Jump to content

Don't forget to comment on NFA changes!


Recommended Posts

You and everyone in your home should comment on this! Demand that the CLEO sign off be eliminated. 

We live in a modern society with computers and documentation, there is no need for a CLEO sign off anymore.

It may have been relevant in 1934, but today a Sheriff is fair to busy to do these documents.

 

Keep it civil. And remember that we won the shotgun import ruling.

 

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=ATF_FRDOC_0001-0016

Link to post
Share on other sites

Done and done and thank you.  Years ago I was very heavy into this.  Time to get back into the saddle.  Of course.....100 years ago we did not have dinkum thinkums. (computers)  Also a polite hand written short letter seems to get their attention the most.  Glad now we stocked up on those cheap, (then) "forever" US Snail stamps.  Heee hee.  HB of CJ (old coot) :) :) :)

 

Evil shall prevail if good men do nothing.  Or something like that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Done.

 

"In today's world, a Sheriff is far too busy to waste his time signing off forms. The CLEO signoff is an unneeded redundancy. BATFE does all the checking necessary before approving the transfer. Let's free our law enforcement officers to do important work fighting crime, and less time filling out redundant red tape."

Link to post
Share on other sites

like writing them will do any good. they're going to implement that rule  change despite the e-mail writing .  

 

this isn't like writing a elected official, the AG, director of ATF etc... are political appointees, and like any political appointee, they're going to do whatever their  master's voice tells them to do.

Edited by Matthew Hopkins
Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually they have several points that seem to indicate that someone involved with the writing is attempting to mitigate the problem.. The trick is NOT demanding that the rule change be stopped.. But rather suggest ways to make it actually work. Because I agree that they are taking orders on this. But if they implement them in a way that works for us then this could actually be an improvement..

 


"ATF is aware that officials in a number of jurisdictions refuse to sign the certificate because of concern about potential liability for an individual's intentional or accidental misuse. Such refusals have resulted in litigation by some applicants against ATF. See Lomont v. O'Neill, 285 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Westfall v. Miller, 77 F.3d 868 (5th Cir. 1996). While courts have upheld the CLEO certificate requirement, ATF proposes to amend the language of the regulations and the corresponding forms to address this concern. Sections 479.63 and 479.85 will no longer require the certificate to contain a statement regarding information about the use of the firearm for other than lawful purposes. ATF requests comments on the specific language proposed, and whether this change will address the concerns raised by some CLEOs."

 

 

I quoted the above section and gave my suggestion:

 

 

 

It is unlikely that a small change in wording is going to change a nationwide policy of ignoring requests for CLEO certificates. 
A better change to this policy would be: To give the CLEO notice after the federal background check, that the applicant will be receiving approval unless there is a known reason for them to be denied. This would eliminate a CLEO's personal views of firearms politics from the process, yet still keep them as a resource. The notice could give the CLEO a set time of say 30 days to review local records and confirm identity of the applicant, and if by the end of 30 days the CLEO has not issued a denial with documentation showing cause, the applicant will automatically receive approval at that level.

 

 

As for if this actually works.. You all do remember the one about shotguns with pistol grips and rails? Many people wrote that pistol grips are a common sporting feature. And now MKA1919s are imported with pistol grips. 

 

They are apparently required to read the comments.

 

My current thoughts after reading through the document with my less then lawyerly eyes. Is that ATF is well aware of the CLEO problem, but is being ordered to apply that to all transfers.. If they could simply "update the system" to the modern concept that signatures are merely opinion not facts. The CLEO sign off should become a safety against shoddy local record keeping, rather then a means for one person to express their political opinions. Make it automatic approval unless they find something.

 

My county sheriff will not sign anything. Not out of hatred of firearms, but simply because he is busy in a county of 500,000 people. Getting his attention is basically impossible.

I know a guy who knows a guy that could twist a few arms and maybe get a name on the dotted line... But that is not the way this should work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 csspecs, that's all well and good and your writing is well thought out, and if we had a strong pro-gun president and DOJ, ATF director then I would say that has a very good chance of happening.    but,  you're forgetting one small tiny little detail;   obama and his cronies don't want to make it easier or efficient "in a way that works for us". what their intention is, is to make it such a burdensome process. a real PITA if you will,  that less people will even attempt to apply for NFA items, or can't because their CLEO won't sign. now,  unless he and his cronies did a mind bending 180 turn around on their gun position, that well written piece has about chance as being implemented as a snow storm in hell

 

believe me they know that since the trust came about a few years back, that was a legal loophole.  to get around CLEO signs offs. that is why they are making it so that trust, corporations will now have to get signs off, fingerprinting and photos, just like a individual.  

Edited by Matthew Hopkins
Link to post
Share on other sites

We had Obama when the Shotgun review was going through.. That backfired as the public comments showed the truth.

 

We are now up to almost 1000 public comments that all basically say the same thing. CLEO won't sign for anyone, they admit that CLEO won't sign and that they would like to address it. They asked if they did enough. If everyone says the same thing, that CLEO won't sign for political reasons or because they are busy.. It shows the truth, that the change is not "closing a loop hole in back ground checks" its a ban in the name of a tax.

 

My thought is that if sufficient people state a way that accomplishes all goals that it looks better for them to go along with it... While I'm not totally in favor of something that makes Obama look like a great negotiator, I would like to actually buy NFA items. Its pretty clear that if liability is a prime concern, that the system must be changed to allow the CLEO to actually do what they are asked.

 

We can also not say anything and the ruling will go into effect as written in 90 days and those of us with CLEO that won't answer the form will forever be without NFA items. Posting comments and suggestions seems slightly more productive. Contacting several of your politicians suggesting the same would likely help grease the wheels.. ATF would rather shoot their own foot then have congress do it for them.. 

 

I can handle photo and finger prints.. Its getting an audience before 'Caesar' Ben Johnson that is currently impossible. If I could get that part down to just my record not his opinion of NFA items, I'd be collecting stamps!

Link to post
Share on other sites

If no law restricting it in state or local area for your item, you can always have the ATF make the decision -without signature. But you have to document that you attempted to follow the process.

For example, the Sheriff in my county doesnt 'believe' people should have suppressors...even though it was perfectly legal in the County/State I was in. Ok then.

I asked an NFA collector friend and was told.....If the Sheriff won't sign, note the dates/times. Then try local police chief. If denied a signature there as well, make note (dates/times), and send to ATF making notes and cite the laws. The ATF should approve without signature. You still have to do all that fingerprint stuff of course. At the end of the day, law > opinion. Takes longer but that is how I was told the process is supposed to work. Remember, the signature is not liabiilty OR permission.

Edited by whatmanual
Link to post
Share on other sites

Ccspecs is right, but Hopkins has a point.  In the end, however, if you do not comment to make things better, it certainly will not get better, it will only go the way they want it to go.

 

Therefore, follow Ccspecs advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You have until December 9th.. I'm trying to see if there is anything preventing multiple comments from the same person.. So far it looks like you can keep commenting provided you speak of a different section of the proposal each time. No duplicates.

 

I do suggest getting everyone in your family to comment. I filled out the form for everyone in my family, wrote some personal reason they wanted an NFA item, but that CLEO won't sign. My wife wants a SBS because she has trouble holding full length ones. SBS are actually legal in Canada, and they don't have a problem with them being a few inches shorter.

 

We need 5,000 or more comments. Few if any other proposals have more then 100 comments. Most don't even have a single comment.. So if we 50X normal its hard to push it under the rug.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

Bumping this to remind all to keep commenting. And get the word out, to other forums. In many states we are bordering on getting suppressors legalized for hunting of all things. Getting rid of CLEO sign off makes the process possible for your average person. I know I could probably increase my target shooting window by an hour in the evenings by having a suppressor, and during the day I'd piss fewer people off.

 

Looks like we are up another 600. Ideally we want to set a record for most comments if possible.

 

If you say anything, just suggest that CLEO sign off seems outdated, since the function is now completed by computer background checks, the requirement is nothing but a hold over from a quaint time before easily accessed records. The CLEO signature was a background check before background checks existed.. But its outdated and unneeded.

 

Again, your comments actually have value. We are not opposing the whole rule change, just eliminating a single point of resistance that has been a constant issue. The background checks on trusts is not that problematic, the sign off is impossible in most areas..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
×
×
  • Create New...