ATF Extending CLEO Sign Off to Trusts and Corporations

I thought transfers that already took place to existing trusts were grandfathered - I don't know this for a fact, the status of this seems to be in flux.

When people first started using Trusts to do NFA transfers to get around the CLEO sign-off, I told people to be very concerned about this. BATFE can change the rules to screw you. They could go much further than what they seem to be doing. They could come out and say "no CLEO sign-off, then you can't use your NFA item, only keep it as an investment". In another time, when we citizens still had some degree of freedom, no one thought this could ever happen. Well, it's happening, and it sucks!!!
 
Tom Odom at the Prince Law Blog has prepared an analysis of procedural problems with the proposed rule change: http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/08/30/procedural-issues-with-atfs-draft-proposal/

This proposed rule change has not been published in the Federal Register yet so it appears the comment period has not yet started.

Additionally, the Prince Law Blog has prepared sample letters to send to ATF for FFLs (http://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/sba-1-letter.docx) and for individuals who were denied a CLEO sign off (http://princelaw.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/cleo-letter.docx)

Please do not just cut and paste these letters; but instead use them as a rough template to form your own personalized letters including specific relevant details. Remember ALl information will be public record so you may need to exercise INFOSEC during submission.

And to answer the earlier question YES! It is absolutely vital that pro-2A CLEOs offer their comments to the ATF. They would absolutely want to weigh in on any increased paperwork or administrative burden this causes.
 
My concern is that the Administration fully intended to cripple the industry and comments pointing that out will just reinforce their decision.
Click to expand...
I share your concern.

Would it help to get the CLEO's that are pro-second amendment to comment that this is going to cause them lots of needless and necessary paperwork and the requirement is not necessary?
Click to expand...
Probably. I think the most obvious point to attack in the proposed rule is that there is no genuine need for the photos and fingerprints to be certified by a CLEO. Why isn't the LE's signature on the fingerprint card who took the prints sufficient for that? Why not just include a copy of .gov issued photo ID to show that it matches the 2x2s submitted? Of have a form that any LEO or notary can certify that the photos are of the named person? Any of these or other alternatives would satisfy any legitimate concerns. How about requiring a signed 4473 and NICS check at the time of transfer for all persons authorized by the trust/corp./LLC to have access to the firearm? (I don't like this last suggestion, but it would satisfy any legitimate concerns.)

The answer is that the "concerns" are not very legitimate and the proposed process is intended to deter, not to fix some perceived "loophole."

Even the whole idea of CLEO notice seems archaic and without any genuine, legitimate purpose. But I could accept CLEO notice in place of CLEO sign-off. That's what I understand the NFATCA had negotiated with ATF -- before they/we got sandbagged.


When could/does this nonsense take place? Is there time to register another Lower as an SBR?
Click to expand...
Probably. I would definitely register with ATF eForms and submit it electronically, just in case it could speed up the process a bit.
 
Last edited:
Reference Docket Number ATF41P and follow instructions at www.regulations.gov
Click to expand...

That did not work for me. I did see page 49 of the PDF.

Are there any other avenues for us to send our message against this proposed rule change? Will writing my congressman do a bit of good for a change in ATF procedure?
 
The proposal has just been published in the Federal Register. The date for comments begins Monday. Give it a look then and you should see it at the above link.
 
Proposition to consider

Would it be reasonable for the 'TFL Brain Trust" to contribute Key points here that others may consider for their response?

It's important for salient, concise comments be posted within the time limit (90 days from I believe Monday?).

I deal with another federal agency daily and and they are required to 'seriously consider all comments' to their proposed rule making, and justify their actions based upon the comments, so I don't see this as a lost cause as the tone from some responses implies. My understand this is a federal requirement across the board, so reinforcing key points may be worthwhile.

Just a thought.
 
Those guys are really on top of things. I've printed out the whole thing, and I'm trudging through it now. It's not an easy read.

It looks as if anyone named in any capacity in the trust will be a "responsible person," and thus subject to the new requirements:

The Department proposes amending § 479.11 to add a definition for the term “responsible person.” (...) Depending on the context, the term includes any individual, including any grantor, trustee, beneficiary, partner, member, officer, director, board member, owner, shareholder, or manager, who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any trust instrument, contract, agreement, article, certificate, bylaw, o rinstrument, or under state law, to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the entity.
Click to expand...

There's some language about changing the wording of the CLEO signoffs, but they're not going anywhere. They're being expanded to cover pretty much everyone, though the change in wording might persuade some reluctant LEO's to sign.

I'm really wishing the NFATCA had kept their mouths shut on this one.
 
Well, this is their response about not keeping their mouths shut.
This From one of the board members:

We were aware that the Trust thing was going to blow up on the NFA community and we let people know. We tried to negotiate but there were a lot of people on the Internet publicly explaining how to open an NFA Trust and “Wink Wink” there were no background checks and you could put all your friends in the trust and they could all get access to the guns. No one could ever know who was in the trust “Wink Wink.” We all saw the posts, anyone who knew how the world works, cringed. Once again the braggarts posting their questionable behavior had screwed the NFA Community.

We offered that the massive increase in NFA transfers to trusts was due to the antiquated CLEO provision and it being a pain to get a signature at best, and de facto gun control in many areas at worst. Our suggestion was remove CLEO and it would remove the motivation of a large portion of the Trust applicants’ need to use a trust and put them through simple ownership process and transfer using a modern method.

They were going to hammer the Trusts etc anyway with elimination or 100% background checks, the fact is we were good on this until the idiots who were abusing it so that their felon friends could get access to NFA firearms in a trust trumpeted it all over the place and made their abuse of the system not just an insider thing for them, but told every LE and ATF person in the country what they were doing. Don’t blame the NFATCA, blame the loudmouths and abusers who made this an issue.
Click to expand...
 
This proposal repeatedly states that the NFATCA themselves brought up the the trust "loophole" as a potential venue for criminal possession of NFA weapons. In fact, it says so with such frequency that it would constitute a gross misrepresentation to the point of slander if it wasn't true.

The NFATCA's response (direct link) to this question has been less than encouraging.

I was willing to consider the idea that they hadn't thrown us under the bus, but now I'm not so sure. In any case, it's reasonable to expect a detailed and plausible explanation from them before supporting them in any way.

The link for leaving comments on the proposal is here. If you wish to submit a comment, please do so the right way. Make your point in a civil, succinct fashion. Use facts, not emotions, to make your argument, and avoid broad politicking. We have a slight advantage in that this is a very obscure regulation, and as such, its supporters can't really manipulate a mass of uninformed people on the issue.
 
So, does this mean that if the rule change goes through, and everyone will need CLEO signoff's again, silencer manufacturers are basically dead?
 
Idiots. I've never read a single "wink wink" suggestion on any forum ever.

I never even thought of the notion of adding friends or some nonsense to a trust until reading these knuckle heads' writings. :mad:
 
So, does this mean that if the rule change goes through, and everyone will need CLEO signoff's again, silencer manufacturers are basically dead?
Click to expand...
I'm not sure why it would. The rules apply to ownership, not manufacture.
 
I never even thought of the notion of adding friends or some nonsense to a trust until reading these knuckle heads' writings.
Click to expand...
That may be true, but that doesn't mean things like that aren't going on. There's an LGS in my area that has a trust set up and if you want to buy a silencer from them they'll sell it you and add you to their trust, no questions asked.
 
Willie Lowman said:
I think he means that the boom in sales suppressor manufacturers have experienced will end.
Click to expand...

I think the likely 9 month wait time (at least if your dealer has to order it first) is more of a damper to sales. I guess I'm blessed with my CLEO as I got the forms signed in under 48 hours. While I'm sure there's several negative CLEOs out there, I can't imagine they're a majority.

Unless a large bulk of sales are from stunts like that gun shop, in which case, I'd dare say those sales should stop anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top