CLEO requirement to sign off on NFA forms

[Dolomite_supafly]

Here is an easily printed version of the PDF dictating that a CLEO has 15 business days to sign off on NFA documents:

http://www.state.tn.us/sos/acts/103/pub/pc0275.pdf

 

It is 39-17-1361 for anyone wanting to look it up in TCA.

[JohnC]

Saved. Thanks! :up:

[Johnny Rotten]

15 days LOL,

My CLEO is so freaking cool, I call him, show up, he signs my F4, he calls over to the jail (same building) a deputy walks me inside, he finger prints me, out the door papers in hand 20 minutes tops :love:

[thundersnow]

I got 20 buck towards your next tax stamp if he can do both of us at the same time...

[JohnC]

15 days LOL,
My CLEO is so freaking cool, I call him, show up, he signs my F4, he calls over to the jail (same building) a deputy walks me inside, he finger prints me, out the door papers in hand 20 minutes tops :love:

What city/county are you in again?

I moved to Hermitage, so I'd be in Davidson county.

Do we have to do CLEO in our county?

If not, I'd be OK to see your guy! :up:

[Pain103]

If you live in Hermitage MNPD Chief Steve Anderson is your CLEO.

[dead2me]

I got 20 buck towards your next tax stamp if he can do both of us at the same time...

 

I really am sorry to thread jack, but "if he can do both of us at the same time" is the one of the gayest phrases I have ever seen written.  I mean no offense to thundersnow, or anyone else for that matter, but that is just funny. 

 

Sorry Dolomite for the asinine comment on a serious thread.

[Johnny Rotten]

What city/county are you in again?

I moved to Hermitage, so I'd be in Davidson county.

Do we have to do CLEO in our county?

If not, I'd be OK to see your guy! :up:

Franklin County

You have to use the county CLEO you reside in..

From the way I was told, the CLEO by law must sign your paperwork, some of them decided not to sign or for whatever other reasons, the end resulted was law suits being filed against the city/counties over this..  

 

I have kind of a funny story about my CLEO: I tried for a couple days to contact him every time I called he was out of the office, I stopped by my C3 dealer they knew where he was, it happen to be an election year and he was out campaigning, he was at our local annex building on a meet and greet mission, I meet him with a pair of F4's he signed them (he was smiling, I ask why and he said so that's what a subpoena feels like..LOL), shook his hand and he called over to the jail to let them know I was headed that way for finger prints..

[Guest Carl Wilkey]

If CLEOs are giving you problems, you can always use a Living Trust. It also eliminates the photo and fingerprint cards as well. Living Trusts are wonderful to pass your NFA items to your kids or grandchildren. There is no need to do a transfer to the recipient if you were to die. Just a thought.

[Dolomite_supafly]

If CLEOs are giving you problems, you can always use a Living Trust. It also eliminates the photo and fingerprint cards as well. Living Trusts are wonderful to pass your NFA items to your kids or grandchildren. There is no need to do a transfer to the recipient if you were to die. Just a thought.

It is free to transfer any NFA item that is not part of a trust. Mine will go to my grandkids if they want them. They are on Form 1's and all that has to be done is to complete a Form 5, tax exempt transfer. It does not cost anything to transfer NFA items to an heir.

 

The way trusts are done now is about to change. There will be a CLEO signoff requirement, photos as well as fingerprints and backgrounds done on all trustees. We don't have much longer before it goes into effect. 

 

The only advantage a trust has right now is time. You can do an electronic submission of a trust and it will take ~90 to complete. But when the new change goes into effect you will no longer be able to submit electronically because of the background checks.

[ncldwell]

The new ATF rule is expected to go into effect June 2014.  http://www.myguntrust.com/are-nfa-gun-trusts-being-eliminated.html

[JohnC]

The new ATF rule is expected to go into effect June 2014.  http://www.myguntrust.com/are-nfa-gun-trusts-being-eliminated.html

 

This part is interesting:

 

 

Even after the ATF’s proposed rule change goes into effect, it will still makes sense to title NFA firearms in the name of an NFA gun trust.  NFA firearms must be titled in the name of an individual or entity, much like other real property (land) and some types of personal property, such as cars, trucks, boats, and airplanes.  If an NFA firearm is titled in the name of an individual, only that specific individual may possess it.  One of the chief advantages of titling NFA firearms in the name of a trust, rather than in the name of an individual, is that more than one person may legally possess and use the trust property.  Any person at least 18 years of age who can legally possess NFA firearms may be listed as a trustee of the NFA gun trust and, thereby, legally possess the trust property, which is usually the NFA firearms assigned to the trust.

 

For a married couple, suppose the husband owns a suppressor, which is legally registered with the ATF in his own name.  The husband goes to work and leaves his suppressor at home.  If the wife stays at home that day and could have access to the suppressor, she is committing a federal felony offense that carries a prison sentence of up to 10 years and/or a fine of up to $250,000.  26 U.S.C. §§ 5861, 5871; 18 U.S.C. § 3571(b).  Further, the suppressor is subject to seizure and forfeiture.  26 U.S.C. § 5872.  If convicted, the wife loses her right to own or possess any kind of firearms in the future.  In addition, if the husband instead left the suppressor in the wife’s vehicle, the vehicle is subject to seizure and forfeiture.  If the husband had simply registered the suppressor in the name of an NFA gun trust and listed both himself and his wife as trustees of the trust, this situation would have been prevented. Additionally, the couple could list other individuals, such as friends and family who are at least 18 years of age and who may legally possess firearms as trustees of the trust, if the individuals agreed to be listed as trustees.

 

Even if a person is single, it will still make sense to title NFA firearms in the name of a trust because of the built-in flexibility of being able to amend the trust throughout the person’s lifetime to add or remove additional trustees (persons allowed to use and possess the NFA firearms) and to identify beneficiaries (persons who may inherit the NFA firearms when the person dies) as the person’s life and roles evolve (i.e., husband, father, grandfather, etc.).  If the person titles NFA firearms in his own name and then decides later to title the NFA firearms in the name of a trust, the person will end up paying the $200 transfer tax (or whatever the transfer tax amount is at that time) for each NFA firearm to be transferred to the trust.  This short-term thinking (titling NFA firearms in the name of an individual) could end up costing the person a large sum of money down the road.  Further, all property assigned to the NFA gun trust passes to the beneficiaries outside of probate.

[Dolomite_supafly]

This part is interesting:

 

That is some lawyer's opinion on the matter, not the ATF's opinion.

 

Sounds like someone needs to fire off a letter to the ATF. I do not want to be the one who criminalized tens of thousands of people who leave their NFA stuff at home while they go to work.

[ncldwell]

The penalty is staggering for illegally possessing an item that does nothing but suppress sound.

[LawEnforcementSalesTN]

Restricted access has ALWAYS been a part of the NFA since its creation 1934.  It has always been ATF's expectation that these items were/would be locked and inaccessible by anyone not legally authorized to have them (transferee).  That fact doesn't change whether individual, trust or corp. 

 

I've always felt though one of, if not the most, benefecial attributes a trust affords is that ability for multiple persons to have legal access with or without the others being present.

[Guest jmeyers53]

A good friend of mine is the sole ATF agent for most of Alaska (my wife's family is in TN, we live in Fairbanks, AK). Spoke with him at length on this subject just a couple weeks ago. The end result is that the ATF is eventually going to eliminate the trust loophole, like in the next 1-2 years. Reason for eliminating it is because it makes it easier for convicted criminals to have these guns. Bottom line is that the trust loophole will definitely be closed in the very near future, especially with our current libtards in office.

[Johnny Rotten]

That's the best kind of friend to have, Paperwork sent Monday, pending/approved Tuesday, forms received back Thursday, check cashed Friday...

[Oh Shoot]

Here is an easily printed version of the PDF dictating that a CLEO has 15 business days to sign off on NFA documents:

http://www.state.tn.us/sos/acts/103/pub/pc0275.pdf

 

It is 39-17-1361 for anyone wanting to look it up in TCA.

 

I think many folks aren't aware that there is no federal mandate for the CLEO to sign off at all, and indeed there are any number of counties around the country where folks can not own NFA firearms just for that reason, that the CLEO refuses to sign any application,  even though there is no state law preventing them per se.

 

- OS

Edited March 4, 2014 by Oh Shoot

[Guest theconstitutionrocks]

Or they could just repeal the damned NFA

[Dolomite_supafly]

I have always said the person should be regulated and not the items. If a person can legally own a firearm they should be allowed to own ALL firearms.

 

And as far as who can, and cannot own, it should be broken down by violent behavior and not felony vs misdemeanor. There are plenty of non violent felonies that prevent people from owning a firearms. If a person is violent they should not be allowed to own a firearm even if the crime is a misdemeanor. And even if they have served their time they should not be allowed to own a firearm for life if they have been convicted of, or plead guilty to, a violent crime. Now if someone is arrested for and the charges are dropped it should have no bearing on whether they can, or cannot, own a firearm. Only convictions count.

 

As far as mental health goes they too have to have a history of violence to be denied and not the medications they take. There are plenty of people in NY that are now disallowed from owning firearms because they were prescribed certain medications. And just because someone is prescribed certain medications they should not be barred from owning a firearm. I read the list of medications and was surprised to see that if you were EVER prescribed Benadryl you can no longer own a firearm.

 

Anyone who is convicted of providing a firearm to someone barred from owning a firearm should also loose their ability to own a firearm for life.

[Guest sigequinox]

A good friend of mine is the sole ATF agent for most of Alaska (my wife's family is in TN, we live in Fairbanks, AK). Spoke with him at length on this subject just a couple weeks ago. The end result is that the ATF is eventually going to eliminate the trust loophole, like in the next 1-2 years. Reason for eliminating it is because it makes it easier for convicted criminals to have these guns. Bottom line is that the trust loophole will definitely be closed in the very near future, especially with our current libtards in office.

 

I have a hard time accepting that ATF theory. Criminals usually avoid all that legal mumbo jumbo and do what they do best: steal crap or buy from black market dealers.