FN Herstal Firearms banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,238 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
SHALL SIGN LEGISLATION SIGNED INTO LAW IN FOUR STATES

Four more states now have so-called "shall sign" laws requiring CLEO's to sign off on NFA forms for those that are otherwise qualified to own firearms/NFA items. The question is: why does the gunshine state not have one of these on the books? I tried looking up any proposed "shall sign" legislation in Florida and came up with nothing. I would propose this to my Florida representative and state senator; however, living in the city of Orlando brings with it the curse of being represented by Democrats in Tallahassee that would never draft a "shall sign" bill. I'm posting this to try to convince some Florida-based FNF member to attempt to convince his or her gun-friendly Florida legislator(s) that Florida needs a "shall sign" law especially considering the uncertainty surrounding ATF rule 41P. Any of my fellow Floridians know if a "shall sign" bill has ever been proposed in Tallahassee?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,753 Posts
The biggest road block to anything like that getting passed is the Sheriff's. If they don't want it I don't see it happening.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,238 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
The biggest road block to anything like that getting passed is the Sheriff's. If they don't want it I don't see it happening.
Figured they'd be opposed to being compelled by law to sign. Would be interesting to know what the "shall sign" states' sheriffs positions were on the issue while the bills were being debated in those states.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,625 Posts
Hmmm - I thought it had to state "will" sign - Understand this "shall" sign will require the LEO to sign w/in a time period - IMO "shall" could still be interpreted by the CLEO (make) opinion based decision (NOTHING to do w/a local background check/state/federal) and still deny the NFA 'trust' applicant - close the NFA trust route 'loop hole' w/41p changes.
innocuous phrase "shall sign" when it should state "will sign"

Here in NC when 41p 1st rolled around - the State IG started a quite campaign to enlist local/state CLEO to adopt "shall sign" for this very reason - close the trust route for NFA applications.

Excerpt from GRNC:
NFA Trust Laws may end Class III ownership in NC

In a proposal dated September 9th, 2013, President Obama, through the BATFE has decided that all transactions using an NFA Trust should also be required to have the signature of the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) within your jurisdiction. Although changed slightly to remove an innocuous phrase, the concept is the same: Obama wants NFA Trust transactions to be approved by your CLEO before the transaction can move forward.

Why is this important? The proposed changes to Trust/LLC transfers will require a law enforcement certification when transferring any Title II firearm into a Trust or LLC, this includes suppressors, short-barreled rifles, and machine guns eligible for civilian ownership. Because most of the Sheriffs in North Carolina have locked arms together and simply refuse to sign any approvals for those items regulated in this fashion, they have effectively blocked any and all Title II transactions within their jurisdictions.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,625 Posts
Now if the law above "shall" law also address this: Then it is a good thing

With respect to the law enforcement officer's statement in the CLEO
certificate that he or she has no information indicating that the
transferee will use the firearm described on the Form 4 for other than
lawful purposes, the petitioner states that ``ome CLEOs express a
concern of perceived liability; that signing an NFA transfer
application will link them to any inappropriate use of the firearm.''
ATF agrees with the petitioner that state and local law enforcement
officials may be concerned with the language of the current law
enforcement certificate, a concern that also applies to Forms 1 and 5.
ATF has received numerous statements from chiefs of police, sheriffs,
and other CLEOs expressing discomfort with the portion of the
certificate that requires them to state that they have no information
to suggest that the individual will use the firearm for other than
lawful purposes. ATF is aware that officials in a number of
jurisdictions refuse to sign the certificate because of concern about
potential liability for an individual's intentional or accidental
misuse. Such refusals have resulted in litigation by some applicants
against ATF. See Lomont v. O'Neill, 285 F.3d 9 (D.C. Cir. 2002);
Westfall v. Miller, 77 F.3d 868 (5th Cir. 1996). While courts have
upheld the CLEO certificate requirement, ATF proposes to amend the
language of the regulations and the corresponding forms to address this
concern. Sections 479.63 and 479.85 will no longer require the
certificate to contain a statement regarding information about the use
of the firearm for other than lawful purposes. ATF requests comments on
the specific language proposed, and whether this change will address
the concerns raised by some CLEOs.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
173 Posts
Sheriffs who refuse to sign are just being anti gun IMO. Should be a simple NCIS background check, 5 min. tops and sign
the forms shouldn't it? Using the liability BS is silly as it has no legal merit and they know it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shap

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,618 Posts
Sheriffs who refuse to sign are just being anti gun IMO. Should be a simple NCIS background check, 5 min. tops and sign
the forms shouldn't it? Using the liability BS is silly as it has no legal merit and they know it.
From my experience they are trying to keep their names off forms that "could come back and bite them in the @ss". Its total B.S. and we all know it. There is no viable excuse. A shall sign law would be extemely beneficial. All they are doing by not signing is encouraging law abiding owners to turn to other means. The same could be said about these draconion laws the the ATeeF is enforcing. We have to follow these dumb @ss rules in order to not get thrown in a pen and be in debt for the rest of our lives. All because folks have been blindly led into trusting the gov in its various forms. What a waste of time and Money. I will continue to follow these B.S. rules until they are replealed. I believe (wishful thinking) that they will be if we fight hard enough.

I almost thought it was true when several of you were talking about MGs becoming legal a few weeks ago.

Wish in one hand and poop in the other. Then enjoy the handful of poop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bayonet14 and Shap

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
I specifically brought this very issue up to the guys who run Florida open carry back in the fall... With a republican supermajority, so long as Rick Scott wins reelection this fall we won't have a problem getting this issue through if 41p goes through. I don't like Scott on every issue, but when it comes to gun rights, he's rock solid.
 
1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top