Archived Posts » 59,859,448
Alaska, "Shall Issue"
2/15/2012 4:56:29 PM
Governor Parnell signed HB 319 into law , which makes CLEO signatures on ATF Form 4 or Form 1 mandatory within 30 days for all applications submitted by qualified applicants.
... relevant text:
Sec. 18.65.810. Execution of federal firearms forms. (a) The chief
administrative officer of a municipal police department for a person who resides in the
municipality and the head of the Alaska state troopers for a person who resides in the
state but does not reside in a municipality with a police department shall execute
within 30 days federal firearms forms required to be submitted by the person as a
transferee of a firearm if the person is qualified under state law to possess the firearm.
Alaska now becomes, to my knowledge, the first "shall issue" state, with respect to NFA weapon transfers.
Please thank Representative Mike Hawker who sponsored this law, and Governor Parnell who signed it.
... relevant text:
Sec. 18.65.810. Execution of federal firearms forms. (a) The chief
administrative officer of a municipal police department for a person who resides in the
municipality and the head of the Alaska state troopers for a person who resides in the
state but does not reside in a municipality with a police department shall execute
within 30 days federal firearms forms required to be submitted by the person as a
transferee of a firearm if the person is qualified under state law to possess the firearm.
Alaska now becomes, to my knowledge, the first "shall issue" state, with respect to NFA weapon transfers.
Please thank Representative Mike Hawker who sponsored this law, and Governor Parnell who signed it.
2/15/2012 5:26:33 PM
Interesting that it doesn't mention having to pay a special fee to the local PD and there is no requirement to fill out additional forms that the PD decides they want you to fill out. 
ETA: Isn't TN also a 'shall issue' NFA state?
ETA: Isn't TN also a 'shall issue' NFA state?
2/15/2012 6:07:11 PM
But you still have to Pay the Muni of Anchorage their $150 fee for that signature...
Better of going with a TRUST!!
Then you don't need it!!!!
Better of going with a TRUST!!
Then you don't need it!!!!
2/15/2012 8:12:03 PM
Maybe I'm A Bit too polite. But going in there and showing /disputing their policy while trying to get them I sign on a form just seems like an invite to have someone
Get angry or frustrated and go down a very bad path. I'll stick with trust for The security of it all and so my wife can shoot my toys when I am gone
Get angry or frustrated and go down a very bad path. I'll stick with trust for The security of it all and so my wife can shoot my toys when I am gone
2/16/2012 4:18:31 PM
Originally Posted By PolishX:
Maybe I'm A Bit too polite. But going in there and showing /disputing their policy while trying to get them I sign on a form just seems like an invite to have someone
Get angry or frustrated and go down a very bad path. I'll stick with trust for The security of it all and so my wife can shoot my toys when I am gone
Maybe I'm A Bit too polite. But going in there and showing /disputing their policy while trying to get them I sign on a form just seems like an invite to have someone
Get angry or frustrated and go down a very bad path. I'll stick with trust for The security of it all and so my wife can shoot my toys when I am gone
I agree about the trust but if you wanted to go the individual route, I don't see a problem with walking into APD with your forms and a copy of the state law, handing it over and saying "see you in 30 days!"
I personally know of one example where the law has worked as intended to reverse the decision of a CLEO.
2/16/2012 4:46:27 PM
Originally Posted By PolishX:
Maybe I'm A Bit too polite. But going in there and showing /disputing their policy while trying to get them I sign on a form just seems like an invite to have someone
Get angry or frustrated and go down a very bad path. I'll stick with trust for The security of it all and so my wife can shoot my toys when I am gone
Maybe I'm A Bit too polite. But going in there and showing /disputing their policy while trying to get them I sign on a form just seems like an invite to have someone
Get angry or frustrated and go down a very bad path. I'll stick with trust for The security of it all and so my wife can shoot my toys when I am gone
I think that the best way to approach this would be to submit forms politely. Then when their policy contradicts state law, call up State Rep. Mike Hawker's office and let him know about it. I would bet money he would correct the situation post-haste.
2/17/2012 2:34:16 AM
lets say it again:
Sec. 18.65.810. Execution of federal firearms forms. (a) The chief
administrative officer of a municipal police department for a person who resides in the
municipality and the head of the Alaska state troopers for a person who resides in the
state but does not reside in a municipality with a police department shall execute
within 30 days federal firearms forms required to be submitted by the person as a
transferee of a firearm if the person is qualified under state law to possess the firearm.
..... catch the phrase "SHALL EXECUTE" ?
Let us say, for argument, that you present your documents to the uniformed public employees on Tudor road, and let us presume further that you neglect, forget, or refuse to leave a check for $150 payable to the municipality of Anchorage.
If you are, by state law, legally permited to own or construct the object of your ATF form 1 or 4, the chief of police is STILL obligated to sign your documents.
Let us re-iterate the law: " SHALL ISSUE " Aint no gray area there. Mr Hawker does indeed know the difference between 'Constituents' and ' Employees'
Now go git 'em signed....
Sec. 18.65.810. Execution of federal firearms forms. (a) The chief
administrative officer of a municipal police department for a person who resides in the
municipality and the head of the Alaska state troopers for a person who resides in the
state but does not reside in a municipality with a police department shall execute
within 30 days federal firearms forms required to be submitted by the person as a
transferee of a firearm if the person is qualified under state law to possess the firearm.
..... catch the phrase "SHALL EXECUTE" ?
Let us say, for argument, that you present your documents to the uniformed public employees on Tudor road, and let us presume further that you neglect, forget, or refuse to leave a check for $150 payable to the municipality of Anchorage.
If you are, by state law, legally permited to own or construct the object of your ATF form 1 or 4, the chief of police is STILL obligated to sign your documents.
Let us re-iterate the law: " SHALL ISSUE " Aint no gray area there. Mr Hawker does indeed know the difference between 'Constituents' and ' Employees'
Now go git 'em signed....
2/17/2012 11:19:03 AM
APD is aware that this is 'shall issue' and has been for quite a while (this has been the law for some time now)
Dick Traini invited the APD Chief to an AMGA meeting after the law was changed. We asked him what would happen if someone followed the exact scenario outlined above (no fee, no APD form). He didn't answer the question directly but acknowledged the law and said what I think means that he knew he had to sign them.
If I still lived in Anchorage I think I'd try it. If done politely I don't see APD getting bent out of shape over it. The trick would be getting someone at APD to either accept your paperwork w/o the fee/package or to find someone that would formally refuse to accept it.
FWIW.
Dick Traini invited the APD Chief to an AMGA meeting after the law was changed. We asked him what would happen if someone followed the exact scenario outlined above (no fee, no APD form). He didn't answer the question directly but acknowledged the law and said what I think means that he knew he had to sign them.
If I still lived in Anchorage I think I'd try it. If done politely I don't see APD getting bent out of shape over it. The trick would be getting someone at APD to either accept your paperwork w/o the fee/package or to find someone that would formally refuse to accept it.
FWIW.
2/17/2012 8:18:33 PM
My understanding is the law doesn't go into effect until 6/2012
2/17/2012 9:46:47 PM
I think it was originally signed into law on May 28, 2010. Where are you seeing it as something new?
I'm thankful that Hawker got this law passed but even more thankful that he has been willing to follow-up with CLEO's to remind them that they should probably follow the law.
I'm thankful that Hawker got this law passed but even more thankful that he has been willing to follow-up with CLEO's to remind them that they should probably follow the law.
2/19/2012 1:21:44 AM
Interesting for sure. The CLEO in Juneau refused to sign while I was up there.
The whole thing is just silly. Having to force them to do their job is sickening
The whole thing is just silly. Having to force them to do their job is sickening
2/19/2012 9:58:56 AM
Having to force them to do their job follow the law is sickening
I agree. Some cases are ignorance of the law but there have been two that I know of that weren't ignorance. The CLEOs just didn't want to follow the law because they didn't like NFA. Mike Hawker's office was able to resolve both cases.
2/19/2012 10:00:02 AM
Dupe
2/19/2012 2:50:37 PM
Section 3 of the bill, which makes a minor change to the concealed carry permit law, takes effect on July 1, 2012. The rest of the bill, including the NFA "shall issue" section, took effect on August 25, 2010.
The $150 fee charged by the municipality is authorized in an ordinance that was passed by the assembly after the "shall issue" law took effect. It was part of a package of tax and fee increases submitted by the mayor late in 2010 to close a projected deficit. The estimate was that this fee would raise $7500 per year in new revenue for the municipality.
I think it is unlikely that the mayor, the assembly, and the municipal attorney didn't know about the "shall issue" law when the fee was adopted. If pressed, the municipality will probably claim that the law merely requires APD to process the forms; it doesn't say that they have to do it for free. This may or may not be a legal argument that would prevail in court, but no one is likely to challenge it given the dollars involved, particularly when the trust option is available.
The $150 fee charged by the municipality is authorized in an ordinance that was passed by the assembly after the "shall issue" law took effect. It was part of a package of tax and fee increases submitted by the mayor late in 2010 to close a projected deficit. The estimate was that this fee would raise $7500 per year in new revenue for the municipality.
I think it is unlikely that the mayor, the assembly, and the municipal attorney didn't know about the "shall issue" law when the fee was adopted. If pressed, the municipality will probably claim that the law merely requires APD to process the forms; it doesn't say that they have to do it for free. This may or may not be a legal argument that would prevail in court, but no one is likely to challenge it given the dollars involved, particularly when the trust option is available.
