Did rule 41P change anything for individuals?

[lockedcj7]

I thought I read that 41P was changing some things for individuals. If fact, I've been waiting for the law to go into effect because of the changes that I thought were coming.

Specifically, I thought I read that an individual would not need to submit additional fingerprints and photos if they had done so for another form in the preceding 24 mos.

I've read form 1 and don't see any such provision. I've also been all over rule 41P and the BATFE website and can't find anything.

Did I imagine that too?

Am I still correct that it changed the CLEO approval to only a notification?

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by lockedcj7

I thought I read that 41P was changing some things for individuals. If fact, I've been waiting for the law to go into effect because of the changes that I thought were coming.

Just to clarify: it's not a law, it's simply a regulatory rule. 41P was the name for the proposed rule change, and 41F is the name for the final rule change.

Originally Posted by lockedcj7

Specifically, I thought I read that an individual would not need to submit additional fingerprints and photos if they had done so for another form in the preceding 24 mos.

I've read form 1 and don't see any such provision. I've also been all over rule 41P and the BATFE website and can't find anything.

Did I imagine that too?

The two-year window was an initial public interpretation of 41F that the ATF disagreed with. As of now, the ATF says fingerprints and photos are required for each submission of a Form 1 or Form 4.

http://rkmerting.com/atf-41f-and-the-two-year-window/

Originally Posted by lockedcj7

Am I still correct that it changed the CLEO approval to only a notification?

Yes. Basically, 41F boils down to this: 1) Fingerprints and photos are required for everybody for each transaction, whether you're submitting as an individual or as a "responsible person" on a trust. 2) The CLEO sign-off for individuals has been changed to a simple notification, and it has been extended to all "responsible persons" on a trust.

So fingerprints and photos are now required for everyone whether you're on a trust or not, and CLEO notification is required for everyone whether you're on a trust or not.

[Skans]

individuals has been changed to a simple notification, and it has been extended to all "responsible persons" on a trust.

So, a trust, corp, llc, etc. is no longer necessary to avoid the CLEO sign-off? If I understand correctly, there simply is no more CLEO sign-off; that impossible crap is in the past?

If this is true, that explains the recent jump in machinegun prices.

[Sharkbite]

Skans,

That is correct. Individual, trust, Corp...all must do a "notification" to the CLEO. He does not have to sign it or even acknowledge the Notification. Simply send it signature required and submit

[Skans]

I had heard that was going to happen, I just can't believe they actually did away with the CLEO sign-off. I'm assuming that this will make most NFA trusts a thing of the past. I understand there are other reasons to have a trust, but just no longer necessary to avoid the sign-off.

[Sharkbite]

Correct..

All the additional benifits of a NFA trust remain (ability to let mtpl persons LEGALLY possess and use those items, as an example)

But for those of us that had a CLEO who flat refused to sign, that problem has gone away

[James K]

What if the CLEO simply refuses to accept the notification and won't sign anything?

Jim

[Sharkbite]

Under 41F the CLEO does not have to sign anything. Thats the good news in this rule change. You simply send him a certified letter and thats all. He doesnt return a signed copy or any other paperwork.

[Theohazard]

Originally Posted by James K

What if the CLEO simply refuses to accept the notification and won't sign anything?

Like Sharkbite said, there's nothing for them to sign. As far as I know, theres no mechanism in place for the ATF to verify that you sent the notification to your CLEO. This doesn't make any sense and also makes complete sense both at the same time.

It makes sense because if the ATF required your CLEO to verify that they received the copy of your notification, then that would amount to a de facto CLEO approval, which would be similar to the old CLEO sign off; all an anti-gun CLEO has to do is pretend they never got it, and then you don't get your form approved. By not requiring any verification from the CLEO, it avoids this issue.

However, it doesn't make sense to me from an enforcement perspective because I don't see how the ATF can enforce it if someone decides to not notify their CLEO at all.

[Armorer-at-Law]

In theory, it gives the CLEO to raise a legitimate issue that he/she has knowledge of, but that might not show up on a BGC. In practice, this would be almost never.

However, it doesn't make sense to me from an enforcement perspective because I don't see how the ATF can enforce it if someone decides to not notify their CLEO at all.

Signing under oath that you had sent the notification would be a crime. Until you're caught, it's not an issue. But if you are caught for something else, this would be a pile-on felony charge.

[Skans]

Does anyone think the elimination of the CLEO sign-off has lead to the recent jump in prices of registered full-autos?

[Sharkbite]

I dont think so...

Anyone that wanted NFA stuff and had a CLEO that wouldn't sign, just started a trust and bought what they wanted.

Thats exactly what i did