Suppressors Proposed rule to eliminate CLEO sign-off
- Thread starter peaceatwar
- Start date
Re: Proposed rule to eliminate CLEO sign-off
Already being discussed over here
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3806755&gonew=1#UNREAD
Already being discussed over here
http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3806755&gonew=1#UNREAD
Re: Proposed rule to eliminate CLEO sign-off
I don't think it helps much at all, and adds some additional burdens that aren't currently in place. If they added a NICS instant check to the new form and reporting ( to the chief LEO ) requirements, then it might not be too bad.
But with the new, proposed changes, I'd just as soon keep the current system.
I don't think it helps much at all, and adds some additional burdens that aren't currently in place. If they added a NICS instant check to the new form and reporting ( to the chief LEO ) requirements, then it might not be too bad.
But with the new, proposed changes, I'd just as soon keep the current system.
Re: Proposed rule to eliminate CLEO sign-off
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sgtsmmiii</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think it helps much at all, and adds some additional burdens that aren't currently in place. If they added a NICS instant check to the new form and reporting ( to the chief LEO ) requirements, then it might not be too bad.
But with the new, proposed changes, I'd just as soon keep the current system. </div></div>
You are a trust owner and it would affect you is my guess, right?
What's bad about holding people accountable and removing holes in the system that people openly abuse? I am surprised it has taken as long as it has to get this fixed.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sgtsmmiii</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think it helps much at all, and adds some additional burdens that aren't currently in place. If they added a NICS instant check to the new form and reporting ( to the chief LEO ) requirements, then it might not be too bad.
But with the new, proposed changes, I'd just as soon keep the current system. </div></div>
You are a trust owner and it would affect you is my guess, right?
What's bad about holding people accountable and removing holes in the system that people openly abuse? I am surprised it has taken as long as it has to get this fixed.
Re: Proposed rule to eliminate CLEO sign-off
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: StalkingRhino</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sgtsmmiii</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think it helps much at all, and adds some additional burdens that aren't currently in place. If they added a NICS instant check to the new form and reporting ( to the chief LEO ) requirements, then it might not be too bad.
But with the new, proposed changes, I'd just as soon keep the current system. </div></div>
You are a trust owner and it would affect you is my guess, right?
What's bad about holding people accountable and removing holes in the system that people openly abuse? I am surprised it has taken as long as it has to get this fixed.</div></div>
As a trust owner, this would make me sad.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: StalkingRhino</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sgtsmmiii</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I don't think it helps much at all, and adds some additional burdens that aren't currently in place. If they added a NICS instant check to the new form and reporting ( to the chief LEO ) requirements, then it might not be too bad.
But with the new, proposed changes, I'd just as soon keep the current system. </div></div>
You are a trust owner and it would affect you is my guess, right?
What's bad about holding people accountable and removing holes in the system that people openly abuse? I am surprised it has taken as long as it has to get this fixed.</div></div>
As a trust owner, this would make me sad.
Re: Proposed rule to eliminate CLEO sign-off
Well I just realized this thread is a dupe. I don't know if I can delete it.
Well I just realized this thread is a dupe. I don't know if I can delete it.
Re: Proposed rule to eliminate CLEO sign-off
The NFATCA has been working with the gov to get rid of the CLEO signoff for years. Looks like it is working!
The NFATCA has been working with the gov to get rid of the CLEO signoff for years. Looks like it is working!
Re: Proposed rule to eliminate CLEO sign-off
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The NFATCA has been working with the gov to get rid of the CLEO signoff for years. Looks like it is working! </div></div>
Yup this was part of the compromise to require the CLEO signoff.
Who knows if it will ever be implemented though.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bacarrat</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The NFATCA has been working with the gov to get rid of the CLEO signoff for years. Looks like it is working! </div></div>
Yup this was part of the compromise to require the CLEO signoff.
Who knows if it will ever be implemented though.
Re: Proposed rule to eliminate CLEO sign-off
I like it. Good compromise.
I like it. Good compromise.
Re: Proposed rule to eliminate CLEO sign-off
"(3) require that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer"
I agree that removing the CLEO sign-off is good thing, and that the existing laws create a loophole with regards to trusts. What I do not understand and have not seen discussed is the meaning of the above-listed portion of the proposed change.
It just says "a copy ... be forwarded". That doesn't give any authority to a CLEO to stop and/or hinder anything, but am unsure what effect it might have in the future. Just wondering if anyone else had thoughts on this aspect of the proposed change.
"(3) require that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer"
I agree that removing the CLEO sign-off is good thing, and that the existing laws create a loophole with regards to trusts. What I do not understand and have not seen discussed is the meaning of the above-listed portion of the proposed change.
It just says "a copy ... be forwarded". That doesn't give any authority to a CLEO to stop and/or hinder anything, but am unsure what effect it might have in the future. Just wondering if anyone else had thoughts on this aspect of the proposed change.
Re: Proposed rule to eliminate CLEO sign-off
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A.D.A.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "(3) require that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer"
I agree that removing the CLEO sign-off is good thing, and that the existing laws create a loophole with regards to trusts. What I do not understand and have not seen discussed is the meaning of the above-listed portion of the proposed change.
It just says "a copy ... be forwarded". That doesn't give any authority to a CLEO to stop and/or hinder anything, but am unsure what effect it might have in the future. Just wondering if anyone else had thoughts on this aspect of the proposed change. </div></div>
Correct it takes away a CLEO's political signature or lack thereof.
Who knows what effect anything in the NFA will have in the future. If you want to play the conspiracy theory game its the perfect setup to get prepared for confiscation. Then the CLEO's would know where all the new NFA is and who to target first!
That concern was discussed, and it is a compromise. No CLEO signoff required but notification to the CLEO that you are getting the toys. At this point they can't do anything with it.
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: A.D.A.</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> "(3) require that a copy of all applications to make or transfer a firearm be forwarded to the chief law enforcement officer"
I agree that removing the CLEO sign-off is good thing, and that the existing laws create a loophole with regards to trusts. What I do not understand and have not seen discussed is the meaning of the above-listed portion of the proposed change.
It just says "a copy ... be forwarded". That doesn't give any authority to a CLEO to stop and/or hinder anything, but am unsure what effect it might have in the future. Just wondering if anyone else had thoughts on this aspect of the proposed change. </div></div>
Correct it takes away a CLEO's political signature or lack thereof.
Who knows what effect anything in the NFA will have in the future. If you want to play the conspiracy theory game its the perfect setup to get prepared for confiscation. Then the CLEO's would know where all the new NFA is and who to target first!
That concern was discussed, and it is a compromise. No CLEO signoff required but notification to the CLEO that you are getting the toys. At this point they can't do anything with it.
