HB 234 and CLEO Signoff

[DOCDC1]

Congratulations to OFCC for your hard work in bringing us always closer to better CHL laws.

I know that sign offs are now to be shall sign but I want to know if that includes my Chief of Police where I live. Does this only cover forcing the Sheriff to sign? I really would love to walk into my police department and have them be forced to sign me off. What are your thoughts?

Doc

[BobK]

The statute, as written, directs each county sheriff to perform the same background check as they perform for a CHL, and sign the form when the applicant passes the background.

Local police do not issue CHL's, they are not set up to process the same background checks as a county sheriff office, and are not covered by the statute.

A local police chief is still allowed to sign according to the BATF***r regs, but I would expect that they will now refuse to sign because the legislature has directed county sheriffs to perform this task.

[DOCDC1]

Thanks Bob.

I kind of figured that but one can hope I guess. I am just grateful for the shall issue. Merry Christmas to you and everyone on here.

Doc

[djthomas]

A local police chief is still allowed to sign according to the BATF***r regs, but I would expect that they will now refuse to sign because the legislature has directed county sheriffs to perform this task.

I don't know about that. There's nothing in the law requiring chiefs to to sign off today, so those that do sign have made a conscious (possibly philosophical) decision to do so. The legislature did not displace the chiefs' authority to sign, they merely started requiring one particular office within the county to sign them on a shall issue basis.

There's also a practical issue for cities where the chief currently signs today. The sheriff is allowed to charge for the service and has 45 days to putz around with it, and I suspect sheriffs in some counties will do that to the max. A chief can continue to sign them at no charge, same day service for his residents. That's free goodwill towards the department and the city. Mayors and city councils like that kind of stuff because that may translate to more favorable votes down the road.

I know for a fact that my chief will continue to sign for any resident as long as the computer says they're OK.

As an aside I find it very curious that the law will allow people to go to an adjacent county as they can for their CHLs. I strongly suspect that the ATF won't accept those since it has to be the CLEO of the jurisdiction in which you live. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm not quite sure what the legislature was thinking on that one.

[MacDonald]

The wait in Lebanon was three months after an appointment was made, so I went to Clermont County. Took a week there after I showed up, no appointment.

[Werz]

I know for a fact that my chief will continue to sign for any resident as long as the computer says they're OK.

As an aside I find it very curious that the law will allow people to go to an adjacent county as they can for their CHLs. I strongly suspect that the ATF won't accept those since it has to be the CLEO of the jurisdiction in which you live. Maybe I'm wrong but I'm not quite sure what the legislature was thinking on that one.

Exactly. I wonder how many forms will be kicked back because they were signed in an adjacent county.

Also note that, if you live in the right county, the county prosecutor can sign.

[djthomas]

Exactly. I wonder how many forms will be kicked back because they were signed in an adjacent county.

With no refund, to boot. After all, he provided the service requested. Caveat emptor as to whether or not the ATF will accept it.

[MyWifeSaidYes]

From an ATF NFA FAQ (http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/nationa ... earms.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

Q: If the chief law enforcement official whose jurisdiction includes the proposed transferee’s residence refuses to sign the “law enforcement certification,” will the signature of an official in another jurisdiction be acceptable?

No. But see “What law enforcement officials’ certifications on an application to transfer or make an NFA weapon are acceptable to ATF?” for the list of acceptable chief law enforcement officers.

So, sheriff in an adjacent county is NOT an option unless something changes within the ATF.

Q: What law enforcement officials’ certifications on an application to transfer or make an NFA weapon are acceptable to ATF?

As provided by regulations, certifications by the local chief of police, sheriff of the county, head of the State police, or State or local district attorney or prosecutor are acceptable. The regulations also provide that certifications of other officials are appropriate if found in a particular case to be acceptable to the Director. Examples of other officials who have been accepted in specific situations include State attorneys general and judges of State courts having authority to conduct jury trials in felony cases.

[27 CFR 479.63 and 479.85]

[davcar45]

My suggestion is you guys who want to delve into the NFA world, get over to an NFA specific web sight and start doing your homework. AR15.com has an entire section on Class 3 with tons of knowledgeable guys who live this process.

This shall sign stuff just passed in HB234 will be great if/when 41P ever gets executed. If you don't know what that is, here is something you can read a little about it. http://americansuppressorassociation.co ... ms-system/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The only thing that has changed in Ohio is that YOUR COUNTY sheriff "shall sign" a Form 1/Form 4 NFA form. And he may process that like an OH CHL, meaning he can charge you for it. It doesn't say he has to charge, it doesn't say the police chief or the DA or whoever else used to sign your form has to change what they are doing. They can still sign and they can do it for free. If your sheriff used to sign forms for you, it is likely that nothing will change. Can he be a jerk and now charge you for it? Yes he can. Will he? That remains to be seen. DO not go to an adjacent county for a signature on a Form 4. I guarantee you it is coming back to you if you do. It requires YOUR chief law enforcement officer to sign it, not the next country overs CLEO.

My guess is this gives sheriff's political cover more than anything. I know in Butler county the only reason the otherwise completely pro gun and pro CHL sheriff will not sign is for political reasons. i.e. a TV add that says Sheriff Jones is signing forms to allow county residents to own machine guns. It's dumb, but it happens or it could happen and these guys are elected to that makes them political. Now the sheriff can say, I did my job as prescribed by law. End of story. My sheriff (Jones)I've heard has told people to do a trust, he doesn't care how many title II arms you own, he just won't give you written permission.(politics)

It will also FORCE the anti gun sheriffs to sign and probably so it will hold up in court they said you can charge like you do for a shall issue CHL. This makes it a funded mandate instead of an unfunded mandate so to speak. Believe me, entrance into NFA as far as money goes is high to begin with. If you are buying a machine gun that's papered, and the only reason you never bought one before was because your sheriff wouldn't sign off a Form 4, then the $50 you are going to pay to get that signature is chump change.