What best describes your silencer interests?  Check all that apply:

Click here to receive email updates


The ASA needs your help.On August 29, 2013, the Obama Administration issued an executive action that seeks to amend the transfer of NFA firearms. Known as ATF 41P, it was published in the Federal Register on September 9. The public comment period, which lasts 90 days, will come to a conclusion on Monday, December 9.

To help, please voice your opinion by submitting a comment to the Federal Register. Directions, and two of our draft comments for individuals, can be viewed here:


Included in ATF 41P is an amendment to require a Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) signoff for all NFA transfers, including those conducted by a trust or legal entity. When the National Firearms Act of 1934 was signed into law, computerized background checks did not exist. At that time, the CLEO signoff was the only means by which individuals applying for a transfer of an NFA item could be vetted.

Since 1934, technology has come full circle. The subjective approval from local Law Enforcement is no longer a necessary method to prevent criminals from obtaining NFA items. According to the proposed amendments, “ATF conducts its own background checks of individuals applying to make and receive NFA firearms. In addition to transmitting fingerprints to the FBI for a criminal history check, ATF routinely queries the following databases and indexes:

• National Crime Information Center
• TECS (formerly named the Treasury Enforcement Communication System)
• National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
• Interstate Identification Index
• National Instant Criminal Background Check System”

The purpose of using these databases and indexes is to offer objective criteria on which to base the approval or refusal of an application for an NFA firearm. In stark contrast, the purpose of extending the CLEO signoff requirement to all applicants is a calculated effort by the administration to institute a subjective and often politically motivated method to hinder the ownership of NFA items throughout the country.

ATF 41P also expands the definition of a responsible person (RP), and requires that all RP’s submit fingerprints, passport photos, and to a background check for all transfers. While the ASA does support background checks, it unequivocally opposes CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer. Additionally, without offering any monetary compensation to local Law Enforcement Agencies for their time, this onerous proposal will unnecessarily burden these agencies with yet another layer of bureaucratic paperwork.

This entry was posted in 41P, American Silencer Association, Educational, NFA and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

  1. J Clower
    Posted December 2, 2013 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

    Why did the ASA wait until now to release a statement of their position? Seems that the ASA could have come out against these measures earlier and led the fight against these intrusive and preventative regulations. Now, the ASA can say they issued a position, if it comes up, but does not have to mention that this statement may be too late.

  2. Robert Reed
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 7:04 am | Permalink

    Thi is political petty non sense. It will do nothing more than waste people’s time, tax payer dolars and punnish law abiding citizens.

  3. Kyle Butzer
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 8:33 am | Permalink

    I would like to respectfully comment about the proposed regulations mentioned ATF 41P. This bill will cause enormous amounts of paperwork on an already burdened section. As a responsible
    Gun owner, I fully understand my rights to legally own firearms. Our founding fathers created the Constitution with clear intentions regarding citizens and owning firearms. My question for you is “why??” Why, create more bogus laws to restrict responsible gun owners from their God given right?? Please reconsider your decision!!

  4. Ferry Trout
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 10:41 am | Permalink

    Absolutely opposed to this action. Enough already. It’s about the will of the people not the politicians personal agenda. Enough

  5. Posted December 3, 2013 at 7:57 pm | Permalink

    774739 26231Hello! Fantastic post! Please when I could see a follow up! 680165

  6. Posted December 5, 2013 at 12:13 pm | Permalink

    718399 31970Hey there, I believe your weblog may well be having browser compatibility issues. When I appear at your site in Safari, it looks fine but when opening in Internet Explorer, it has some overlapping. I just wanted to give you a quick heads up! Other then that, superb weblog! 948987

  7. Posted December 5, 2013 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

    89751 262963Yeah bookmaking this wasn

  8. chris kilga
    Posted December 9, 2013 at 11:01 am | Permalink

    There is nothing evil or wrong about civilian ownership of silencers . Its thebgovernment trying to exert controle on the people . We the people have as much right to own semi auto / select fire wepons and silencers as local state federal governments and the military .
    Banning civilian ownership of silencers will not lower the crime rate . The only thing takeing away civilian ownerahip of silencers will do is make the unemployment lines longer
    The criminals still have their select fire weapons and silences albeit a silencer nore a select fire weapon is not a criminals first choices of gear to commit violent acts .

  9. Jonathan Pawlicki
    Posted December 9, 2013 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    Don’t punish Law abiding citizens. Why can’t we own suppressors freely to promote good hearing.

  10. James Garrett
    Posted December 9, 2013 at 2:25 pm | Permalink

    Excutive orders should not be used to circumvent the laws that are already in place.

  11. randy williams
    Posted December 9, 2013 at 4:56 pm | Permalink

    waste of time and money

  12. Posted December 9, 2013 at 5:24 pm | Permalink

    Remember that failure to qualify for an individual background check would likely be for the same reasons that would disqualify a person from acting as a Trustee for a “NFA Trust.” Having said that, let’s keep the pressure on the ATF and the White House. It is clear that the “general public” still views Silencers as assassins tools, not a the safety device they truly are. Education Educatuon Education!

  13. Edgar Garcia
    Posted December 9, 2013 at 6:06 pm | Permalink

    Absolutely opposed to ATF 41p

  14. fonzie brown
    Posted December 11, 2013 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    Nothing but punishing law abiding citizens.

3 Trackbacks

  1. [...] additional resources from the American Silencer Association include their stance on 41P: They’ve also prepared a page on recommendations on how to comment against 41P: [...]

  2. By Recommended Browsing on December 4, 2013 at 4:48 am

    Recommended Browsing…


  3. By Remove the CLEO signoff from ATF41P - RECOIL on December 6, 2013 at 12:11 am

    [...] If you are unfamiliar with this proposed NFA rule change,  you can read the entirety of the ASA’s statement discussing ATF 41P here. [...]

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *


* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>