Proposed changes from Executive Action to require CLEO sign-off for trusts

[cmhbob]

It's my understanding that it was an NFA owners group that started the push for this action.

 

[Honeybee]

I don't believe that, most NFA groups want the present laws tossed so that everyone can own automatic weapons and suppressors again like the good old days.

 

[murphy j]

It's my understanding that it was an NFA owners group that started the push for this action.

It was the NFATCA people. They're backpedaling on it now, but I think their 'engaging' with the administration on NFA rules has come back to bite them in the ass.

 

[AKguy1985]

Well, so much for ever getting anything class III.

 

[tulsanewb]

The link to the proposal: https://www.federalregister.gov/art...er-firearms-background-checks-for-responsible

The public comment period begins Monday, 9/9.

 

[tulsanewb]

I hope we get a large number of polite, articulate letters sent in that show how detrimental this rule would be to everyone: Citizens, BATFE, and CLEOs. As much detail as possible (like quotes from CLEOs that refuse to sign or view this as a burden) will help.

 

[Nimaro]

like quotes from CLEOs that refuse to sign or view this as a burden

I think this would justify the move in their eyes.

 

[otis147]

slave's suggestion box. that'll work.

submitting to NFA infringements converts your rights to priveledges, which can be altered, or abolished at the whim of your masters.

how much subjugation are you willing to accept for the priveledge of quiet, short, or automatic weapons?

 

[jrguns]

Any more info on this? Seems like the good buddy system will prevail. The one where you are good friends with the local CLEO will get you the sign off.

Is it time to get my paperwork in for another NFA item on my trust? Or is it too late?

 

[Raoul Duke]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303492504579111243276511128.html

Under the new rule, proposed Sept. 9 by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, people linked to the trusts also would have to obtain a sign-off from local law enforcement and undergo criminal background checks. The proposal is open to public comment until December.

The proposed rule is galvanizing gun-control supporters, who say silencers inherently make a weapon more dangerous, and gun-rights advocates, who say the popular portrayal of silencers as the tools of criminals is off base and that silencers protect owners' hearing.

Gun dealers said signatures are hard to get in many jurisdictions. The ATF acknowledged as much, disclosing in its proposal that several sheriffs and police chiefs had privately expressed their discomfort at signing off on applications for items regulated under the National Firearms Act. A spokeswoman for the ATF declined to comment.

Sheriff David B. Shoar in St. Johns County, Fla., said last year that he would no longer sign off on the paperwork for those seeking weapons covered by the National Firearms Act, including silencers.

https://www.okshooters.com/showthread.php?184243-Should-Oklahomans-have-the-power-to-recall-state-elected-officials