http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/...002821658.html
Printable View
An article also ran in the NY Times... This has been on the ATF radar for a long time and is part of the preliminary NPRM notice that also includes taking CLEO's out of the loop. Ironically, it's the CLEO's who would not sign that allowed for a rather large number of folks to bypass the background check.
I don't believe the background check is the reason a lot of NFA fans are going the Trust route.
It's main advantage is to bypass the CLEO sign off. This process in my home state of Maryland adds
at least 2 1/2 months to the delivery process. The downside to using trusts is the extra dealer transfer
time and tax stamp.
I had and used a "C&R Trust" for awhile until Martinsburg determined that it had been granted in error
and pulled the license.
I think the best NFA purchase route is still to use the C&R FFL-03 license only. It allows direct shipment with
no dealer involvement / hassles / costs.
My 2 cents,
Darryl
My customers are surprised when I don't do a NICS check on NFA items. I just check the NFA item box. I am not concerned at all about any of my customers using their NFA items in a crime. They just use the trusts so they can get NFA stuff. Most of the CLEOs in the area will not sign off on paperwork.
Any word on doing away with the CLEO signature? Should I start doing NICS checks on NFA items to get used to doing it for when the new process starts?
The possibility of CLEO being eliminated has just gotten to the preliminary announcement of a possible Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM). That is light years of progress from where we started! But it still isn't reality and there is still a lot that needs to be accomplished.
There is no detail on what a background check process will ultimately look like when/if there are any changes. There is no current legal or regulatory requirement to do a NICS check on a transfer of an NFA weapon whose transfer has been approved by NFA Branch.
So is it now a "given" that trusts will be "dead" once CLEO goes away? Based on the reading of the article that is VERY much the intent here.