Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

NFA CLEO Question

Mooseyard
I seem to remember that there is legal precedent that states a CLEO can not be held responsible for any misuse of an NFA Weapon if he signs the Form 4. Can anyone point me in the right direction to find that info. I've tried Google and Bing with no luck.
0

Comments

3 comments

Date Votes
  • Nwcid
    I have not seen that one, but I am sure there is something out there. What the CLEO sign off = is a local background check. By signing (says right on the form) is that he knows of no reason, either you have a local history or a local law, that you should not have one.

    Basically by refusing to sign he is refusing to do a local background check on you and your local laws. If you go the Trust/LLC route only because you could not get a signature then it could be argued that the CLEO would be MORE liable since he refused to "check you out".
    0
  • Mooseyard
    Ok, I found this the old fashioned way....I opened a book. For others reference: Searcy v. City of Dayton (1994). Cleo can not be held reliable for any misuse of an NFA firearm.
    0
  • givette
    quote:Originally posted by Mooseyard
    Ok, I found this the old fashioned way....I opened a book. For others reference: Searcy v. City of Dayton (1994). Cleo can not be held reliable for any misuse of an NFA firearm.

    As is true with anything. The 'signoff' is to ensure that the local ordnances have been adhered to, and that the applicant at least meets minimum criteria at the time of sign-off.

    The instant the CLEO signs the document, what may happen in the future can not be controlled by the CLEO, and refusal due to a 'what if' scenario, by and of itself, opens the door for the applicant to pursue further legal action, if the applicant wishes to continue with the pursuit. Best, Joe
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity