ATF removes CLEO signature requirement

[Bruenor]

The news isn’t all doom and gloom, though. The ATF has officially removed the requirement for your local CLEO to sign off on your paperwork, no matter if you’re an individual or a trust. From the final rule:

(c) Notification of chief law enforcement officer. Prior to the submission of the application to the Director, all applicants and responsible persons shall forward a completed copy of Form [1 or 4] or a completed copy of Form 5320.23, respectively, to the chief law enforcement officer of the locality in which the applicant or responsible person is located. The chief law enforcement officer is the local chief of police, county sheriff, head of the State police, or State or local district attorney or prosecutor. If the applicant is not a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer qualified under this part and is a partnership, company, association, or corporation, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at its principal office or principal place of business; if a trust, for purposes of this section, it is considered located at the primary location at which the firearm will be maintained.

In short, no longer will anyone need permission from their local Chief Law Enforcement Officer to obtain an item regulated under the National Firearms Act. I gotta admit, even though this comes at a bit of a high price in terms of annoyance, that’s a pretty huge win for a lot of people who otherwise had been blocked from buying silencers by their CLEO’s intransigence. The rule goes into effect in 180 days, just long enough that paperwork filed today should clear before it goes into effect.

Where's the catch?

Trusts, Corps, etc were not subject to that previously.

While trusts didn't need a sign-off from the CLEO , they didn't previously have to send in Fingerprints, and Photos for every responsible party in the trust for background checks. That seems like a bit of a catch to me.. A NICS check doesn't require fingerprints and photos.

[Cybercop]

Where's the catch?

I've mentioned in a few other threads that the public records aspect is a huge catch. It's absolutely horrible. Though I must admit that I don't know if the feds would have the authority to tell CLEOs not to release documents given to them by the person. The states need to step up quickly and plug this huge hole.

I don't necessarily care that the locals know I have something. At the end of the day the information on file with the feds can become known to them, statutory safeguards notwithstanding. What I do have a huge problem with is the Cleveland Plain Dealer or the New York Times getting even an inkling that they are somehow entitled to this information. And as it stands today, I think they are.

The fact that the prosecutor is listed in the group of acceptable CLEOs might have some promise for some folks. I already know that the prosecutors I work with have said that such paperwork is of absolutely no value to them or their office and it would be disposed of in the shred bin just like all the junk mail they get. But as with the old signoff requirement, you're entirely dependent on the person sitting in that chair to decide how you fare.

My local sheriff has a unique way of dealing with this issue. When you send in a copy of any ATF paperwork it's stamped as received and then returned to the sender for his records. There's nothing on file for anyone to request. Which is a good way to do it when you think about it.

Jim

[djthomas]

My local sheriff has a unique way of dealing with this issue. When you send in a copy of any ATF paperwork it's stamped as received and then returned to the sender for his records. There's nothing on file for anyone to request. Which is a good way to do it when you think about it.

Absolutely, but it still doesn't solve the issue of you being completely dependent on the whims of your particular sheriff. The next sheriff could do things differently as could the other 87 sheriffs in the state. Your sheriff could also go to a BSSA conference, attend a session or two and come back and completely change his system because on what he hears. Throw in hundreds of police chiefs and prosecutors and there's no uniformity or guaranteed continuity.

[djthomas]

According to the Federal Register, the new rules will be effective July 13, 2016.

[steves 50de]

So what is the best county to deal with nfa paperwork that a cuyahoga resident should go with. Sure not cuyahoga county.

[Bruenor]

So what is the best county to deal with nfa paperwork that a Cuyahoga resident should go with. Sure not Cuyahoga county.

I don't think you have the option of an adjoining county for NFA paperwork like you do for a Concealed Carry license. One of the reasons so many went with NFA trusts, because they couldn't go somewhere else if the CLEO in their area refused to sign.
If picking one were an option, I would probably go with the Sheriff McClelland in Geauga County. I'm sure it would be easier to get a signature from him, than Sheriff Johnson in Ashtabula. Which is why I went with a NFA trust.

didn't Ohio pass some "Shall sign" legislation for NFA paperwork a while back ? HB 234 ?

[MyWifeSaidYes]

So what is the best county to deal with nfa paperwork that a Cuyahoga resident should go with. Sure not Cuyahoga county.

I don't think you have the option of an adjoining county for NFA paperwork like you do for a Concealed Carry license. One of the reasons so many went with NFA trusts, because they couldn't go somewhere else if the CLEO in their area refused to sign.
If picking one were an option, I would probably go with the Sheriff McClelland in Geauga County. I'm sure it would be easier to get a signature from him, than Sheriff Johnson in Ashtabula. Which is why I went with a NFA trust.

didn't Ohio pass some "Shall sign" legislation for NFA paperwork a while back ? HB 234 ?

Yes. Your local sheriff HAS to sign IF you pass a background check (the same as for a CHL). You fill out the same application and have to pay the same $67 as if for a CHL, but the sheriff HAS to sign as many forms as you have for that one price. The new application has a checkbox for "New license", "Renew License" or "CLEO Certification".

[Bama.45]

I don't understand what this does exactly.. Does it make getting a NFA item like purchasing a firearm, you just have to pass a background check?

[djthomas]

I don't understand what this does exactly.. Does it make getting a NFA item like purchasing a firearm, you just have to pass a background check?

Yes and no. You have to pass a background check, but it's not like buying a Title 1 item where the dealer can call NICS and get a response. You have to send the ATF fingerprint cards and a photo of yourself. They will then run the background check from that.

I'm toying with the idea of spending $200 to do a Form 1 on my 870 Home Defense shotgun with an 18.5" barrel. With some searching you can get factory 14" barrels and the required engravings could be made on the barrel not the receive. I know I'd lose one round when I swapped out the magazine tube extender - and I might never pull the trigger so to speak but it would be nice to have the option. I haven't really sat down to weigh out the pros and cons of a 14 inch SBS.

Paying the $200 now would be cheap compared to the grief I'd get if I'd drag my wife down to the police station to be fingerprinted, and the possibility of the Form 1 becoming public record.

[meansartin]

Taxpayer info can easily become public information.
ie: taxpayer voluntarily disclosed it to the CLEO, and it is then subject to a public info request from anyone.........

.......Picture shopping lists for thieves, or government bureaucrats.

There's a way to prevent this in ORC149.43(A)(1)(v).....

(1)"Public record" does not mean any of the following:

.........(v) Records the release of which is prohibited by state or federal law;

Then read 26 USC 6103(o)(1)(A)

Returns and return information with respect to taxes imposed by Subtitle E (relating to taxes on alcohol, tobacco, and firearms) shall be open to inspection by or disclosure to officers and employees of a Federal agency whose official duties require such inspection or disclosure.

Working on putting this into a cover letter for my clients for when 41F goes into effect.

[sd790]

If my understanding is correct, a trust is very maleable. If i added a piece of paper to my trust that removes everyone except for me, for instance, then i would be the only person who needs to submit prints & a picture. The next day, add anyone back onto the trust that i want with another addendum.

That process would reduce the inconvenience to others in your trust.

[djthomas]

Working on putting this into a cover letter for my clients for when 41F goes into effect.

I and the ATF seem to disagree with this interpretation. Specifically, in the final rule:

The Department disagrees with the concern that providing the application to make or transfer NF A items to local law enforcement as part of CLEO notification is an unlawful release of tax information. Since the application has not been received by ATF at the time of CLEO notification, it does not constitute "return information." See Lamont, 285 F.3d at 15. Additionally, while it is unlawful for employees of the Federal Government to release an individual's tax information, see 26 U.S.C. 6103(a), in this instance it is the individual that shares the information. Therefore, even if such information were "return information," no employee of the Federal Government would be disclosing it. Lamont, 285 F.3d at 15.

So in other words, because the government is merely requiring the private person to "voluntarily" disclose what is not a tax return at the time any such privacy rights are waived.

26 U.S.C. 6103 does contain restrictions on state authorities releasing return information but it's only when the information has been provided for very specific purposes, and voluntary disclosure by a private person is not one of them.

[meansartin]

That's a good catch.

I looked back and that part on pg 83 is highlighted in my copy of 41F.



The only other thing, I've found is a series of cases between Governor Taft and AG Dann that I've been trying to piece together.

[Crack_Shot]

I don't understand what this does exactly.. Does it make getting a NFA item like purchasing a firearm, you just have to pass a background check?

Yes and no. You have to pass a background check, but it's not like buying a Title 1 item where the dealer can call NICS and get a response. You have to send the ATF fingerprint cards and a photo of yourself. They will then run the background check from that.

I'm toying with the idea of spending $200 to do a Form 1 on my 870 Home Defense shotgun with an 18.5" barrel. With some searching you can get factory 14" barrels and the required engravings could be made on the barrel not the receive. I know I'd lose one round when I swapped out the magazine tube extender - and I might never pull the trigger so to speak but it would be nice to have the option. I haven't really sat down to weigh out the pros and cons of a 14 inch SBS.

Paying the $200 now would be cheap compared to the grief I'd get if I'd drag my wife down to the police station to be fingerprinted, and the possibility of the Form 1 becoming public record.

You don't have to do any engraving or any other marking. My SBR has none, and my form says the same.

[djthomas]

You don't have to do any engraving or any other marking. My SBR has none, and my form says the same.

It depends on the circumstances of how you came to acquire the item. You do need to engrave if you are the maker of the firearm (tax paid on a Form 1), which in the NFA context means you take a non-NFA item and modify it to be an NFA item, e.g. by shortening the barrel. If you buy an SBR on a Form 4 then no, you do not need to engrave anything because you are not the maker.