Posted on 04/27/2012 7:17:00 AM PDT by marktwain
San Diego, CA --(Ammoland.com)- According to the National Firearms Act Trade & Collectors Association, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) and the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) are preparing to remove the often burdensome Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) signature requirement from Form 1 and Form 4 for NFA firearms. (see article here)
“NFA firearms” are highly regulated devices meeting the specific and somewhat counter-intuitive definition of “firearm” as that term is defined under the federal National Firearms Act (NFA). These “firearms” include machineguns, short-barreled rifles and shotguns, destructive devices, silencers, and “any other weapons,” as that phrase is defined by the NFA. http://nfatca.org/
To lawfully possess any of these devices, one must register it with the federal government. And to make or transfer such devices, one must first submit Forms 1 and 4 to the ATF requesting approval to do so. Under the current requirements, those forms must be signed by the local CLEO where the intended recipient of the NFA firearm resides before ATF can give its approval.
A problem most Americans run into when attempting to make or acquire an NFA firearm is that most CLEOs are not too keen on signing the federal paperwork. Some outright refuse. And there is no way for the individual to compel the CLEO to sign.
In response to this, and as a way to get around a stubborn CLEO, NFA firearm enthusiasts who wanted to acquire these devices have created “NFA Trusts.” Federal law allows for the transfer of an NFA firearm to a trust without a CLEO signature. But NFA Trusts tend to be costly to set up and, if done incorrectly, can expose the trust members to federal criminal prosecution. And even if an individual is able to obtain an NFA firearm directly or through a trust, state laws and restrictions still apply.
Even if a person is the legal registered owner of an NFA firearm and in compliance with federal law, that person may nonetheless be subject to felony criminal prosecution under California law for possession of certain NFA firearms if they do not have a separate California permit. These permits for machineguns, destructive devices, and short-barreled shotguns and rifles, are practically impossible to get unless you are a member of, work closely with, or supply the military, law enforcement, or the entertainment industry. And silencers cannot be possessed by anyone other than certain military, law enforcement, and dealers/manufacturers licensed under the NFA.
The removal of the CLEO signature requirement opens a new door of personal defense options, especially for those Californians who wish to acquire “any other weapons” (AOWs).
Under the NFA, an AOW is any:
weapon or device capable of being concealed on the person from which a shot can be discharged through the energy of an explosive, a pistol or revolver having a barrel with a smooth bore designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell, weapons with combination shotgun and rifle barrels 12 inches or more, less than 18 inches in length, from which only a single discharge can be made from either barrel without manual reloading, and shall include any such weapon which may be readily restored to fire. Such term shall not include a pistol or a revolver having a rifled bore, or rifled bores, or weapons designed, made, or intended to be fired from the shoulder and not capable of firing fixed ammunition.
Devices that fall under this definition include, among other things, disguised devices like pen-guns, cigarette lighter guns, knife guns, cane guns, umbrella guns, and handguns with a “second vertical handgrip.” Firearm models like the Serbu Super-Shorty and the Safety Harbor KEG12 are also considered AOWs.
While some AOWs technically meet the definition of certain firearms prohibited under California law – e.g., “camouflaging firearm container,” “cane gun,” “firearm not immediately recognizable as a firearm,” “wallet gun,” “short-barreled shotgun” (California’s definition of short-barreled shotgun is much more expansive than the federal definition, including any firearm designed or redesigned to fire a fixed shotgun shell meeting certain length requirements (Cal. Penal Code § 17180)) — as “generally prohibited weapons,” they are expressly exempted if possessed by a person permitted to possess them under the federal Gun Control Act (oddly, the California exemption references the Gun Control Act and not the NFA. The GCA generally governs the transfer, commerce, and transportation of common firearms, and makes no reference to “any other weapons”). So, if a person can lawfully acquire an AOW under federal law, he or she should be protected from prosecution for possession of one of the “generally prohibited weapons” under California law.
A word of caution for Californians: While lawful possession of AOWs under federal law provides protection against prosecution for California’s restriction on “generally prohibited weapons,” it does not extend that protection to prosecutions for possession or restrictions on “assault weapons,” .50 BMG rifles, “unsafe handguns,” etc.
Make absolutely certain you and the device you are purchasing are compliant with California law before acquiring or possessing such devices.
About: CalGunLaws.com is an online research resource designed primarily for use by attorneys and interested firearm owners. CalGunLaws.com strives to provide easy access to and facilitate understanding of the multitude of complex federal, state, and local firearm laws and ordinances, administrative and executive regulations, case law, and past and current litigation that defines the California firearms regulatory scheme in theory and practice. CalGunLaws.com is designed and organized to make it easy to research the law and to locate source materials and related information. All of the articles are cross referenced. Note the two sections on the right: Related Items and Related Law. Related Items will take you to any article related to the one you are currently viewing. Related law takes you to the related law and statutes for the item you are looking at.
Once again, California leads the way for Illinois and Massachusetts
I expect to see alot of ‘vote buying’ attempts between now and November.
“Once again, California leads the way for Illinois and Massachusetts”
Don’t forget New York.
How about doing away with it for C&R License holders, too. It’s none of my local Police Chiefs business that I collect antique militaria.
I smell a BATF trap.
I agree.
This is the federalization of firearm sales, removing the state and local community from the process.
Yes, it sounds like simplification until they say "no".
Not exactly, no. I live in Virginia, and it takes a month or more for my local sheriff (Fairfax County) to sign and return the forms. And one time, they didn’t even fill one out all the way.
If this is true (and that’s a BIG IF), it would eliminate one of the time-consuming steps.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.