17. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    Ok, I got some more info from "the locals" this morning - it's amazing what one can find out when .gov is shut down for snow and we're all home and available for calls. :D

    The big concern by ATF with LLC's and trusts is in-state Form 4's. There's really not a good way to do a background check on John Smith's RLT, and with a private party in-state transfer to a trust there's no CLEO, no FFL/SOT involved, no 4473, no NICS, NADA. This has folks at ATF in a bit of a tizzy. They can't go against the law on this and outright refuse to do transfers to trusts or corps, so they're trying to figure out the best way to 1) get the local CLEO involved without forcing a signoff (hence the "notification" requirement), and 2) force FFL/SOT's to run NICS on a trust tranfer.

    Implementing this change will require an update to the CFR's, which were originally written decades ago, well before criminal records were computerized, and when the CLEO pretty much "knew" who the bad folks were in their jurisdictions. It's being billed as an update because now the feds have access to that info, but as I pointed out, they want the CLEO's to have these records (hence the change from "approval" to "notification" on a Form 1 or Form 4), and they want FFL/SOT's to run folks who buy from them via a trust through NICS.

    There's a process for a CFR rule change including publishing the change, getting public comment, etc. This change is still in the earliest stages, but word is, it's coming.
     
  18. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,093
    That was my guess when I first heard about it awhile ago.
    The ATF does not want a separate legal entity to own firearms. A separate legal entity is a lot harder to restrict, confiscate from, or otherwise manage in many situations.
    Trusts can be drawn up in many different legal ways, some harder for the authorities to deal with than others.


    I see bubbles acquired information would support that.




    A trust can also name multiple trustees. Providing NFA firearm ownership to a whole group or multiple individuals. Multiple members of a family, a business, organization, group, etc



    If John Doe creates a well made trust that technically owns the weapons they can cease to be his weapons, and so the ATF has to deal not with John Doe, but with the trust itself. Which may have multiple trustees that can put up a much better legal fight than John Doe alone ever would have.
    If John Doe has multiple people named on the trust and passes away those weapons can still be managed by others on that trust.
    If John Doe becomes a prohibited person and the trust is a separate legal entity with multiple trustees, those people still retain ownership and use of the property of the trust.
    The government cannot come seize them as his assets because they are not his, they belong to a well written trust.
    Doing so would be to the detriment of multiple trustees that are beneficiaries of the trust, and in no way connected to John Doe's legal troubles.
    John Doe would simply be prohibited himself and not allowed to use the firearms still owned by the trust.



    Trusts scare the ATF.
    The proposed changes are more anti-gun not less.

    The proposed changes may even make it quite difficult for multiple trustees to effectively use or manage assets owned by the trust.
    If a NICs check is required each time the property changes hands between trustees it removes a primary benefit of a well written trust altogether.



    A big result of the changes would be the ATF only has to deal with and strong arm individuals, not deal with complicated legal trusts which are their own entity and may be represented and backed by many people and multiple lawyers representing clients who have done nothing wrong and are still entitled to the items owned by the trust (such as NFA items.)
    It is a lot easier to strong arm a lone individual, seize assets, bully, or get your way especially after charging them with a crime and locking them away from resources than to take on an entire separate entity with multiple members.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2011
  19. Bubbles

    Bubbles Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2004
    Messages:
    3,152
    Location:
    Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia
    More from http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi?read=747127, straight from the horse's mouth:
     
  20. Zoogster

    Zoogster Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2006
    Messages:
    5,093
    Yes it appears the ATF wants to use the opportunity to remove many of the great options provided through a trust, which allows bypassing CLEO anyways and never notifies them.

    Replacing it with a requirement to notify CLEO and local law enforcement of who owns such firearms, but not having to use a trust to avoid CLEO permission.
    So then even people that go through a trust can be treated to their address being associated with NFA firearms and a need to treat the occupants as extra dangerous.


    Citizens lose more than they gain in options.
    How would it effect the ability to give multiple family members separate legal access and use of NFA firearms for example? (If registered to a single individual it can be illegal to let a family member borrow or use it by themselves, while a trust can provide use to more than one person.)
     
  21. Davek1977

    Davek1977 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2008
    Messages:
    2,464
    "You're wrong, they will never make it easier for us" is easy enough to type, but how about actually adding something to SUPPORT that opinion? Others seem to be finding out info regarding the elmination of the CLEO signoff requirement, but all we got from you is " It won't happen". OK....now back that statement up with some sort of factual basis supporting it, because you're opinion runs contrary to the information becoming availble regarding this aspect of the NFA
     
  22. waterhouse

    waterhouse Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    4,239
    Location:
    Round Rock, TX
    How so? It appears trusts will still be allowed, and people that don't have trusts and can't get CLEO sign off will now be able to get NFA items. If they traded trusts for no CLEO signature I could possibly see your point, but it looks like we are gaining something here without losing trusts.

    It seems very early, and I haven't ready the exact language, but it appears at first glance that trustees will still be able to use said item. If the item is transferred to a different trust, (such as an in state sale), some sort of background check will be done.

    As far as I can tell, this isn't the ATF's plan . . . the NFATCA wants it. If they are pleased with it, it sure seems like a positive to me.
     
  23. MD_Willington

    MD_Willington Member

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2005
    Messages:
    3,692
    Location:
    Canuck in SE WA State.
    I'll have to admit, my Sheriff is an alright guy, he's pretty cool about this kind of stuff... too bad not everyone is.

     
  24. mopar92

    mopar92 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2008
    Messages:
    700
    I have always hated that a liberal CLEO could stop you from participating in a legal ownership of anything...
     
  25. LemmyCaution

    LemmyCaution Member

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2008
    Messages:
    890
    And I've always hated that a conservative CLEO can, as well.


    The change in this policy will help assure that otherwise law abiding citizens who are not necessarily chummy with or known to their local CLEO can exercise their rights. There are a lot of cases in rural areas where a negative relationship with the Sheriff while you were both in high school can come back to haunt you in adulthood. Given that the position of Sheriff is an elected one, there is plenty of opportunity for political hijinx from any political party against those they perceive to be their political enemies. Leaving the approval for something up to the whim of a single individual is never a recipe for equal protection of the law.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Feb 19, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page