HB 279 requiring cleo to sign off within 15 days

[Lafsnguy]

HB 279 would require CLEO to sign off within 15 days for NFA applications. Please contact your state representatives to voice your support. If we can get this and the bill to legalize hunting with silencers passed we will be sitting pretty.


http://legis.la.gov/legis/ViewDocument.aspx?d=873642&n=HB279 Original

 

[eMGunslinger]

Unless I am missing something
1. Did they not just get rid of state paperwork last October. I do not understand politicians, they take away things to work less hard then write bills again to work harder in its place.
2. I presume they are going after the "Evil Trust Loophole"

 

[Lafsnguy]

Not sure what you are getting at. The bill in question would require CLEO to sign off on form 1's and form 4s provided the person in question can legally possess NFA. This would be a big win for people that don't want to or can't afford to get a trust llc etc. Right now as you know many CLEO simply refuse to sign as a matter of policy. This isn't changing anything with trusts just individual applications where the CLEO certification is required. It would also help with Trusts if they later on made the CLEO certification a requirement.

 

[Freedombyforce]

Your thread is a little misleading. "HB 279 would require CLEO certification for NFA". Should read, "HB 279 would require CLEO to sign off within 15 days of receipt."

This will keep CLEO's from not signing off just because they don't want to.

 

[eMGunslinger]

Not sure what you are getting at. The bill in question would require CLEO to sign off on form 1's and form 4s provided the person in question can legally possess NFA. This would be a big win for people that don't want to or can't afford to get a trust llc etc. Right now as you know many CLEO simply refuse to sign as a matter of policy. This isn't changing anything with trusts just individual applications where the CLEO certification is required. It would also help with Trusts if they later on made the CLEO certification a requirement.

Ahh its still to early for all these legal nonsense, in that case GO US!
Thanks for the clarification

 

[JadeRaven]

Yeah at first this thread made me mad, but the bill sounds good.

 

[Lafsnguy]

Your thread is a little misleading. "HB 279 would require CLEO certification for NFA". Should read, "HB 279 would require CLEO to sign off within 15 days of receipt."

This will keep CLEO's from not signing off just because they don't want to.

I see sorry didn't catch that. Don't think I can edit the title.

 

[eMGunslinger]

I see sorry didn't catch that. Don't think I can edit the title.

Click Edit post on original post, click Go Advanced. It will let you do it

 

[cajun_64]

Yes, this would be the nat's @$$ to go along with the hunting bill

 

[mpl006]

I find it curious that there is no "teeth" to the bill. What happens if the CLEO says I don't care, I'm still not signing? I'm not a lawyer and barely had a business law class in high school so there may be something I don't know about.

 

[cajun_64]

I find it curious that there is no "teeth" to the bill. What happens if the CLEO says I don't care, I'm still not signing? I'm not a lawyer and barely had a business law class in high school so there may be something I don't know about.

Then the courts would settle it and decide if the law is upheld.

 

[flemgunner]

Rep Barry Ivey was the one who put this together among other bills. We were consulted on this and a couple others. The one about cutting the cost of CCW for vets I really like HB280.
Here is a Digest of HB279.
Contact your reps and let them know you want them to support this bill!

 

[oscar615]

How about cutting costs for all? Or even better constitutional carry?

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

 

[flemgunner]

Rep Ivey actually did introduce a constitutional carry bill HB494. Also check into HB520.

 

[JadeRaven]

Then the courts would settle it and decide if the law is upheld.

Yeah seems like you would have to sue the sheriff.

 

[Emperor]

Yeah seems like you would have to sue the sheriff.

Perhaps!?! But this would make it easier to do so. Just the threat of a lawsuit in the presence of a Statute that impels them to do so, would be enough for those arrogant a-holes that refuse to do it for their constituents, to think twice about them knowing what's best for you.

 

[Walrus]

Wouldn't a Sheriff that ignored the law and refused to sign or deny within the prescribed time open themselves up to a Malfeasance charge?

 

[whitsend]

Wouldn't a Sheriff that ignored the law and refused to sign or deny within the prescribed time open themselves up to a Malfeasance charge?

IANAL, but I would think so.
If the AG wanted to prosecute.

 

[cajun_64]

not a lot different from the Sheriffs that choose not to enforce the laws passed to restrict our gun rights, in other states.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[Walrus]

not a lot different from the Sheriffs that choose not to enforce the laws passed to restrict our gun rights, in other states.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

That's true.