The focal point for Texas firearms information and discussions
https://www.texaschlforum.com/
FL450 wrote:Where does NFA CLEO must sign stand??
Using NFA trusts will also require CLEO signoff in the near future (recently postponed until December, but implementation of this new rule may very well be delayed again).AJSully421 wrote:I will never understand why anyone would go the individual route and not do a NFA trust.FL450 wrote:Where does NFA CLEO must sign stand??
I did a trust but was refering to the potential required CLEO sign off even with a trust.v7a wrote:Using NFA trusts will also require CLEO signoff in the near future (recently postponed until December, but implementation of this new rule may very well be delayed again).AJSully421 wrote:I will never understand why anyone would go the individual route and not do a NFA trust.FL450 wrote:Where does NFA CLEO must sign stand??
This will go on my "Wait 'til next session" list.FL450 wrote:
Where does NFA CLEO must sign stand??
Did not pass. It died because of infighting between the House and Senate on a totally unrelated issue/item.
Chas.
The ATF will accept signatures from state-level CLEOs too. The DPS and AG would be acceptable.tomneal wrote:This will go on my "Wait 'til next session" list.FL450 wrote:
Where does NFA CLEO must sign stand??
Did not pass. It died because of infighting between the House and Senate on a totally unrelated issue/item.
Chas.
Altho, someone said Louisiana did something so the signoff could come from the State. I didn't quite understand what they were describing. Maybe this is something the Governor / Attorney General can look into.
If the new ATF regulations do go into force in December, maybe the AG could set up an automated online process for requesting signoff. I'd even be happy to pay a small fee for each signoff so they can recoup the cost of setting up and running the system.CleverNickname wrote:The ATF will accept signatures from state-level CLEOs too. The DPS and AG would be acceptable.
What does this sign off accomplish, other than satisfy an arbitrary regulatory requirement? I'm still wondering what would be lost if no sign off is required. It seems the CLEO signs or doesn't sign at their discretion, no formal guidelines are followed.v7a wrote:If the new ATF regulations do go into force in December, maybe the AG could set up an automated online process for requesting signoff. I'd even be happy to pay a small fee for each signoff so they can recoup the cost of setting up and running the system.CleverNickname wrote:The ATF will accept signatures from state-level CLEOs too. The DPS and AG would be acceptable.
The goverment (President) believes the trust route has loopholes in it so he wants that shut down as well as using the ATF powers to futher gun control thru actions like as well as by restricting ammo(Green tip)gljjt wrote:What does this sign off accomplish, other than satisfy an arbitrary regulatory requirement? I'm still wondering what would be lost if no sign off is required. It seems the CLEO signs or doesn't sign at their discretion, no formal guidelines are followed.v7a wrote:If the new ATF regulations do go into force in December, maybe the AG could set up an automated online process for requesting signoff. I'd even be happy to pay a small fee for each signoff so they can recoup the cost of setting up and running the system.CleverNickname wrote:The ATF will accept signatures from state-level CLEOs too. The DPS and AG would be acceptable.
I've just started to look at SBRs and the whole sign off thing feels like a giant goat screw. I'd be a user as well. Just seems like an easier path than the current system.v7a wrote:If the new ATF regulations do go into force in December, maybe the AG could set up an automated online process for requesting signoff. I'd even be happy to pay a small fee for each signoff so they can recoup the cost of setting up and running the system.CleverNickname wrote:The ATF will accept signatures from state-level CLEOs too. The DPS and AG would be acceptable.
(8) "Knuckles" means any instrument that consists of finger rings or guards made of a hard substance and that is designed, made, or adapted for the purpose of inflicting serious bodily injury or death by striking a person with a fist enclosed in the knuckles.gljjt wrote:S473 as written says knuckles are unlawful. I think they left off brass before knuckles. Otherwise we all have to have surgery before September!mr1337 wrote:Here are the ones I've been keeping track of:
Signed by Governor:
SB473 - Makes the lack of NFA registration or designation as a "curio" an element of the crime, rather than a defense to prosecution. You can currently be tried for owning a suppressor, and you must present proof of NFA registration in court as a defense.
Sent to Governor (or soon to be sent to governor):
SB273 - This bill seeks to provide a civil penalty for municipalities that post un-enforceable 30.06 signs. 30.06 signs posted on state or local government property are un-enforceable unless already an otherwise prohibited place.
HB554 - Creates a defense to prosecution and a prohibition on arrest if a CHL inadvertently carries a handgun into the security area of an airport. Police cannot arrest a person unless they advise them of their ability to leave the security area and the CHL fails to do so. (Please still don't do this, you still face fines from the TSA.)
HB905 - Preempts local knife laws in Texas, removing the patchwork of local knife ordinances across the state.
HB910 - Licensed open carry. Texas will have licensed open carry on Jan 1, 2016, being the 46th state to adopt open carry legislation.
SB11 - Campus carry bill
I've heard that back when the NFA was passed into law, we didn't have background checks or the like, so a CLEO sign-off was the closest thing there was to that.gljjt wrote:I don't really understand why this is even a requirement. The CLEO probably doesn't know you so he or she can't vouch for you. Its not his or her place to ascertain "need". What value does this signature provide? Certainly not your background. The ATF can look that up.
The history makes sense, but its definitely antiquated at this point. I'd venture to say that a state issued CHL should carry more weight than a sign off from a cop that doesn't know you. I don't like paying for a tax stamp, but if that's the admission fee then it is what it is. Its the process that's keeping me from shopping for an SBR right now.mr1337 wrote:I've heard that back when the NFA was passed into law, we didn't have background checks or the like, so a CLEO sign-off was the closest thing there was to that.gljjt wrote:I don't really understand why this is even a requirement. The CLEO probably doesn't know you so he or she can't vouch for you. Its not his or her place to ascertain "need". What value does this signature provide? Certainly not your background. The ATF can look that up.
It's just never been changed.
That's the whole point.Taypo wrote:the whole sign off thing feels like a giant goat screw.