41P signed and passed

[Ramsker]

In accordance with the instructions provided on Form 5320.23, a certification for eachresponsible person completed by the local chief of police, sheriff of the county, headof the State police, State or local district attorney or prosecutor, or such other personwhose certification may in a particular case be acceptable to the Director. Thecertification for each responsible person must be completed by the CLEO who hasjurisdiction over the area in which the responsible person resides. The certificationmust state that the official is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph accompanying the application are those of the responsible person and that the certifying official has no information indicating that receipt or possession of the firearm by the responsible person would be in violation of State or local law.




This is in both the section for proposed changes for form 1s and form 4s, pages 16 to 23. I can't find form 5320.23, but this is saying that although CLEO certification is gone, the FPs and the photo have to be certified and that there is "no information" the responsible person (s) can posses the firearm. This CLEARLY indicates to me that the FPs and photos have to be signed off on by CLEO and in doing so they have to ensure there isn't any reason the person on the Form 5320.23 can possess a firearm. This means 1; there is no law in that area not permitting it, and 2; the individual doesn't have anything in their background. So, CLEO sign off and CLEO background before any CLEO worth his weight is going to sign (of have anyone else) sign off on this.

BAM!!! CLEO sign off paradox again. Anyone see Denver Sheriffs office doing this? Hold your breath and stomp your foot.

Am I the only one that reads this section this way? NFA Trust guy?

Wasn't that just a restatement of the "proposed" amendments . . . but not what was in the final ruling? Maybe I am incorrect there. Still digesting.

EDIT: Pretty sure that was just a rehash of the original proposed amendments and that the final rule threw that out.

P. 4: "The goal of this final rule is to ensure that the identification and background checkrequirements apply equally to individuals, trusts, and legal entities. To lessen potentialcompliance burdens for the public and law enforcement, DOJ has revised the final rule toeliminate the requirement for a certification signed by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO)and instead require CLEO notification."

P. 69: "As previously stated, in response to the concerns expressed by commenters, the final rule will no longer include a CLEO certification provision; instead, the final rule will include a CLEO / notification provision that will require applicants simply to notify the CLEO in writing of the application in accordance with the language of the final regulation."

P. 123 "As indicated in section IV.C.l the Department has replaced the CLEO certification requirement with a CLEO notification requirement. This change renders moot many of the hypothetical questions submitted by commenters, including those that focus on jurisdictions in which obtaining CLEO certification is hindered for "political" reasons."

[th3w01f]

Putting a pistol tube on a rifle lower doesn't make it a pistol.

Just saying for the benefit of the lurkers...

Assuming a brand new, unused lower, isn't the pistol vs rifle dependent on how the lower is transferred on the 4473 and first built? If you're lower says 'pistol' and you throw a stock on it I'm pretty sure it's now a rifle.

[Irving]

This is in both the section for proposed changes for form 1s and form 4s, pages 16 to 23. I can't find form 5320.23, but this is saying that although CLEO certification is gone, the FPs and the photo have to be certified and that there is "no information" the responsible person (s) can posses the firearm. This CLEARLY indicates to me that the FPs and photos have to be signed off on by CLEO and in doing so they have to ensure there isn't any reason the person on the Form 5320.23 can possess a firearm. This means 1; there is no law in that area not permitting it, and 2; the individual doesn't have anything in their background. So, CLEO sign off and CLEO background before any CLEO worth his weight is going to sign (of have anyone else) sign off on this.

BAM!!! CLEO sign off paradox again. Anyone see Denver Sheriffs office doing this? Hold your breath and stomp your foot.

Am I the only one that reads this section this way? NFA Trust guy?

Interpreted that way sure sounds like the CLEO certification never went away at all. I already know first hand the games the sheriff's department can/will play with people when they are given this power. This sounds no good if true.

[SA Friday]

Wasn't that just a restatement of the "proposed" amendments . . . but not what was in the final ruling? Maybe I am incorrect there. Still digesting.

EDIT: Pretty sure that was just a rehash of the original proposed amendments and that the final rule threw that out.

P. 4: "The goal of this final rule is to ensure that the identification and background checkrequirements apply equally to individuals, trusts, and legal entities. To lessen potentialcompliance burdens for the public and law enforcement, DOJ has revised the final rule toeliminate the requirement for a certification signed by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO)and instead require CLEO notification."

P. 69: "As previously stated, in response to the concerns expressed by commenters, the final rule will no longer include a CLEO certification provision; instead, the final rule will include a CLEO / notification provision that will require applicants simply to notify the CLEO in writing of the application in accordance with the language of the final regulation."

P. 123 "As indicated in section IV.C.l the Department has replaced the CLEO certification requirement with a CLEO notification requirement. This change renders moot many of the hypothetical questions submitted by commenters, including those that focus on jurisdictions in which obtaining CLEO certification is hindered for "political" reasons."

Ya. I finally found it. Page 209 is the final ruling concerning CLEO sign off. Notification only and mention of changing forms 1,4, and 5 to reflect this. No direct info as to how CLEO notification is documented for the transfer package though. Will it be a signature from the Sheriff's office acknowledging receipt????? Lol... Uh, what if they refuse to sign?

What a confusing document.

[Ramsker]

Ya. I finally found it. Page 209 is the final ruling concerning CLEO sign off. Notification only and mention of changing forms 1,4, and 5 to reflect this. No direct info as to how CLEO notification is documented for the transfer package though. Will it be a signature from the Sheriff's office acknowledging receipt????? Lol... Uh, what if they refuse to sign?

What a confusing document.

Yeah, that's what I'm wondering. Once you "notify" . . . then what . . . if anything? Can they put it on hold or deny it somehow? Is there some timeframe within which they have to act--or not? The ATF would do a background check, so is the only CLEO involvement really just as simple as you send the docs/prints/pics and the CLEO has no say in it? Would be great, if true. Seems like that is the case based on the other mentions of the notification--that a key reason they removed it was the nonsense that was being reported.

EDIT: someone on another site said to use certified mail and they have to sign to receive it. LOL. Can't say they didn't get it.

[brutal]

Assuming a brand new, unused lower, isn't the pistol vs rifle dependent on how the lower is transferred on the 4473 and first built? If you're lower says 'pistol' and you throw a stock on it I'm pretty sure it's now a rifle.

Correct, your best bet is to ensure the 4473 says "other" like it should for a stripped lower if you want it to be born pistol by installing a pistol buffer tube.

I was nit-picking O2HeN2's post.

[NFATrustGuy]

The issue raised by SA Friday is indeed a non-issue. The section quoted was a restatement of the initial proposed change to the rule. This part was specifically NOT implemented.

For those of you trying to digest the entire 248 page document, please note that the actual changes to the various sections of code begin on page 238. Everything leading up to this point is the government's logic (justification) leading up to the actual changes. As part of the process, the government is obligated to show that it considered things like public comments, impact on industry, time impact to comply, financial impact to comply, etc. That's what the first 237 pages are attempting to accomplish.

Here's what I've been able to glean so far:

1. Fingerprint Cards. You can essentially have your fingerprints recorded anywhere. The language used says, "Attach to the application two properly completed FBI Forms FD-258 (Fingerprint Card). The fingerprints must be clear for accurate classification and should be taken by someone properly equipped to take them."

A quick search on Amazon reveals that you can be properly equipped with 50 FD-258 signature cards and a fingerprint ink pad for about $25--with Free Second Day shipping if you have Amazon Prime! I haven't searched, but I'm sure there are YouTube videos showing the proper technique to record fingerprints. I've been fingerprinted more times than I can count and have never been overwhelmed by the mental prowess of the person taking my fingerprints.

2. Responsible Person(s)--"RPs": The law specifically defines RPs to **exclude** anyone with a contingent interest. A "contingent" interest means that something must happen before you have any interest in the Trust. If the Trustee must die before you assume the role of Trustee (i.e. the definition of a Backup or Successor Trustee), then you have a contingent interest and therefore do not need a background check. As I mentioned in Post #33, above, for MY Trusts, the people who'd need fingerprints, photo, and a background check would be the primary Trustee and anyone serving as a co-Trustee at the time of the application.

3. Adding/removing "Responsible Persons": Since we're talking about Trusts and in particular, MY Trusts, what we're really talking about here is adding and/or removing Co-Trustees. I'm going to go back and re-read the entire document again tomorrow (or maybe the next day because tomorrow is shaping up to be very busy), but on first glance it would seem to me that our handy liberal representatives might have screwed the pooch on this one. It sure looks to me that they've allowed a potential loophole. It seems to me that a person could "fire" all the co-Trustees when the Trust is ready to file an Application--leaving the primary Trustee as the ONLY Responsible Person on the Trust at the time the application is submitted. After the application has been submitted (along with the photo and fingerprints for the original Trustee), then the co-Trustees could be added back to the Trust.

Reading all the comments and the thought process leading up to the final rule, it would seem that our trusty liberal friends had once considered requiring the disclosure of newly added Responsible Parties within 30 days of being added. Under the original plan, these new Responsible Persons would also be required to submit fingerprints, a photo, and a background check. The good news is that while all this was **considered,** they specifically decided NOT to implement this part of the proposal.

I can't find any part of the final rule where any notice is required at all if RPs are added after an application is submitted. I don't mind sharing this loophole in public because if I can find it, there's a good chance even a liberal lawmaker can find it.

4. 24 Month "Nothing's Changed" Notice: I kinda like this one. It says that if nothing's changed since the last time you submitted an application--so long as it's been within 24 months--then you don't have to get new photos or fingerprints or a background check on everyone. I'm assuming you'd still need a background check when you pick up the NFA item from the dealer just as you do today.

My little disclaimer:

I'm doing my best to provide accurate and timely analysis. The dilemma I'm struggling with is that when I post something, there is an expectation that the information I'm sharing is correct. As several folks have already demonstrated in this thread, it's sometimes a challenge to be both fast AND accurate. I've provided this post in an attempt to reach a compromise in my dilemma. I reserve the right to be wrong! I'm certainly open to questioning and to be proven wrong by anyone reading this post. I'm all about WHAT is right, not WHO is right. Sometimes it really does "take a village."

Good night to all. The sun will still come up tomorrow!

[canyoncarver]

Thanks NFATrustGuy. I took the time to register to thank you again for answering my brief question yesterday about my trust, despite the deluge of email/calls you got. Very, very glad I had you set up my trust rather than going the budget route with an internet trust for $99.

I started up two form 1 SBRs back in November and am going to purchase a couple more suppressors in the next couple of months. After that I am done buying anything until after the election to see what, if anything, happens following the 2016 elections.

I don't really have a problem with photos/fingerprints going out with the application but the less information the .gov has the better as far as I am concerned.

Now I have to figure out what kind of pistol can to get.... new Omega 9K looks interesting.

[Sixgun]

Thanks NFA Trust GUY!!!!!!!

[Brian]

Rod, I hope you're right on the fingerprint cards (for anyone who cares, ATF will also send you cards free, but not the ink pads). I was looking yesterday and found this, which seems to indicate ATF thinks that only LEO can take the prints. That being said, I know people have turned in self-inked cards successfully in the past (mistaken approval or not?), and I don't believe that ATF's website is always correct or updated.

https://www.atf.gov/explosives/qa/ho...erprints-taken

Assuming they clarify this requirement to allow other options like home inking, that would help with one of my larger concerns with the new rules. Paying an additional fee and sitting around for 30-60-90+ minutes waiting for an appointment with the sheriff does not seem like a heck of a lot of fun, and would overly complicate the process.