NFA Trust Changes

[Kilroy]

I got an email saying that the ATF is going to be implementing changes to NFA trusts that requires photographs and fingerprints for everyone and CLEO sign off.

 

This will be a nail in the coffin for me with NFA purchases because the CLEO in my area says that citizens don't need to own machine guns/suppressors/SBR's/AOWs etc.

 

What I've read is that the ATF is not going to allow public opinion on the subject like what happened with the green tip bullet ban.

 

Does anyone know anything or have any input? Here is a link to what I've read:

 

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201504&RIN=1140-AA43

[ron_brock]

If your local CLEO will not sign you can go above his head. If they won't sign go to the AG. If they won't and you provide evidence ATF will waive (supposedly). This was discussed at TATA several years back. I don't recall the title of the gentleman from the NFA branch but a search or another member might weigh in. I am not aware of a case, but supposedly it is possible.

 

He's not giving you permission just using an antiquated system to say you're a law abiding citizen in his jurisdiction.

 

Ron

Edited June 5, 2015 by ron_brock

[RoscoeTurner]

Some more news about this subject -

 

http://americansuppressorassociation.com/amendment-to-block-executive-action-atf-41p-passes-u-s-house/

[ron_brock]

Funny. The NRA ILA article on HR 2578 didn't highlight this as a key measure.....

 

Among the key measures in the House CJS Appropriations bill are:

 

a prohibition on the use of funds for "Operation Choke Point," a program that chokes off banking services to legitimate businesses;

a prohibition on funds to prevent the Obama Administration from banning commonly used ammunition, such as M855;

a prohibition on the use of funds to prevent the Justice Department (or any government entity) from spending taxpayer dollars on "gun walking" programs such as the flawed and controversial "Operation Fast and Furious";

a prohibition on the use of funds to maintain any record or gun registry on multiple rifle or shotgun sales to law-abiding individuals;

a prohibition of funds for collecting data regarding a person's race or ethnicity on a Form 4473 when purchasing a firearm.

 

Ron

[RoscoeTurner]

Funny. The NRA ILA article on HR 2578 didn't highlight this as a key measure.....

For the most part the NRA seems to be a bit out of touch when it comes to NFA subjects.

[The Lone Ranger]

Ron -

 

You are probably thinking of Gary Schaible (TATA meeting). I don't know that he would have said ATF would waive the requirement as no one really knows. No one has submitted an application with no signature with confirmation that all acceptable officials have declined to sign. From what I "know", every lawsuit at the federal level has been dismissed due to lack of standing. If ATF would disapprove after an applicant documented refusal by all officials, that would cure the standing situation.

 

While you are correct, the signature block is not intended to be a permission slip, if ATF won't approve without one it takes on the role of permission and people who hurt no one get denied access to "bad" firearms.

 

Kilroy -

 

What you were told about no public comment is not correct. That time has come and gone. Roughly 8000 comments were received, most not favorable to expanding the CLEO but in the end I am not sure it matters.

Edited June 6, 2015 by The Lone Ranger

[Kilroy]

So, what does that mean? I'm done?

[The Lone Ranger]

Not yet. You probably have a few months and maybe forever. If the budgetary restriction language actually sticks, there will be no expansion of the CLEO and also, there's no saying ATF/DOJ will retain that same aspect of the regulation change. While I think it's another BS shortcut by congress, it would do the trick and may be a recurring item every year. There has been no federal relief from disability since the 90s - the statute is still there, but ATF is prohibited from spending money to implement it. Another possibility is that if it exapands, it might actually be better long term in that someone may mount a successful challenge.

 

All hypothetical because like everyone else commenting about it on the net, I don't know the outcome.

[johnsonlmg41]

according to NSSF june/ july edition "ATF is unlikely to publish notice 41p for quite some time. This is in part because Enforcement programs and Services resources are being diverted to help process the 310,000 public comments in response to the armor piercing ammunition framework proposal. In addition , it seems ATF is not prepared to revise the NFA database so that it can track "responsible persons" for NFA trusts"

 

Translation: we made a mess, couldn't figure out how to actually do what we wanted to do, then we made a much bigger mess and we're busy working on that for the moment, but you never know, we may get back to it?

[johnfreeman]

....nor are they prepared to do much of anything else in a late 20th century state of efficiency. They can't even execute a simple on-line form I & 4 registry without it getting so munged up it crashes. They're still processing forms in paper. They mired in classical bureacratic miasmic inefficiency .

[The Lone Ranger]

Kilroy - for what it's worth this was originally written so as to remove the CLEO signature. The expansion aspect came later. There is always a chance it can return to its previous version.

[Kilroy]

I hear the changes are coming beginning of January, anyone know anything?

[huggytree]

i have 3 guns coming right now to my dealer....i have (2) form 4's already signed off on by my CLEO (in WI they require a CLEO for a trust)...wonder if i will need to add a mug shot and fingerprints?

 

curious situation

[arch stanton]

Just to clarify this for any other members that live in Wisconsin the CLEO sign off is required for pistol caliber machine guns only.

[Kilroy]

I'm getting ready to submit a Form 4 but the item won't be at the dealer until Wednesday so, the earliest they'll be at the ATF is probably Friday... Aka, next year.

[wwiifirearms]

Nobody knows what the impact of any change will be, because we don't have the final language of any change. All we really know is that the ATF updated the "final action" date on rule proposal 41p from Dec 2015 to Jan 2016. Previous date changes have been in 6 month increments, so this latest 1 month move has people assuming action is coming soon. Probably a reasonable conclusion. But it tells us nothing about what that final action will be.

Below are two places I follow on this topic:

 

https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/category/atf-batfe

 

http://blog.princelaw.com/2015/11/27/atf-41p-update/