Target Sports USA ad

Well it looks like we just got screwed

The Best online firearms community in Louisiana.

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!

    • Register Log in
    madmax4x4

    madmax4x4

    HONKY
    Rating - 100%
    43   0   0
    May 31, 2009
    2,234
    38
    New Orleans
    The way I see the top of page 13 is they want to do away with the sign off but require the CLEO to do the standard background check on the corp owners and such. Not that a trust or corp would require a CLEO sign off. Or I'm I misunderstanding?
     
    Last edited:
    SpeedRacer

    SpeedRacer

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    92   0   0
    Feb 23, 2007
    14,347
    38
    Mandeville, LA
    madmax4x4 said:
    The way I see the top of page 13 is they want to do away with the sign off but require the CLEO to do the standard background check on the corp owners and such. Not that a trust or corp would require a CLEO sign off. Or I'm I misunderstanding?
    Click to expand...

    That's what I'm getting. The document is confusing as hell because it's basically an argument. The petitioner wants one thing, the ATF recommends the other. From what I understand after reading it...

    Petitioner: recommends to eliminate the CLEO signoff entirely (removing their judgement so to speak) and replace it with a system where the CLEO simply runs applicants through a local/state level background check. Applies to individuals and entities. (Page 13)

    ATF: recommends to keep CLEO signoff/certificate, AND expand the requirement to entities as well. (Page 16)

    I could be mistaken though. Either way, it sounds like some form of CLEO check/signoff will be implemented for trusts and corporations. However, the petitioner sees their method as "solving" the reason many people do trusts in the first place, which is to bypass non-compliant CLEOs.

    So basically, good news for people who don't want a trust but can't get CLEO signoff, and more inconvenience for those who want to do a trust for the other benefits. And the ATF's recommendation only screws more people over.

    As for the importation restrictions, not much to worry about unless you're an M1 Garand fan. They're seeking to restrict the REimportation of firearms, ie just the surplus US made weapons we've sold/given to other countries. Which the only one of note is the Garands. Would basically be the end of the CMP.
     
    C

    cajun 22

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    40   0   0
    May 22, 2008
    1,497
    48
    Houma, LA
    It will make a transfer to a trust like a group transfer. All persons listed will have to submit prints and photos. Also no fee increases in this but it is in other legislation on the hill.
     
    Last edited:
    C

    cajun 22

    Shooter
    Rating - 100%
    40   0   0
    May 22, 2008
    1,497
    48
    Houma, LA
    It's a proposal to rule change. It's a 90 day comment period and there is no stated time for review or adoption.
     
    Last edited:
    L

    Lafsnguy

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 11, 2009
    585
    18
    Lafayette
    NFATCA proposed doing away with the CLEO signature for individuals in exchange for submitting finger prints and photos with Corps, LLC, Trusts etc. The ATF said no were just going to make trusts submit fingerprints, photo's and require the CLEO signature too. The ATF is proposing changing the language of the sign off to say something to the effect that it is in fact the persons fingerprints etc. Problem is if the CLEO won't sign off there is no way to get NFA. Chief Craft and Sheriff Neustrom will not sign off, at least they wouldn't when I tried a few years ago. Neustrom signed off on a SBR for me but then wouldn't sign off on the silencer. It took over two months just to get him to sign and I know him personally, went to school with his son and he coached my older brother. Bottom line is the NFA crowd is getting screwed again and I doubt anyone is going to do anything. Here's what the NRA had to say

    Obama intends to require FBI fingerprint-based background checks on the trustees and beneficiaries of corporations and trusts that have firearms. NRA is reviewing the proposed rule on this matter and will withhold comment until the review is complete.
     
    S

    slowkoop

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Dec 15, 2009
    88
    6
    Laplace, LA
    Correct me if I'm wrong I'm just a NFA newb after all, doesn't our new 2nd amendment law protect us from a Cleo not
    giving us his signature on grounds of infringing on our right to bare arms? At least in Louisiana that is?
     
    L

    Lafsnguy

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 11, 2009
    585
    18
    Lafayette
    It would probably take someone suing. Also that's theory, the 2nd amendment says shall not be infringed and look where we are.
     
    Last edited:
    S

    slowkoop

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Dec 15, 2009
    88
    6
    Laplace, LA
    True that when I get everything together I'm going to see if mike tregue will sign off on my sbr. It's doubtful so I may be talking to my attorney to see what he can do.
     
    JNieman

    JNieman

    Dush
    Rating - 100%
    5   0   0
    Jul 11, 2011
    4,743
    48
    Lafayette
    Last I ever heard was that in Lafayette Parish, you're fukced for a CLEO signature.

    Anyone hear different recently? Anything changed, or should we start writing letters, making phone calls, if that part becomes the rules?
     
    SpeedRacer

    SpeedRacer

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    92   0   0
    Feb 23, 2007
    14,347
    38
    Mandeville, LA
    JNieman said:
    Last I ever heard was that in Lafayette Parish, you're fukced for a CLEO signature.

    Anyone hear different recently? Anything changed, or should we start writing letters, making phone calls, if that part becomes the rules?
    Click to expand...

    Same with St Tammany. Sheriff Strain is a dush.
     
    L

    Lafsnguy

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Aug 11, 2009
    585
    18
    Lafayette
    We should all start writing and calling but the pessimist in me says it won't even matter. I send letters once a week and have yet to hear anythkng back. Yeah like I said before no one in lafayette signs. We might have a better shot at passing something statewide saying that the cleo must sign if the person isn't prohibited.
     
    S

    slowkoop

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Dec 15, 2009
    88
    6
    Laplace, LA
    Ill speak with my lawyer on Tuesday see if he can recommend one of his colleges that may be able to help us out. I wish we could get one of the lawyers on the forum to weigh in if its even possible or worth the trouble.
     
    Dave328

    Dave328

    Well-Known Member
    Rating - 100%
    15   0   0
    Jul 11, 2007
    2,789
    38
    Gretna
    Finally! A common sense law that is gonna take all these suppressed SBR's out of the hands of the street thugs! I mean, as we all know 98.997% of all violent crime is perpetrated by someone with a 7" POF P416 sporting a can and "da beam"! :rolleyes: I guess I'm lucky I live in Gretna with Chief Lawson, the Hero of the post-Katrina CCC bridge blockade, and AFAIK he will sign off. Maybe I should start the paperwork on a 7.62 can for ****'s n giggles. :dunno:
     
    You must log in or register to reply here.

    Latest posts

    Staff online

    Members online

    Total: 652 (members: 37, guests: 615)

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    195,637
    Messages
    1,548,880
    Members
    29,274
    Latest member
    Markvix
    Bear Creek Arsenal Ad
    Top Bottom