Oregon's Only No Compromise Gun Rights Organization . As you know, the Obama administration is attempting to formulate rules to harass owners of machine guns, short barreled rifles and shotguns and suppressors.
The new rule would require that Trusts, LLC's and corporate transfers of these items obtain the permission of the chief law enforcement officer of a jurisdiction, usually a sheriff.
There is still time to comment on the proposed rule change and so far there have not been many. But this is important. The ATF changes its mind and its rules with no warning and no reason. See the following links:
* http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/
* http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/the-chore-boy-menace#slide=1
* http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/2/gun-makers-baffled-by-atf-criteria/
Furthermore ATF "reclassifications" can occur with political pressure:
* The retroactive destructive device ruling for Striker 12 family shotguns:
◦ http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2001-1.html
* The shotgun "importability" study to attempt to ban some shotgun imports:
◦ http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/january-2011-importability-of-certain-shotguns.pdf
There is no telling how these new rules will be applied.
Currently OFF is a participant in a US Supreme Court case that demonstrates how dangerous and arbitrary ATF can be. Abramski vs United States is a case where a person purchased a handgun after completing a background check and transferred the gun to his uncle, who also completed a background check. Yet Abramski was convicted of a "straw purchase" when it was claimed he "lied" on the 4473 about whether he was the "real" buyer of the gun. This in spite of the fact that there is no other option on the form. If this stands, ATF will have once again made up their own law, and one could argue that no one could lawfully transfer any gun they purchased from a dealer.
Giving more power to the these lawbreakers would be a big mistake. And there is no question that these proposed changes would do nothing to stop crime, as is the case with all gun control laws.
Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before December 9, 2013
You can make comments on the proposed rule change here:
http://tiny.cc/qj7a5w This takes you to the regulations.gov page to comment on the proposed rule.
Suggested comments:
---------------------------------------------------------
I oppose the ATF proposal to require CLEO sign off approval for all title II firearm transfers, including Trusts and other legal entities.
1. ATF admits in the proposal that it has access to several databases, including NICS, which could be used to accomplish what the petitioner requested and ensure that firearms do not fall into the wrong hands.
2. The CLEO sign off is clumsy and outdated. It is also far more expensive for the industry, firearms owners and the government to maintain - or expand in this proposal, than to use the NICS check procedures to verify transfers of title II firearms are not transferred to prohibited persons.
3. The CLEO sign off enables corrupt persons in CLEO positions to politically coerce money out of transferees in the guise of campaign donations.
A NICS check on an individual, principle officers of a trust or other legal entity would be faster, more efficient, and would reduce the chances for human error. This would allow the NFA transfer process to be streamlined, it would be safer for the public and would be a less burdensome regulatory change.
Once again, I oppose any expansion of the 'Chief Law Enforcement Officer' sign off requirements for NFA transfers.
The new rule would require that Trusts, LLC's and corporate transfers of these items obtain the permission of the chief law enforcement officer of a jurisdiction, usually a sheriff.
There is still time to comment on the proposed rule change and so far there have not been many. But this is important. The ATF changes its mind and its rules with no warning and no reason. See the following links:
* http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/
* http://www.examiner.com/slideshow/the-chore-boy-menace#slide=1
* http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jan/2/gun-makers-baffled-by-atf-criteria/
Furthermore ATF "reclassifications" can occur with political pressure:
* The retroactive destructive device ruling for Striker 12 family shotguns:
◦ http://www.atf.gov/regulations-rulings/rulings/atf-rulings/atf-ruling-2001-1.html
* The shotgun "importability" study to attempt to ban some shotgun imports:
◦ http://www.atf.gov/files/firearms/industry/january-2011-importability-of-certain-shotguns.pdf
There is no telling how these new rules will be applied.
Currently OFF is a participant in a US Supreme Court case that demonstrates how dangerous and arbitrary ATF can be. Abramski vs United States is a case where a person purchased a handgun after completing a background check and transferred the gun to his uncle, who also completed a background check. Yet Abramski was convicted of a "straw purchase" when it was claimed he "lied" on the 4473 about whether he was the "real" buyer of the gun. This in spite of the fact that there is no other option on the form. If this stands, ATF will have once again made up their own law, and one could argue that no one could lawfully transfer any gun they purchased from a dealer.
Giving more power to the these lawbreakers would be a big mistake. And there is no question that these proposed changes would do nothing to stop crime, as is the case with all gun control laws.
Written comments must be postmarked and electronic comments must be submitted on or before December 9, 2013
You can make comments on the proposed rule change here:
http://tiny.cc/qj7a5w This takes you to the regulations.gov page to comment on the proposed rule.
Suggested comments:
---------------------------------------------------------
I oppose the ATF proposal to require CLEO sign off approval for all title II firearm transfers, including Trusts and other legal entities.
1. ATF admits in the proposal that it has access to several databases, including NICS, which could be used to accomplish what the petitioner requested and ensure that firearms do not fall into the wrong hands.
2. The CLEO sign off is clumsy and outdated. It is also far more expensive for the industry, firearms owners and the government to maintain - or expand in this proposal, than to use the NICS check procedures to verify transfers of title II firearms are not transferred to prohibited persons.
3. The CLEO sign off enables corrupt persons in CLEO positions to politically coerce money out of transferees in the guise of campaign donations.
A NICS check on an individual, principle officers of a trust or other legal entity would be faster, more efficient, and would reduce the chances for human error. This would allow the NFA transfer process to be streamlined, it would be safer for the public and would be a less burdensome regulatory change.
Once again, I oppose any expansion of the 'Chief Law Enforcement Officer' sign off requirements for NFA transfers.
Related Posts:
OFF---Supreme Court to Hear "Straw Purchase" Case
[OFF Alert] Legal Analysis of Two Recent Court Cases
[OFF Alert] Gun Control Bills Not Dead
[OFF Alert] New anti-gun bills coming?
[OFF Alert] In-Depth Update On Gun Bills
[OFF Alert] ANTI-GUN BILLS SCHEDULED FOR HEARING
[OFF Alert] GUN CONTROL TIDAL WAVE INTRODUCED
[OFF Alert] Let the Games Begin
[OFF Alert] Session Starts and Rally Reminder!
OFF---Supreme Court to Hear "Straw Purchase" Case
[OFF Alert] Legal Analysis of Two Recent Court Cases
[OFF Alert] Gun Control Bills Not Dead
[OFF Alert] New anti-gun bills coming?
[OFF Alert] In-Depth Update On Gun Bills
[OFF Alert] ANTI-GUN BILLS SCHEDULED FOR HEARING
[OFF Alert] GUN CONTROL TIDAL WAVE INTRODUCED
[OFF Alert] Let the Games Begin
[OFF Alert] Session Starts and Rally Reminder!
RSS Feed
