As a Class 3 dealer, I would *really* appreciate the CLEO being forced to sign off on NFA items. I've had a couple customers in Lincoln County (Prague, to be specific) have to go a different route after Chief Dudley in Prague refused to sign for them. She feels it "isn't safe for HER town", and therefore won't sign. There are other avenues, but it's insulting for a law-abiding citizen to a) have to beg for permission and then b) be refused arbitrarily.
As a Class 3 dealer, I would *really* appreciate the CLEO being forced to sign off on NFA items. I've had a couple customers in Lincoln County (Prague, to be specific) have to go a different route after Chief Dudley in Prague refused to sign for them. She feels it "isn't safe for HER town", and therefore won't sign. There are other avenues, but it's insulting for a law-abiding citizen to a) have to beg for permission and then b) be refused arbitrarily.
The other funny thing is the SDA permit DOES count as a second form of ID at the DPS, if you don't want to haul in a birth certificate.
It's not necessarily an issue of cash, but rather principles.
Then again, I'd question the consistency of someone who would get a handgun license while foregoing a driver's license "on principle".
Do municipal and county LEOs have the discretion to sign or not?
If not, then Tim Gillespie (OK2A) mentioned a bill up this session that would not let them deny the signature if you are legally able to own a firearm.
The DL is required to be carried along with the permit, but the law only requires us to show the permit. Someone happened to think that if we are required to carry the DL, it should be written that we are required to show it. I'd be perfectly fine if they would strike the whole thing about being required to show unless suspected of a crime.
I can see how that could be a consolidation of language as Oklahoma doesn't have any open air prohibited places.
CLEO's currently have discretionary power over the NFA process for individuals. That's why Trusts got so popular as a means to bypass them. If BATFE gets their way and requires CLEO signoff on Trusts & Corps., it will set up a legal challenge avenue to require THEM to do it. I'm all for that, because it would no longer be discretionry. If it's legal in your jurisdiction and you're not a prohibited person, they'd be forced to approve.
I'm not sure whether the state legislature could force local CLEO's to sign off. I know for a fact the U.S. government can't (see Printz v. U.S.).
Personally, I think it's past time to force the federal government to serve the public and do it. I'd like to see an automatic system, whereby BATFE has a set amount of time to process the application, or it gets passed on to the NFA branch without requiring a local office signature. That way offices in anti-gun jurisdictions couldn't "slow roll" applicants as a deterrent.
SB1473 - Piers Morgan Constitutional Right to Keep and Bear Arms Without Infringement Act
(By the way, that's the unlicensed carry bill.)
(By the way, that's the unlicensed carry bill.)
This is the one I'll be rooting for. We need constitutional carry, and anything short of that is simply not acceptable.
I hope it remains intact.
Piers Morgan forever enshrined in Oklahoma law... allowing unlicensed carry... PRICELESS!
I will agree that naming the Bill after Piers is about the only thing that could get me EVEN MORE excited about constitutional carry.
Similar threads
