HuntingRifle2

The ATF has just released a document detailing their plans to change the NFA requirements for gun trusts. We had been told that the ATF was open to the idea of eliminating the CLEO sign-off completely, but that’s apparently changed and they’re going in the opposite direction. From Page 12 of the document:

ATF does not propose to eliminate the CLEO certification at this time. Rather, ATF proposes extending the CLEO certificate requirement to responsible persons of a legal entity.

In short, they want to require every single person listed on an NFA gun trust to submit fingerprints, photographs and get a CLEO’s sign-off. Not just for the principal trustee, everyone on the trust (anyone who can posess the items owned by the trust). This is above and beyond what we’d been led to believe was going to happen and will have a disastrous impact on the ability of law abiding citizens to obtain legal firearms. Instead, many will be denied based on the whims of local law enforcement. Stay tuned.

142 Responses to BREAKING: ATF To Extend CLEO Sign-Off To EVERY Person Listed on Gun Trusts

      • The day the Manchin-Toomey background bill died in the Senate, every possible way to restrict gun rights without Congressional approval became the game plan. Obama wants background checks, period. It doesn’t matter if they will do nothing to reduce violent crime, he has staked his prestige/ legacy on getting them. And these ATF regs are a tit-for-tat political payback to the NRA, since they will really only effect wealthy gunowners who can afford NFA toys.

      • Exactly. All you have to do is imagine the worst, then do a bit of multiplication.

        But seriously, how did anyone believe they weren’t going to do this. Seriously.

    • This is the same proposed rule posted over a year ago. They want a “responsible person”, that doesn’t mean everyone on the trust. As the abstract on the first page of the proposed rule reads, “require that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO) of the locality in which the maker or transferee is located; and (4) eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by the CLEO.”

      • Except it’s not the same as the proposed rule. The proposed rule literally two days ago eliminated the CLEO signoff. This one is new, amended and released today.

        Reading is fundamental.

    • Wouldn’t that just make Obama look dumb if this to the Supreme Court and parts of the NFA were struck down.

        • So what? We’d be back where we are now? It’s worth the risk since there’s next to nothing to lose and potential to gain.

        • Yup, Mark N. gets the cigar! It may be a win for us in the future but not while O is around to say he “did something” for the children.

      • I’d like to address this.

        The ATF has viewed that corporations and trusts and partnerships – are not people, hence the lack of ability to fingerprint a trust or a corporation.

        It is my understanding that the Supreme Court of the United States in re: Citizens United v FEC has effectively said corporations are people.

        Posing a little if A then B…..the Holder Administration is merely holding corporations to the same standard as people. Completely reasonable, right? Sure, to the non gun owner.

        I don’t like this any more than you do but this completely underscores the intent of the NFA – to limit control of firearms to certain individuals. If you don’t like the CLEO requirement, don’t elect officials that oppose it.

        • Not all such officials are elected, many are appointed.

          What I would like to see is laws (state and federal) requiring such a CLEO to have to sign off on such paperwork UNLESS the person is on probation, under indictment, etc….. All it will take to get such court precedent, is a lawsuit in federal court against a CLEO who refuses to sign off on one.

        • But the NFA by its wording prevents the ATF for requiring legal entities( as opposed to natural ones) to have cleo sign off. Is silencerco ( a corporation ) going to get Cleo sign off on all form 1s? Also a trust can reside anywhere. Just I ate your trust somewhere OTHER than your home. You can still have the NFA items at your home.

  1. I’m curious though, couldn’t you theoretically create the trust, get the CLEO sign-off, get your ATF approval, then later on add to the trustee’s without the CLEO and ATF involvement?

    Isn’t that the point of the trust, to be able to add/subtract from the trustees without needing approval for each transfer?

    • Current thinking from ATF is that each time you want to add or subtract a person front trust, they have to go through a check.

      Yep. We just got bent over a chair. Just hope they at least use spit now.

      • Most of the amendments refer to:

        § 479.62 Form 1 (make)
        § 479.84 Form 4 (transfer)
        § 479.90 Form 5 (transfer tax exempt)

        That alone made me thing it only pertained to responsible persons in the trust at the time of the transfer. However, I noticed this little blurb on page 27:

        G. Miscellaneous
        ATF recognizes that the composition of the responsible persons associated with a trust, partnership, association, company, or corporation may change, and is considering a requirement that new responsible persons submit Form 5320.23 within 30 days of the change. ATF seeks comments on this option and solicits recommendations for other approaches.

        So it sounds like there’s nothing (yet) in the rule change to prohibit amending responsible persons (without jumping through hoops). I assume that will change before final approval.

        • beanfield, I’m glad you found that section. I read the whole thing looking for it, and couldn’t find it.

  2. This is the opposite of the purpose of how a trust or corporation works. Who actually owns the item if the responsible person has to get fingerprints etc. What if the trust is modified? What if the corporation changes out employees? Do they have to resubmit every time?

    No way will this work the way they are hoping it will. Lawsuits will show up all over.

    • I don’t see any legal impediment. They do this all the time with licenses for various kinds of businesses, e.g., contractors. It may be a corporation, but there has to be a Responsible Managing Agent (RMA) who holds the requisite license(s). Here they will simply require that a qualification to act as a trustee will be the background check.. Beneficiaries who receive ownership of NFA items will also have to be approved.

    • Same, I just paid my attorney and was waiting on the move to NH in 2 months to submit my paperwork…How do you submit fingerprints and a background check for a minor who is on a trust for the purposes of inheritance?

  3. Ok thats it! This CLEO thing needs to go to court. Its clearly unconstitutional. If you pass a background check and therefore are not a “prohibited person”, any arbitrary denial of the exercise of your rights is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

    The SAF needs to get on it.

      • They wanted changes but it was to eliminate the CLEO signoff. This rule change caught everyone by surprise.

        • Based on the document cited above, if you start reading at the bottom of page 9, whether the NFATCA meant it that way or not, the ATF is using the petitioner’s (that’s the NFATCA) “concern that persons who are prohibited by law from possessing or receiving firearms may acquire NFA firearms through the establishment of a legal entity such as a corporation, trust, or partnership” against them, to increase the requirements for a trust, but without getting rid of the CLEO endorsement.

          My read on it is that the NFATCA was saying, “Look, because of this stupid CLEO requirement and the capricious abuse of it by the CLEOs, more people are using trusts to get around it, thus increasing the possibility that a Bad Person could get a gun. So, if you’d just get rid of the CLEO requirement, many people would go back to filing as individuals, and everything would be gravy.”

          Unfortunately, ATF took that statement and used it to craft these new rules that are more onerous for everyone concerned.

        • Matt, you have it exactly right. There’s an earlier version of the proposed Order that eliminated the CLEO requirement. The ATF even mentions complaints about rogue CLEO’s in their .pdf. but seem not willing to do anything about it. It’s lawsuit time.

        • [puts away torch, pitchfork, and rope] Lawsuit? Aw… Shucks… I thought we were at the angry lynch mob stage.

    • You guys are correct. NFATCA did it.

      So long guys. Hope you had some good savings.

      Luckily we have a comment period. Maybe we can flood it and tell them we think this is bogus.

      • For those old enough to remember Hogan’s Heroes. “You vill rezeev a fair trial, zen you vill be executed!”.

        We can all petition the sun not to rise tomorrow, it will be just as effective.

      • NFACTA was actually trying to *eliminate the CLEO sign off for everyone* for years, according to their Executive Director, Jeff Folloder. He and I have a running conversation about this and some other NFA reforms I’m advocating (admittedly, as a rank amateur). NFACTA negotiated in good faith and had complete agreement from the BATFE until the Obama administration pulled the rug out at the last second. According to Jeff, they’re definitely not lying down for this.

        As for me, I say we start to nullify the NFA, state by state.

        • You ever heard the old joke about ‘you knew I was a snake when you met me…’?

          There’s no bargaining “in good faith” unless you have a suitable sword of Damocles hanging over their head.

  4. You CANNOT get a CLEO signoff for an NFA item in my county, anyone with an NFA item has a trust. With this new requirement, there will be no new NFA items in my county, which I imagine is the point.

    • No, It just means that they will confiscate all NFA items in your county… and many Arrests so they will never have a gun period…

  5. will have a disastrous impact on the ability of law abiding citizens to obtain legal firearms

    Impossible. Obama would never come after our guns.

    • I saw this coming in 2007, when I started buying lots of ammo (which was lost in a tragic drunken ocean canoeing incident somewhere in the Pacific). Obama hates that there are guns in civilian hands. Period. I trust him as much as I trust Feinstein and Bloomburg.

      • You know what I love about 5.45×39? It comes already sealed in 1080-round spam cans, and I’m pretty sure they’re nitrogen-purged. Seems to me like one could stock up on 5.45 spam cans and have a nice backup supply that would still be good to go decades from now.

        Theoretically.

        In related news, I’ve seen listings some Russian imported handgun ammo (in 9mm and .45, I think) also packaged in spam cans…

        • I might — might, mind you — have several spam cans of 7.62X54R ammo. I definitely have several 7.62X54R ammo cans of Spam. Hey, a guy’s gotta eat.

          BTW, Spam will purge you faster than nitrogen.

      • Yepper, did the same after I exited the market that summer. Got my wife a Barrett for Christmas, a Bushmaster Tactical Modular Carbine system for her Birthday . . . I even bought one or two for myself. Anyway the list is huge, but . . . I made a mistake and locked a kids tooth up in my gunsafe so we could put it under her pillow at night, and she got REALLY impatient and sleepy and fell asleep in the afternoon on the gunsafe before I got home . . .

        Turned out the Tooth Fairy couldn’t unlock it, so she took the whole thing . . . that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

        I do have a shiny new silver dollar however if anyone is wondering if I got anything out of it. Can I declare that as a long term capital loss? Yes. I believe I can. The insurance company would refuse me because it was an act of a deity!

    • Up until today. Everything the DoJ was putting out about this change said they were going to eliminate the CLEO signature and just forward copies to the CLEO for their records. I guess we have egg on our faces for taking their word that it was going to go down that way. We should have know better.

  6. The NFATCA is RESPONSIBLE for this abomination. “the NFATCA expressed concern that persons who are prohibited by law from possessing or receiving firearms may acquire NFA firearms through the establishment of a legal entity such as a corporation, trust, or partnership.” “The petitioner expressed concern that an NFA firearm could be acquired by a prohibited person and used in a violent crime.” Their excuses posted on their facebook page are pathetic.”We filed the petition years ago to force ATF to begin the conversation. We knew there were areas of concern and acknowledged them. We wanted to be involved in defining who responsible parties were.” Short sighted to say the least. They are directly responsible for yesterday’s Biden bites about criminals using trusts to get firearms.

    • exactly the point i was going to make before i refreshed page and saw your post! whoever this group is threw the trust under the bus back in 2009

      • for those reading the document, the description for this is at the bottom of page 9, the beginning of section II (Petition)

  7. The point may be to require us to sue each CLEO. Technically, they may state that the infringement upon our rights is happening at the local level.

    It would likely be more fruitful for states to pass “shall sign” legislation.

    • Not so… We can sue to have the entire tax stamp system ruled unconstitutional. The Hughes amendment is particularly vulnerable as it is a total ban.

  8. The “Comments Sought” section starts on page 47. Read it carefully, and then make use of it. Profanity probably will not help.

    • I wonder if we could have some well crafted talking points, facts and sources posted here. So we can enable the non-wordsmiths among us, to send a powerful and respectful message.

  9. Shouldn’t surprise anyone… they want to make it as difficult as possible and will do anything they can to bypass Congress as they know it wouldn’t pass there. That’s what we get for finally allowing the ATF to have an (anti) leader.

    3 more years of this shit.

  10. So, uh is the ATF going to require background checks and CLEO sign offs for all the personnel of various security and merc companies out there with NFA items?

    • And all the prop companies for hollywood that use real guns (and possibly the actors?). This is why there is a chance we may be able to minimize the damage of this sh*t sandwich. Lots of commercial ventures may be impacted, and they may have more leverage.

  11. One question is, which CLEO has to sign off? Is it the CLEO for the county in which each trustee resides? Is it the CLEO for the county in which the trust was created, regardless of where the trustees are?

    If I were to have a trust, a couple of my friends & family in the Seattle area would be on it so they could borrow my suppressor and buy one themselves for inclusion in the trust, etc. But the CLEO in some of the counties there will not sign off. However, my trust would exist on the rural side of the state where I live, and the CLEO here has no issue signing off on NFA stuff. So… how do they handle this crap?

    • good point….does it say anything about the jurisdiction that applies to the trust/corp?

  12. I’m starting to hate ttag BREAKING NEWS alerts.Lately its been an omen that I should grab a can of vaseline before reading.

    Edit:would this mean dealers can no longer rent full auto weapons to unlicensed patrons?

  13. Merciful heavens, they’re going to try and regulate who has access to NFA weapons, such as fully automatic weapons, anti-tank guns, and the like.

    Every constitutional right has limits – for example, the First Amendment doesn’t allow people to actively recruit for terrorist organizations. All they’re asking here is that people who belong to an NFA gun trust really are law-abiding citizens – and the Heller decision gave a fairly strong hint (“dicta”) that the Supreme Court would not find that the Second Amendment mandated an unrestricted right to own (or have easy access to) machine guns.

    Or do the readers of this blog really feel that members of the Crips and the Bloods, or Mexican drug cartels, should be allowed to join NFA gun trusts?

    • Your last sentence is such a colossally stupid straw man for an argument that nobody here is making that instead of responding in a reasonable manner, I’m just going to say, “Screw you, and peddle your bullshit somewhere else,” and leave it at that.

      If someone else wants to play tag with this nincompoop, be my guest.

      Good day to you, sir.

    • Repub, bro, it’s already a felony to possess or use a firearm if you’re a restricted person. Doesn’t matter how you get it. Trust, no trust, finding it in the woods, making it, getting it as a gift…. all are felonies if you’re prohibited. Just enforce the damn laws that exist for s**t’s sake. 76,000 NICS rejections a few years ago and 13 prosecutions from that. That’s a problem. Why make more and more and more of the same sorts of laws when you don’t enforce them in the first place?

      Above all else, laws don’t STOP criminals from doing anything anyway! Obviously. Murder is illegal, robbery is illegal, etc. They still happen. Laws just provide punishments after you violate them… IF we actually enforce and prosecute them. Requiring a background check for an NFA item isn’t going to keep one criminal who could pass the check from loaning or selling one to another criminal. No responsible person would put a criminal on an NFA trust anyway. Anybody who would do that is already committing a felony, and illegally giving/selling/loaning a gun to that same person, on or off the trust, is no worse. So why would it stop them? It wouldn’t. Obviously. It just costs good people more time and money and hassle, costs the government more money, and effectively bans ownership of these things for good, law-abiding people who SHOULD be allowed to own them. Requiring CLEO sign-off makes it IMPOSSIBLE for many, many people to get these items even though they are fully legal in their state and they can absolutely pass the background checks and own them legally and responsibly. This is a backdoor ban. Period. THAT’S why you should be against it. Won’t reduce crime, will F over law-abiding folks.

      • It’s more than that. With the exception of TWO crimes ever, both committed by police officers who obviously would pass any level of background checks, no registered NFA items have been used in crime (regardless of personal registration or corporate/trust). Every machine gun or silencer or whatever that has been used in crime was either smuggled into the country and purchased illegally or converted/homemade. All the big things like the North Hollywood Shootout, etc, were done with illegally-obtained or converted machine guns. Criminals don’t give a s**t about following the law, setting up trusts, spending hundreds of dollars on tax stamps and lawyers, etc etc etc. What sane person would ever think a criminal would give a crap about that stuff or subject themselves to it? They simply don’t. Ever. Period. That’s why no registered NFA item has been used in a crime since… ever. Never. Just the two examples since the 60’s or possibly earlier, but the tracking got better in the 60’s and that’s when I’ve found data starting from.

  14. Ok, I’ll ask the obvious question, what impact will this have with submitted paperwork currently pending?

    Also, this seems to have just flushed the new “e-form” system, down the shitter.

  15. I felt like all the other posts on this topic were too optimistic, and I was right. This seemed to be the plan all along, to require any person accessing trust assets to be approved by the ATF. This will make NFA trusts much more difficult to manage.

    It is no surprise that this dropped on the afternoon before a long weekend.

  16. Color me not surprised. And right before I was about to add a 22 lr can to my collection. Can we impeach BHO now?

  17. Remind me again how (with the exception of fingerprints and the CLEO signature) the background check for an NFA item is different than a NICS check, and why it takes a year longer to do?

    • It actually isn’t the background check that takes longer. That time is just for processing the application, inputting the registration information, and issuing the tax stamp. The background check portion of it happens very quickly and is, apparently, almost entirely just the NICS system anyway. There are only a handful of people who actually process the applications and they have a huge backlog. It’s just a matter of man hours to get through all of the applications, and it’s currently running up to 9 months for that to happen. YOUR application only takes an hour or whatever. It’s getting around to your application that takes 8 months.

      Of course, they manage to cash your check within ~40 days 😉

  18. Doesn’t help that us lowly peons who aren’t flush with cash were thrown under the bus by those with cash or connections . . . I’m looking square at the good ol’ boys from the NFATCA who thought they could make a deal with the devil:
    The NFATCA expressed concern that persons who are prohibited by law from possessing or receiver firearms may acquire NFA firearms through the establishment of a legal entity such as a corporation, trust, or partnership. It contents that the number of applications to acquire NFA firearms via a corporation, partnership, trust, or other legal entity has increased significantly over the years.

    http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/3913/wg8k.jpg

    Vidkun Quisling would be really damn proud of the guys from the NFATCA.

  19. We need to show up in DC, carrying rifle cases. In each rifle case, we will carry a small broom. When we get to the appropriate stopping point, we unfurl a sign that says something like “Time to sweep away politicians that don’t take their oath to the Constitution seriously!” Then we march around and around making sweeping motions with our little brooms. I’m assuming DC doesn’t consider a broom a firearm and presumably no one will be arrested, right?

    • Depends on the length of the broom handle, the number of bristles, and country of origin whether it would be a felony in DC.

      • Dude, most important requirement to whether you get busted for illegal possession in DC is whether you are for or against gun control.

  20. At first I thought it wasn’t that bad….until I got down to page 17, section III. A. where they define responsible person.

    The Department proposes amending 478.11 to add a definition for the term “responsible person.” The term would include specific definitions in the case of a trust, partnership, association, company (including a Limited Liability Company (LLC)), or corporation. 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, or instrument, or under state law, to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the entity.

    So far it sounds like they’re amending the transfer process….meaning existing transfers on trusts won’t be affected (until you try and add anything new to the trust).

    http://www.nfatca.org/

    There is also a lot of consternation over today’s (08/29/2013) Presidential executive action item regarding trusts and corps. We have been keeping you up to date on this. It STILL must go through the official rule making process in order to become real. As soon as it hits the Federal Register, everyone MUST voice their opposition. Otherwise, fingerprints and photos will be required for responsible persons, however that gets defined.

    These are Executive ACTIONS, not orders. It is the President saying “hey, I wanna get this done.” It is not circumventing the rule making process.

    • No, you’re right, it’s not circumventing the process, it’s going through it. But there’s nothing that says they have to necessarily take the public comments, any or all of them, into account when writing the final rule. It’s still at their discretion. And the last line of the document is Eric “I bear no responsibility for anything, ever” Holder’s signature, so his discretion doesn’t give me a lot of hope.

  21. So, looking to the long game… Since this is being done by executive action, if the Republicans control the White House in 2016 and can appoint their own ATF director, could this all just be reverted to status quo ante, or even further?

    • Nice idea, but when’s the last time a Republican president ever did anything for gun owners?

      • I’m sorry, I can’t immediately provide an example. I’m sure that by some twisted logic that means no Republican president ever will do anything, either. You’re not helpful.

        • I find myself in the shocking situation of supporting the election of a (reasonable) GOP president in 2016. Rand Paul, perhaps.

        • If Rand doesn’t get on the ballot, I’ll have to decide whether to write him in or to vote Libertarian Gary Johnson.

  22. Well, like they say “elections have consequences”. Nearly four more years of Barry. Then 8 MORE YEARS of Hillary. Plus 2 or 3 more SCOTUS justices like Kagan and Sotomayor. And a couple hundred lower court justices.

    Keep thinking happy thoughts everyone !

    • I fully expect that we have seen the end of the American experiment already. We are now in a transition phase to a Venezuelan style single-party elections.

  23. This is a rule change thru the ATF. 2014 and 2016 is payback and correction time. With one voice we POTG need to tell the progun folks we vote for why we vote for them and what we expexctfrom them for our support.

    Things were dark after the 68gca. But we POTG got motivated and now shall issue is very nearly complete in the US.

    Stuck in California as I am I have no dog in this gun trust fight. But i put my money and my support behind those that do. We’re all in this fight. The constitution doesn’t end because of the zip code you reside in.

    • Speaking of POTG, are there bulletin boards and literature things at ranges around the country, to get the word out?

  24. Well I guess I am going to have REALLY nice guns and optics, because the Williamson County TX Sherriff won’t sign off on cans. Maybe SBRs, but not cans.

  25. There’s a surprise. That’s what a compromise is, don’t you get it? We take this, and then, we take that, too! See? You just compromised!

    AKA bending over and grabbing your ankles.

  26. Does ANYONE know if this is going to affect people who already have NFA items in a trust and what about my applications that are pending. Are they going to grandfather or what? Should I buy every NFA item I can get my hands on before the change?

    • It’s hard to say with certainty. From my post above most of the amendments refer to:

      § 479.62 Form 1 (make)
      § 479.84 Form 4 (transfer)
      § 479.90 Form 5 (transfer tax exempt)

      So it’s amending the transfer process that they’re focusing on which would make me think an existing stamp on an existing trust would be unaffected. However, as I also noted they left this on page 27:

      G. Miscellaneous
      ATF recognizes that the composition of the responsible persons associated with a trust, partnership, association, company, or corporation may change, and is considering a requirement that new responsible persons submit Form 5320.23 within 30 days of the change. ATF seeks comments on this option and solicits recommendations for other approaches.

      So depending on what they insert here, it could be problematic. As the proposal stands today, it sounds like existing items on existing trusts would be unaffected (unless you tried to add something to your existing trust after the amendments are enacted). Depending on what they do to address “G. Miscellaneous”, you may have to fill out a form 5320.23 (submitting prints, pictures, etc…) for everyone on your trust if you try and add anyone.

  27. I wonder if a profitable avenue of comment is to highlight the notice that if the ATF isn’t looking to the CLEO as the expert on whether the person is likely to misuse the NFA item but rather as a backstop whether there is any justification for the CLEO to have discretion to refuse to sign off unless they can articulate a reason. If CLEOs are forced into a “shall issue except for good cause” posture it takes out some of the pain of the new reg, and if they aren’t looked at as the subject matter expert by the ATF any more their justification for discretion is undermined.

  28. Won’t this have a hugely negative effect on Hollywood and their violence laden actions movies? Aren’t Trusts what they use to hand out all the goodies to various actors? Wouldn’t this mean that all the actors would have to go through the whole NFA process for EACH movie that they shoot? And some of them who are on the Prohibited Persons list won’t be able to star in their favorite movies? Not that I personally care if Hollywood gets screwed over, but we may find some unlikely allies in this fight. Either that or an exception will be made for the Ministry of Propaganda of The Party.

  29. *Sigh*. So what’s the approximate timeframe before these amendments are enacted? For those of us lucky enough to have an established Trust with NFA toys already, we just need to know how much time is left to accelerate any planned future purchases. “Sorry kids… no christmas this year.”

  30. Okay, How long do I have to submit more forms before I this is official? Also, If I filed paperwork for a suppressor tomorrow, would it be in the system before this is official and I have to deal with the prints, photos and CLEO sign off? Because, I had a list of items that I wanted to add to my collection over time, but if I have to run up my credit card to avoid this garbage, I will. The other thing that really irks me, is that the ATF turn around time just went from 6 months to 9-12 months. There is absolutely ZERO reason for this kind of ridiculous delay.

  31. Will items in our trusts or trusts be grandfathered in? Because I know my local CLEO will not sign off on NFA items.

  32. TN has “must sign” law. Maybe other states can follow suit, to squash the move by BHO/new director.

    39-17-1361. Execution of documents by sheriff or chief of police.

    The sheriff or chief of police of the city of residence of a person purchasing any firearm, defined by the National Firearms Act, 26 U.S.C. § 5845 et seq., shall execute within fifteen (15) business days of any request all documents required to be submitted by the purchaser if the purchaser is not prohibited from possessing firearms pursuant to § 39-17-1316.

    • Yes it would be nice if Kansas along with other states will follow suit. I will be writing my senators on this matter. Kansas has some strong pro 2nd Admendment senators. After the proposed Fienstein AWB got shot down the gun grabbers started posting the senators who said no to any anti 2nd admendment leglislation and said to remember them on election day. I can’t agree more. I will remember to keep these great senators who serve thier public in office. Heh heh heh!..right?

  33. I personally would like to thank TTAG and others who openly talked about this and got it reversed. Rule 1 of Fight Club…do not talk about Fight Club. Oh yeah, lets talk openly about this loop hole to by-pass finger printing and CLEO signature and use a trust. You guys don’t think the opposition is reading this site. Hell, it probably has an FBI Cookie on it just like SurvivalBlog.com did so they can monitor who is reading. Also, stop whining about Obama…Patriot Act is allowing him to do all the crap you do not like. You guys probably loved it when Bush was in office…but now. DHS was formed when Bush was in office. He did way worse than anything Obama has done. I am not a supporter of Obama nor am I a supporter of the Republicans. Just if you guys are going to whine about Obama, I would hope you did the same when Bush was in office.

    • Well, I for one hated Dubya for his abuses first. But the Commie-in-chief swindled the sheeple into voting for him by saying he was going to fix the Bush problem, then turned on us and doubled down. And how could an Obama hater be racist? He’s the biggest double-stuf Oreo I’ve ever heard of.

    • Shawn, give me a break! Whether you liked Bush and agreed with his policies or nor not, he stood by his convictions and was honest about his beliefs. Obama is nothing more than a guy who talks out boths sides of his mouth depending on who he is addressing and what his agenda is. Case in point, when Barry was a Senator, he criticized Bush on the Iraq war and how Bush shouldn’t act unilaterally, even though Bush had a 48 country coalition behind him. Now look at how Obama is handling Syria. He has a coalition of ZERO. Kind of says something about how his leadership is respected, when the Brits won’t even back us up.

      • The guy is The Serpent incarnate. I wonder if his disciples will ever notice what a double-stuf Oreo cookie the guy is?

  34. I have done both, a trust and a CLEO sign off. All I can say is that Taylor County in Texas signed my paperwork before I even did my fingerprints.

  35. These jerks need to be sued for discrimination cause if a Sheriff can approve his brother in law and deny you,you might as well be sitting in the back of the bus as that is classic and illegal discrimination .This is an area that needs to be fought by 2nd Amendment Foundation as well as GOA and NRA.Tie these bastards up in court forever.and keep on sueing them til it gets to the Supreme court.

  36. People, this is the perfect opportunity to take the money you’d use for getting some NFA item which is already very expensive, and use it to buy a gun or two instead. Just don’t stop. Say to the corrupt communist powers that be, “I will not capitulate”.

    Create “freedom packs”, build a bug out kit or two, and stash them. Take the money and go to a reputable trainer, and learn skills.

    Training is even more valuable than any physical piece of property, because it allows you to continue to prevail in a partisan environment.

    Prepare for what these communists are going to attempt, and train.

    • You GET IT MY FRIEND.
      WHAT A BUNCH OF COWARDS ON THIS SITE.
      Obama and his commie buddies tell you you have no right the Medicine or Doctor you want and you thinkn stallin or prayin for time will change things at the ATF.
      Everyone in DC is a TRAITOR.

      Washington should be burnt to the ground or starved for Money.

      They are waging a war to exterminate freedom and you play word games.

      Butch up or Screw the ATF, they are preparing to confiscate revolvers in NY , and you think they will stop or this too will pass.

      LOL

  37. These proposed changes are still just ‘proposed’ at this point, so any rule changes will not happen for some time still, right? Until then, they are continuing to process the applications as they had been prior, no?

    • Yeah, it’s still more than 90 days out. I believe the public comment period is 90 days long, and it hasn’t even started yet.

  38. next get semi autos added to nfa the pressure all cleos not to sign off. every semiauto owner in america is then an instant felon if they do not turn them in.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *