Removing Chief Law Enforcement Officer Notification under the National Firearms Act

GrabAGun Digital Holdings Inc., a firearms retailer, supports the proposed rule to remove the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) notification requirement for National Firearms Act (NFA) applications. The company argues that the requirement serves no regulatory purpose, poses privacy risks to law-abiding citizens, and creates unnecessary costs and administrative burdens for both the public and retailers.

Sportsman’s Warehouse, Inc., a large sporting goods retailer, supports the proposed rule to eliminate the CLEO notification requirement under the National Firearms Act. The company argues that the requirement is redundant, creates administrative burdens, and poses a risk to the privacy of personally identifiable information without providing any public safety benefits.

The American Suppressor Association and the National Rifle Association support the proposed rule to remove the requirement of notifying Chief Law Enforcement Officers (CLEOs) of NFA firearm applications. They argue that the requirement is duplicative and obsolete due to the NICS system and places an unnecessary burden on both applicants and law enforcement offices.

GIFFORDS and the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence oppose the proposed rule to remove Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) notification requirements for National Firearms Act (NFA) weapons. They argue that these notifications are essential for community safety, help identify prohibited persons not captured by federal databases, and provide a critical tool for law enforcement to respond to potential threats and extreme risk situations.

Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund opposes the proposed rule to remove Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) notification under the National Firearms Act. They argue that the notification requirement is a vital safety tool that provides law enforcement with critical information about dangerous weapons in their jurisdictions, helping to protect both officers and the public.

The Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition and the Silencer Shop Foundation support the proposed rule to remove the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) notification requirement under the National Firearms Act. They argue that the requirement is antiquated, violates taxpayer privacy, and creates unnecessary administrative burdens for local law enforcement without providing any meaningful public safety benefit.

The commenter argues that the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) notification requirement is an antiquated process that causes confusion, administrative burdens, and privacy risks for applicants. They contend that law enforcement already has sufficient mechanisms to obtain information and explicitly state their support for ending the practice.

The National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF), a trade association for the firearms and ammunition industry, supports the ATF's proposal to remove the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) notification requirement for National Firearms Act (NFA) applications. They argue that the requirement is a redundant administrative burden that has not contributed to public safety and that its removal will improve efficiency and reduce costs for both the government and the public.

The commenter, a Federal Firearms Licensee (FFL) and Special Occupational Taxpayer (SOT), strongly supports the proposed rule to remove the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) notification requirement under the National Firearms Act. They argue that the requirement is non-statutory, serves no operative screening function, creates administrative burdens for small businesses, and may conflict with state anti-registry laws.

The commenter supports removing the Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) notification requirement because it is burdensome and often results in confusion for both businesses and law enforcement. They argue that the notification serves no practical purpose for safety devices like silencers and should be eliminated.