all i can do is drool and kick myself in the ass for living in NJ!  =wtf!

Yea- you and me both!

Ill be setting up a trust soon. Then submitting paperwork for a can and sbr. Probably going to go with 300 blk for my build.

Are you doing trust because of no local CLEO signature? I hope you are aware that ATF has created a rule that trust/corp requires LEO signature. It was supposed to be in force already but they have delayed it. If you must go trust for that reason I would do it ASAP.

 

Also, the possibility that it will be enforced retroactively has not been ruled out. But that seems less likely and there is nothing we could do about it anyway. Better to have a chance than possibly miss the boat. Presumably, under that worst case scenario, they would include an extended compliance period to transfer the stuff out of the trust.

Are you doing trust because of no local CLEO signature? I hope you are aware that ATF has created a rule that trust/corp requires LEO signature. It was supposed to be in force already but they have delayed it. If you must go trust for that reason I would do it ASAP.

 

Also, the possibility that it will be enforced retroactively has not been ruled out. But that seems less likely and there is nothing we could do about it anyway. Better to have a chance than possibly miss the boat. Presumably, under that worst case scenario, they would include an extended compliance period to transfer the stuff out of the trust.

Negative. See here: http://americansuppressorassociation.com/atf-updates-final-action-date-for-41p/

 

Negative. See here: http://americansuppressorassociation.com/atf-updates-final-action-date-for-41p/

Negative in what way? The regulation will go into force once they finish the extended period. Can you tell me what I missed? Are you saying it won't happen?

 

Negative in what way? The regulation will go into force once they finish the extended period. Can you tell me what I missed? Are you saying it won't happen?

The signature requirement isn't in effect for trusts at this time and I don't think there will be a change in CLEO signature requirements considering that prior to this, the BATFE was independently looking at completely doing away with CLEO signature requirements for Title 2 firearms.

if it takes place in 2015 then well have just over a year before hopefully a new president will sign an exec order getting rid of that stupid fucking order. i cant wait until this ass clown is out of office. and im pretty sure the CLEO will sign off in my county but why bother when itll only cost me $5 for a notary fee to set up the trust and then i can add stuff as i please until they comes into effect. plus i can put a lot of other things in there. its just a good thing to have anyway in case something ever happens to me.

The signature requirement isn't in effect for trusts at this time and I don't think there will be a change in CLEO signature requirements considering that prior to this, the BATFE was independently looking at completely doing away with CLEO signature requirements for Title 2 firearms.

I'm a little dumbfounded. If you are correct, you are the only one that knows this.

 

The proposed regulation requires CLEO signature for trusts and corps. It has nothing to do with removing CLEO requirement for Title II firearms.

 

It was kicked off when that silencer organization proposing eliminating the requirement, but it backfired. That news is a couple years old.

 

This has been ubiquitous, widespread news and fight in the NFA community and the firearms legal community for over a year. We have just been waiting for the hammer to drop.

 

The rule is that trusts and corps will require CLEO signature. There is nothing in the proposed rule that CLEO signature will be eliminated for transfers.

I'm a little dumbfounded. If you are correct, you are the only one that knows this.

 

The proposed regulation requires CLEO signature for trusts and corps. It has nothing to do with removing CLEO requirement for Title II firearms.

 

It was kicked off when that silencer organization proposing eliminating the requirement, but it backfired. That news is a couple years old.

 

This has been ubiquitous, widespread news and fight in the NFA community and the firearms legal community for over a year. We have just been waiting for the hammer to drop.

 

The rule is that trusts and corps will require CLEO signature. There is nothing in the proposed rule that CLEO signature will be eliminated for transfers.

Yes, 41P is about trusts and corps requiring CLEO sign off. What I said what prior to Obama's EO, BATFE, on their own accord, was looking at eliminating CLEO sign off for individuals.

Yes, 41P is about trusts and corps requiring CLEO sign off. What I said what prior to Obama's EO, BATFE, on their own accord, was looking at eliminating CLEO sign off for individuals.

The current regulation promulgated by ATF that is going to go into effect will still require CLEO signoff and also newly require it for trusts and corps as well, correct?

 

I'm sorry, I am having a difficult time following you on this.

 

Trusts and corps will soon require CLEO signoff.

 

As I said earlier, if you plan to use a trust then do it soon, because a rule has already passed that will required CLEO signoff. Implementation has been delayed. Keep you fingers crossed, although unlikely, the rule does not rule out being retroactive - against a canceled stamp you already own.

 

Anybody looking to start an NFA trust, please ignore the last couple days of all posts in this thread and go back to my original post.

He is saying that the BATFE might not follow the EO. And prior to this idiot in office trying to back door us, they were deciding whether to continue with the CLEO signatures for personal sales not to a trust. Sure you would still need a stamp but remove the step where your antigun sheriff can't prevent you from owning a completely legal item because "only we should have that type of firepower"

 

He is saying that the BATFE might not follow the EO. And prior to this idiot in office trying to back door us, they were deciding whether to continue with the CLEO signatures for personal sales not to a trust. Sure you would still need a stamp but remove the step where your antigun sheriff can't prevent you from owning a completely legal item because "only we should have that type of firepower"

That's complete nonsense.

 

There is no EO.

 

There is a regulation that says Trusts and Corps will require CLEO signoff. And it will go into effect and it will be law.

 

There is NO REGULATION from ATF that says they will drop CLEO signoff. That's wishful thinking from 3 years ago. It backfired.

 

All non-SOT transfers will require CLEO signoff, trust, corp, individual, makes no difference.

 

http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2014/05/atf-updates-41p-final-action-d.html

 

^I don't give any cred to this guy but he got it right on this one.

 

This is a real regulation that will go into effect next year. It will not remove CLEO requirement from anyone, it will add it to everyone. That is the purpose of it.

that regulation was part of "executive action" taken by the president. he basically told them to change their regs or else. any following president can do the same thing in reverse. every time you talk about something you always present half the facts and claim your right. its not very difficult to do a quick google search and find the other half of the facts and realize what an idiot you are. for now i'll trust ty midwestpx as he deals in this stuff every day and probably has contacts within the BATF due to the nature of his business.

I may be wrong, I don't profess to know everything 10000%. But as I understand it, the EO was a directive from POTUS to BATFE to look into changing the way title two firearms are handled. Technically, ATF can say they aren't going to take any action whatsoever after they respond to all the comments. But there's been enough holes poked in the proposal to require CLEO sign off that it's hard to imagine they would enact the ruling as it was originally worded. If they want to make changes to incorporate the feedback from comments, it would significantly change the direction which would then re-open the comment period. I'm not alone in this line of thought as multiple SOTs are also of this opinion.

the simple fact that i know there was an EO about this is why i would trust your word over his. as he denies there even was one. plus, he has a history of being a dick about things. in particular, a discussion we had about the difference of .223 and 5.56 in a full auto AR. ever since then i take everything he says with a grain of salt.

I may be wrong, I don't profess to know everything 10000%. But as I understand it, the EO was a directive from POTUS to BATFE to look into changing the way title two firearms are handled. Technically, ATF can say they aren't going to take any action whatsoever after they respond to all the comments. But there's been enough holes poked in the proposal to require CLEO sign off that it's hard to imagine they would enact the ruling as it was originally worded. If they want to make changes to incorporate the feedback from comments, it would significantly change the direction which would then re-open the comment period. I'm not alone in this line of thought as multiple SOTs are also of this opinion.

That is 100% correct.

 

And the regulation has obviously been published for comment, and there is no hint of removal of CLEO requirement. Only making it required for all non-SOT transfers.

 

I have never seen a regulatory agency say they are going to pass additional restrictions and then, based on comments, completely reverse position and say they are going in the other direction and going to remove restrictions of the type they were proposing.

Very nice!

Very nice!

 

 

thanks! 

so i realize monitors play a huge part of showing the color, but in person does it look similar to what you have here?  i got a cerakote zippo lighter that is the same color and it seems way darker.  the HSP Jack carbine is also way lighter in pictures.  guess i have a month or so to decide but I'm not sure if i want to do the tungsten:black mix or just straight up tungsten

so i realize monitors play a huge part of showing the color, but in person does it look similar to what you have here?  i got a cerakote zippo lighter that is the same color and it seems way darker.  the HSP Jack carbine is also way lighter in pictures.  guess i have a month or so to decide but I'm not sure if i want to do the tungsten:black mix or just straight up tungsten

 

 

this color is EXTREMELY hard to photograph... and changes dramatically in light and dark.. 

 

this might help you with different mixes.. I had Chris work these up when trying to decide on color.. 

 

http://s1313.photobucket.com/user/backwoodscoatings/media/DSC_0319_zps3431848e.jpg.html?sort=3&o=2

 

http://s1313.photobucket.com/user/backwoodscoatings/media/DSC_0319_zps3431848e.jpg.html?sort=3&o=1

I know this is old but I am going to file a form 1, under my trust because my attorney says I still can without CLEO sign off, and was curious how you got the OAL of the rifle without owning the parts?  Did you assemble the rifle wihtout the barrel to create the measurements?  Did you engrave your name, model number and caliber?  From what I've read you can't assemble a SBR on Form 4 you'd have to buy it done see it needs Form 1.  Curious on how you went about the process of figuring out the length of all the parts?  Did you create a trust or do it as an individual and get CLEO sign off?

I know this is old but I am going to file a form 1, under my trust because my attorney says I still can without CLEO sign off, and was curious how you got the OAL of the rifle without owning the parts? Did you assemble the rifle wihtout the barrel to create the measurements? Did you engrave your name, model number and caliber? From what I've read you can't assemble a SBR on Form 4 you'd have to buy it done see it needs Form 1. Curious on how you went about the process of figuring out the length of all the parts? Did you create a trust or do it as an individual and get CLEO sign off?

I built the gun as a pistol, so determine the length was easy.. I just had to account for the change in length from a pistol buffer tube to a stock..

 

I engraved name city state caliber lower is already marked with a serial, so that's the serial used.

 

I did it as an individual.. Sheriff had no issue signing for it... Overall very easy positive experience.. From the sheriff even to dealing with the ATF.. All pleasant people..

I built the gun as a pistol, so determine the length was easy.. I just had to account for the change in length from a pistol buffer tube to a stock..

 

I engraved name city state caliber lower is already marked with a serial, so that's the serial used.

 

I did it as an individual.. Sheriff had no issue signing for it... Overall very easy positive experience.. From the sheriff even to dealing with the ATF.. All pleasant people..

 

Great idea building as pistol.  Did your lower have a caliber or multi?  I have a black rain matched set that says multi so I guess I can engrave .223 or 5.56.  I'm using a trust, my CLEO is know to pick and choose who gets them, and the trust name is required in the engraving. 

you should engrave the primary caliber the gun will be used for.. but it can be temporarily used in any configuration.. so sure 223 or 556 would be fine..

 

sucks about the sign off.. where are you?

Hey Rob,

 

Do you have someone to engrave your lower? If not, I used a guy in Jacksonville. Did a great job for $40 or $45, I forget.

 

Also, on OAL, from what I researched, I'm planning a 9" upper, people suggested looking at say, in my case, the AAC 9" MPW, see what the OAL is and use it. I've also read that it isn't a big deal if you're off after building it. Once the lower is registered, you can put any upper on it, from a 24" to a 7".

 

Same with caliber, I filed mine as a 300 BLK, but could always throw a 5.56 on it.

 

If the lower has a caliber on it already, no need to engrave that, just your trust name, keep it short, city and state. 

Hey Rob,

 

Do you have someone to engrave your lower? If not, I used a guy in Jacksonville. Did a great job for $40 or $45, I forget.

 

Also, on OAL, from what I researched, I'm planning a 9" upper, people suggested looking at say, in my case, the AAC 9" MPW, see what the OAL is and use it. I've also read that it isn't a big deal if you're off after building it. Once the lower is registered, you can put any upper on it, from a 24" to a 7".

 

Same with caliber, I filed mine as a 300 BLK, but could always throw a 5.56 on it.

 

If the lower has a caliber on it already, no need to engrave that, just your trust name, keep it short, city and state. 

 

 

for what its worth gun should be stored in registered configuration.. 

for what its worth gun should be stored in registered configuration.. 

I haven't read that, but if you say so Vlad, ok. I was just pointing out that you can put any upper on it as opposed to a non-registered lower in the safe.

 

Also, if you sell a sbr upper, you can notify the ATF to remove the lower from the registry if you wanted too

Do you get it engraved before or after your paperwork comes back?

Do you get it engraved before or after your paperwork comes back?

 

 

before.. its cheaper and easier to replace a lower than a $200 stamp that you wait months for.. 

Before. It was recommended to wait to file the Form 1 until engraving in case something happened to the lower, you wouldn't have to deal with trying to correct the Form.