TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... gistering/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... nd-checks/

So...
Based on these articles, a normal shooting Texan, would almost have to become a FFL.

Sold more than a couple of guns within a year. (Just thinning the herd, a few years ago.)
Helping with some family guns that need to be distributed by the executor. (I am helping.)
Don't normally sell guns to dealers. (Dealers are where you go to buy them.)

For research:
I went to the BATFE web site and found:
https://www.atf.gov/firearms/apply-license
and the actual form:
https://www.atf.gov/file/61506/download

$150 for a 3 year license fee.
$100 estimated cost for finger prints, passport photos, etc
Then I got to this question on the form:

19. Do You Intend to Use Your License Only to Acquire Personal
Firearms?
Yes (If yes, do not submit application.) No

Well YES!
I only am interested in using the FFL to acquire more personal firearms. But, I may need to thin the herd someday.
I think if I had a FFL, I might be able to complete the "One Gun a month challenge" for at least a year.

Maybe the Big O plans to change the form, as well.

Seems like a lot of hooey.

I think it's a scare tactic I don't see how they could prosecute someone when it's not clearly laid out what in the business of dealing and personal collection selling is all they say is it could be as little as selling 1-2 if there are other circumstances well what are those circumstances

And how would they plan to enforce any of this ?

0 compliance to EO gun control.
I will have to add that to my signature.

Looks like they are going after NFA trusts as well.

NFA Trusts wouldn't exist if it were so hard to get the CLEO sign offs.


In the late 1980's / early 1990's the BATFE decided to shut down "Kitchen Table" FFL's. The raised the fees, expanded the paper work, and generally made it not-worth-the-effort. Today they are mad that some folks that would have been "Kitchen Table" FFL's, don't jump through their hoops.

And this is exactly why the mantra has always been "No registration."

With no record of individual ownership, chain of custody, or post-original sales, it is impossible to prove whether a transaction occurred or not.

I realize that the situation isn't quite so simple in some states that aren't Texas...

Not advocating, just "observating"

Beiruty wrote:0 compliance to EO gun control.
I will have to add that to my signature.

not part of the Executive Branch, EO doesn't effect me, I agree with Beiruty.

Final rule eliminates the need of CLEO to sign off on NFA transfer allegedly....
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

I looked into a FFL a few years back. I got to the point of the call by the ATF. HE asked where I was planning on doing my business. You have to have some dedicated space that can be inspected for compliance with the rules. He asked if it was out of my home and I said yes. He asked if I lived in a subdivision with a set of deed restrictions. I said yes. He then said i did not qualify because all deed restrictions do not allow a business out of the home. With that he hung up and my quest came to an end.

howdy wrote:I looked into a FFL a few years back. I got to the point of the call by the ATF. HE asked where I was planning on doing my business. You have to have some dedicated space that can be inspected for compliance with the rules. He asked if it was out of my home and I said yes. He asked if I lived in a subdivision with a set of deed restrictions. I said yes. He then said i did not qualify because all deed restrictions do not allow a business out of the home. With that he hung up and my quest came to an end.

he was wrong
not all texas subdivisions prohibit business out of your home. ours is one of them and we have deed restrictions for the subdivision. we have many folks doing internet business actions
atf is like the irs...answer is solely dependent on who answers the phone, time of day and day of week

when i was pursuing a FFl and using my home as the office..atf told me they could inspect and i had to have suitable secure storage for the inventory...pretty vague in the terms "suitable secure storage" I asked if that meant a specific sized safe or simply a lock box? he suggested a safe, but it was not clearly identified in the rules.

waited three days and called back, was told it had to be a safe of a specific size and weight, and my doors had to be double locked.
then i got arrested and it fell to the way side , i was not guilty it was an illiterate cop that couldn't read the difference in the numbers 2 and 7
took thousands to get bail and charges dropped.

he Eo has one area that i have to agree, reporting firearms that dont make it to the expected delivery location for one. seems common sense.

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Final rule eliminates the need of CLEO to sign off on NFA transfer allegedly....
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

And replaces it with a requirement for CLEO-signed background check affidavit with fingerprints of the individual or EVERY responsible person in a trust/corporation.

mreed911 wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Final rule eliminates the need of CLEO to sign off on NFA transfer allegedly....
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

And replaces it with a requirement for CLEO-signed background check affidavit with fingerprints of the individual or EVERY responsible person in a trust/corporation.

No, this eliminates the sign off requirement and replaces it with NOTIFICATION.

The goal of this final rule is to ensure that the identification and background check
requirements apply equally to individuals, trusts, and legal entities. To lessen potential
compliance burdens for the public and law enforcement, DOJ has revised the final rule to
eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO)
and instead require CLEO notification.

ScottDLS wrote:

mreed911 wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Final rule eliminates the need of CLEO to sign off on NFA transfer allegedly....
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

And replaces it with a requirement for CLEO-signed background check affidavit with fingerprints of the individual or EVERY responsible person in a trust/corporation.

No, this eliminates the sign off requirement and replaces it with NOTIFICATION.

You're wrong. Page 8:

In addition,§ 479.63 provides that the law enforcement certification located on Form 1 must be completed and signed by the local chief of police or county sheriff, the head of the State police, the State or local district attorney or prosecutor, or such other person whose certification
may be acceptable to the Director.

The certifying official must state, inter alia, that the certifying official has no information indicating that possession of the firearm by the maker would be in violation of State or local law or that the maker will use the firearm for other than lawful purposes.

The certifying official must have jurisdiction over the area within which the maker resides.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the official will have access to criminal records concerning the maker, and knowledge of the State and local laws governing the transfer, receipt, and possession of the firearm by the maker.

mreed911 wrote:

ScottDLS wrote:

mreed911 wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Final rule eliminates the need of CLEO to sign off on NFA transfer allegedly....
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

And replaces it with a requirement for CLEO-signed background check affidavit with fingerprints of the individual or EVERY responsible person in a trust/corporation.

No, this eliminates the sign off requirement and replaces it with NOTIFICATION.

You're wrong. Page 8:

In addition,§ 479.63 provides that the law enforcement certification located on Form 1 must be completed and signed by the local chief of police or county sheriff, the head of the State police, the State or local district attorney or prosecutor, or such other person whose certification
may be acceptable to the Director.

The certifying official must state, inter alia, that the certifying official has no information indicating that possession of the firearm by the maker would be in violation of State or local law or that the maker will use the firearm for other than lawful purposes.

The certifying official must have jurisdiction over the area within which the maker resides.

The purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the official will have access to criminal records concerning the maker, and knowledge of the State and local laws governing the transfer, receipt, and possession of the firearm by the maker.

Nope. You're wrong...read to page 32 for the final adopted recommendations.

ScottDLS wrote:

mreed911 wrote:

TexasJohnBoy wrote:Final rule eliminates the need of CLEO to sign off on NFA transfer allegedly....
https://www.atf.gov/file/100896/download

And replaces it with a requirement for CLEO-signed background check affidavit with fingerprints of the individual or EVERY responsible person in a trust/corporation.

No, this eliminates the sign off requirement and replaces it with NOTIFICATION.

The goal of this final rule is to ensure that the identification and background check
requirements apply equally to individuals, trusts, and legal entities. To lessen potential
compliance burdens for the public and law enforcement, DOJ has revised the final rule to
eliminate the requirement for a certification signed by a chief law enforcement officer (CLEO)
and instead require CLEO notification.

The CLEO notification is already there
Before I received my suppressor from Silencer Shop in Sept. they mailed a form to the CLEO in my jurisdiction certified return receipt and as soon as they received the return receipt they mailed the suppressor.
The only thing new will be photo's and finger prints for everyone in the trust.
I am not sure about Form 1 manufacturing as I have not completly read the final version of 41P yet.

19. Do You Intend to Use Your License Only to Acquire Personal
Firearms?
Yes (If yes, do not submit application.) No

Well YES!
I only am interested in using the FFL to acquire more personal firearms. But, I may need to thin the herd someday.
I think if I had a FFL, I might be able to complete the "One Gun a month challenge" for at least a year.

Maybe the Big O plans to change the form, as well.

Seems like a lot of hooey.[/quote]

I'm against the Executive order, but what they are going to say in response to this ( Do you intend to use your license to acquire personal firearms?) is that you just need to go to an FFL and transfer all your firearms through them on a 4473, rather than doing person to person sales. By doing this, a background check is required. Once again, I don't like it, but that is what they are going to say is the solution for people buying and selling privately.