Get your letters ready today!
I'm not a fan of the local CLEO having any knowledge and more specifically any records of my NFA items. It's Federally regulated item and the Fed's should have the sole instance of those records. No reason for local CLEO to be involved with NFA, IMO.
I agree. Remember, the NFA register is a TAX DOCUMENT, not a "gun registry." As a tax document it's distribution needs to be restricted.
Now, I APPROVE of the change that would eliminate the need for a CLEO signature, since that is the very reason that the whole trust thing came into being...many CLEOs simply refused to provide the "no reason not to" statement because they are not federal government employees and that makes it an "unfunded mandate" that they can ignore with impunity. Of course the feds KNEW this when they inserted the CLEO requirement in the first place, and they have DEPENDED on the unwillingness of CLEOs in many places, particularly big cities, to sign off on NFA items as a sub-rosa method of controlling the number of items in the registry.
But when the trust "loophole" started to become popular it seems that the administration noted that this tactic wasn't working anymore. It seems as though they are resigned to the increase in NFA items being registered, but they want better background checks on the principles of trusts. I can see why they want to do it. If you believe background checks are useful in keeping criminals from obtaining firearms (or NFA items) then it sounds reasonable to more closely examine the principles in a trust.
However, the real problem is the added degree of scrutiny applied to NFA applicants. It should be no different than buying any firearm from a dealer: you get a NICS check at the dealer when you buy the item and the NFA forms are submitted, and that is the ONLY background check you need. No fingerprints, no photos.
There is no legitimate reason for someone purchasing an NFA item to be subject to a more thorough background check or to provide photos and fingerprints than any other gun owner because no NFA weapon or item is inherently more dangerous than any other firearm...in fact they are LESS likely to be used in a crime (like once in the last 50 years) precisely because they ARE registered on the NFA books.
What everyone reading this needs to do is to start drafting a formal, well thought-out, polite and professional letter to the BATFE objecting to the CLEO section altogether and requesting that the background check be limited to a NICS instant check of each of the named principles prior to approval of the trust and NFA paperwork.
As to notifying the CLEO, this is likely to pass, so it needs to be argued that what must be sent to the CLEO is merely the identification information on THE TRUST, not on its principles or on the NFA items themselves. The argument is that the NFA branch reviews the trust and the applications as well as doing the background checks, and that there is no legitimate reason why a local CLEO has a "need to know" who or what NFA items a particular trust embodies, any more that he needs to know which individuals own regular Title II firearms. In those places where gun registration is mandatory, the state laws take care of that, so it becomes a states-rights issue.
We all know the feds are going to insist that a CLEO at least be informed of the presence and location of NFA items in a trust because they insist that a CLEO sign off on individual applications already, so they inevitably keep a record of that application in their files. So in that regard it's a minor change for the BATFE because to them it closes the "loophole" that allows NFA trusts to go unreported to the CLEO. Whether we like it or not, BATFE is going to push hard to include trusts, and their principles, in that data transfer, and their argument is a strong one: "We already do this for individual sign-offs on NFA applications, so this is just making trust procedures consistent with long-established NFA policy."
What we need to be focusing on is the ELIMINATION of the CLEO sign-off for INDIVIDUAL applications. This is a carrot and stick approach going on here. They offer to eliminate the individual CLEO sign-off in return for individual-level ID information and CLEO notification on trusts.
On balance, if we're willing to compromise, it's better for everyone to not have to get a CLEO sign-off, and the BATFE predicts, probably correctly, that this one change will significantly reduce the number of trust applications, since the main reason for a trust is bypassing the CLEO sign-off.
But we do have an opportunity, though not a good one, to lobby for other changes to bring sanity to the NFA process, specifically making a NICS instant check the only requirement for everyone who proposes to possess an NFA item, AND eliminating the CLEO sign-off.
So it's a bit of a conundrum. Do we stand firm against the carrot-and-stick approach and probably lose the whole thing, or do we work together and compromise with the feds to get a little more sugar (and a NIC-only background check is a huge win) while recognizing that anybody who is going to be a principle in an NFA trust will need to pass a NICS check just like everybody else?
This is a notice of proposed rulemaking and we ALL have the right, and I'd say the obligation, to flood the BATFE with CAREFUL and PROFESSIONAL arguments stating out opinions.
This needs to be as widely spread as possible because this is a golden opportunity to change the regs. It's not often that we get a chance to have input on a change to NFA regulations and we shouldn't miss this one.
