ATF's 41P and you - A Call to Action

[BWT]

First of, for any Moderator/Administrators/Staff here, I'd like to ask that you'd leave this in General Discussion as that will more than likely receive the most traffic on your Forum. I don't mean to be disrespectful to site policies, simply to raise awareness.

I sincerely thank you for the Opportunity.

The Reason I'm drafting this thread is to notify any one of you if you haven't already heard of a current proposal put forth by the BATFE. This proposal directly impacts many gun owners and future gun owners. They're specifically targeting a type of Gun Owners in regards to National Firearms Act Items (Title II), such as SBR's, SBS's, MG's, Silencer's, AOW's and DD's.

They're targeting you, your families, your businesses and possibly any future gun owner with this measure. They're targeting Legal Entities, if you're not familiar with the NFA Process, it's extensive, but there's a portion of this process that requires Chief of Law Enforcement signature for Individuals. What many individuals have found is that for a genuine number of reasons Legal Entities (Such as trusts/LLCs) have worked well for them and their families, (I know that the idea of having an item that if any of my loved ones other than myself gain access to it constitutes a felony is definitely not in their best interest) to protect them from liability as far as being able to safely have these items in their household, but manage their ownership responsibly by sharing ownership of it with their families/coworkers/colleagues through Trusts and LLCs.

This signature used to only be required for an individual. If this measure goes through every single person in a trust or company will be required to get Chief of Law Enforcement signature, fingerprinting and photographing for every, single, item.

As recently as 2012 the BATFE was considering removing it (http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/in...transfers.aspx) but after being targeted by Executive Actions recently proposed it's now being sought out to be expanded to every individual.

I've spent a lot of time reflecting on what to say and how to say it. I've spent time with different people in the Industry, calling the NRA-ILA, talking with their Federal Affairs Branch. Calling the American Silencer Association, seeking the best way to go forward. Getting in touch with representatives from companies. Namely Kel Whelan, part owner of Gemtech and I asked him, candidly and bluntly.

What should we do?

The answer was simple. Comment, that's what the BATFE is soliciting, make your voices heard. Giving money to the NRA, ASA, or whatever advocacy group would be secondary to Commenting. To spending time, getting creative and making an impact. Reading the regulation here, http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2013-0001-0001.

I've drafted a 503-word form comment myself to share with you, that's logical and concise.

Dear BATFE,

I am writing you to notify you that I strongly disagree with the proposals put forth in September of 2013, regarding expanding the Chief of Law Enforcement/Sheriff Signature on each individual in a legal entity (Trust/LLC).

Currently the BATFE tests during an individual transfer for the following per the release of BATFE statement at,

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen...2013-0001-0001

- National Crime Information Center
- TECS (Treasury Enforcement Communication System)
- National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
- Interstate Identification Index
- National Instant Criminal Background Check System

They will also be required to submit fingerprints, CLEO Certificate and passport size photo taken within the last year.

I feel that these are far more than sufficient for an individual. That the requirements for Law Enforcement Certification, Fingerprints and Pictures should be removed. I propose the removal of the Chief of Law Enforcement Certificate as Chief’s of Law Enforcement aren’t required or instructed to perform any back ground checks.

Also, according to the document above, the BATFE certifies themselves the legality of the item in the locale of the individual or legal entity requesting access. This also nullifies reasoning for a Chief of Law Enforcement Signature.

The BATFE explains the lineage and logic/reasoning behind the intent of a Chief of Law Enforcement signature as being necessary because it pre-dated federal databases, federal records and state databases. Acknowledging the extremely extensive nature of the current checks.

There is an obvious issue with this as Law Enforcement Officials receive no funding, training or directive on how to handle or certify these documents. Which is highlighted by the ignorance of Law Enforcement Officials involving instances (cited by the ATF in the proposal above) asking will they be held liable for items they approve.

The BATFE fails to mention the alternative for signatures of approval in this regulation such as Local Prosecutors, District Attorneys, Local Judges, State Judges or District Judges. These individuals would not have access to State Databases stated, which the ATF cites as the reasoning for expanding Chief of Law Enforcement Certification in the NPRM.

The BATFE also vastly underestimates the time required to receive Chief of Law Enforcement signature as 1 and a half hours for interview and an hour for fingerprinting. The BATFE also minimizes the example in their citation as the average legal entity (Trust or LLC) as only having 2 trustees or employees.

The average American household has 3 members (according to http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/b...c2010br-14.pdf ) not counting relatives such as uncles, aunts, grand parents, grandchildren, or cousins and the average employer firm has at least 15 paid employees (according to http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html as of 2008). The numbers put forth by the BATFE are intellectually dishonest.

The BATFE also fails in this proposal to cite any vehicle for the turnover of employees that Legal Entities such as businesses experience.

I have absolute confidence in the BATFE to remove the requirements for Law Enforcement Certification, Fingerprinting and Photographing. While still being able to conduct satisfactory amounts of checks for individuals in legal entities.

Thank you,

(Your name here)

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have an opportunity to make our voices heard. We have an opportunity to have an impact.

Not only will well-informed comments carry weight, but so will numbers of comments. History is at your fingertips, and your time is worthwhile spent here! December 9th, 2013 they will close the docket for comments.

I challenge everyone here to comment or post that they have commented to encourage each other to press on and keep this issue heard!

I've contacted my Sheriff, the county over's Sheriff, All of the State Representatives in my State, Both Senators, and the Governor, and now I'm here for you. I'd suggest you to contact your Local Law Enforcement, your representatives, your senators, your Governor, your families and make an impact!

I also plan on contacting manufacturers and expressing to them your concern and advocating their involvement.

Do not sit by idle for one more second, when you have the opportunity to have an impact on the course of history. Do not fall silent at this time while history passes you by. If you don't like my comment draft or ideas, draft your own.

But Brothers! Be bold and make your voices heard!

God Bless,

Brandon.

[CGSteve]

Thank you for bringing this to the front of our minds. I have heard the ATF wanting to make these changes but that news has gone by the wayside for some time.

I am surprised with so many views, there are not more comments on this issue. I will need some time to compose my thoughts, but I will definitely submit a comment to the ATF (for whatever good it will do). According to that link, there have only been a little over 2,000 comments so far; not nearly enough to form a significant voice.

The way I understand it, requiring the CLEO signature may make it impossible to own NFA items if the CLEO will not sign it, even if it is legal in that state. I use a trust, but I understand that for those that currently use the traditional method, the CLEO signature of the county you live in is required.

[Iraqgunz]

Not sure where you have been but we are well aware and its also being discussed in the NFA area.

[Ironman8]

OP, thanks for taking the time to post this and drafting a comment that we can use. Much appreciated!

[BWT]

Thank you all for the kind words, some are waiting until the last minute to comment, so that is encouraging.

To Iraqgunz, I appreciate your input, however. I wanted to place this in a high visibility area. I'd ask for mercy and that this would please not be shuffled into a sub forum where it will languish and not be seen.

I'd just ask that this stay here, it's just a thread like any other.

I believe we have an opportunity.

Somewhere around 50% of NFA Items are transferred to Legal Entities. After contacting all applicable forums today. I'm going to contact dealers and manufacturers and explain to them this will strongly damage their business.

Thanks,

Brandon

[JSantoro]

Choosing post-count-restricted GD over the unrestricted and topically relevant NFA subforum is definitely an odd choice for a "member since 2009" to make.

King Solomon this thing; everybody gets a chunk 'o' baby.

Post your quoted missive in the following thread in NFA: https://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?t=141185

There's direct topical crossover, there, and most everybody already subscribed to that thread will see this.

....and now that I've linked THAT thread to THIS one, you take care of it vice-versa.

[luckydube56]

Got this from the Prince Law blog:

The SBA is actively examining whether ATF improperly certified compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. If you are the CLEO of a small jurisdiction or a small business FFL, SBA needs to hear from you NOW.

The first draft of the notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR”) made clear that ATF failed to comply with several requirements in formulating its proposal that would impose additional burdens on the making or transfer of firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA”) to trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. One of the provisions with which ATF had asserted its compliance was the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Small Business Administration (“SBA”) Office of Advocacy is charged with representing the interests of small businesses and small governmental entities to ensure that other agencies, like ATF, comply with the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In essence, the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is to require that agencies not mindlessly adopt one-size-fits-all regulations. Congress recognized that regulations designed to regulate large entities may impose disproportionate and unreasonable burdens on small businesses and small legal entities. As a result, ATF was obligated to examine the impact its proposed rule would have on small entities. ATF “certified” that it had complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. But there is nothing in ATF’s proposed rule that makes any distinction between a major manufacturer of NFA firearms, on the one hand, and a small, sole proprietor Federal Firearms Licensee (“FFL”) dealer (or small to medium sized manufacturer), on the other hand. ATF also did not distinguish between those Chief Law Enforcement Officers (“CLEOs”) who represent large jurisdictions, like a State Attorney General, and CLEOs who represent small jurisdictions, like the police chief of a small town.

[JSantoro]

Blurb, plus a letter template and links:

Hey folks it looks like the BATF may have embellished the truth on the paperwork for the NFA Trust, LLC, & Corporation rule change they are trying to ram through. Send a letter complaining about it to the Small Business Administration NOW. Every little bit helps.

Please forward this email to any other FFLs you know as well as your sympathetic CLEOs that do sign offs on NFA forms.

http://blog.princelaw.com/2013...late-to-contact-sba/

ATF 41P: IT’S NOT TO LATE TO CONTACT SBA
The SBA is actively examining whether ATF improperly certified compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. If you are the CLEO of a small jurisdiction or a small business FFL, SBA needs to hear from you NOW.

When ATF first announced that it planned to publish the proposed rule that triggered the current rulemaking ATF 41P, Firearms Industry Consulting Group, a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., urged readers of this blog to contact the U.S. Small Business Administration. It is not too late to do so.

The first draft of the notice of proposed rulemaking (“NPR&rdquo made clear that ATF failed to comply with several requirements in formulating its proposal that would impose additional burdens on the making or transfer of firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act (“NFA&rdquo to trusts, corporations, and other legal entities. One of the provisions with which ATF had asserted its compliance was the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Small Business Administration (“SBA&rdquo Office of Advocacy is charged with representing the interests of small businesses and small governmental entities to ensure that other agencies, like ATF, comply with the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

In essence, the purpose of the Regulatory Flexibility Act is to require that agencies not mindlessly adopt one-size-fits-all regulations. Congress recognized that regulations designed to regulate large entities may impose disproportionate and unreasonable burdens on small businesses and small legal entities. As a result, ATF was obligated to examine the impact its proposed rule would have on small entities. ATF “certified” that it had complied with the Regulatory Flexibility Act. But there is nothing in ATF’s proposed rule that makes any distinction between a major manufacturer of NFA firearms, on the one hand, and a small, sole proprietor Federal Firearms Licensee (“FFL&rdquo dealer (or small to medium sized manufacturer), on the other hand. ATF also did not distinguish between those Chief Law Enforcement Officers (“CLEOs&rdquo who represent large jurisdictions, like a State Attorney General, and CLEOs who represent small jurisdictions, like the police chief of a small town.

ATF did not even count the number of small businesses and small governmental entities as distinguished from the broad class of businesses and governmental entities generally. ATF did not undertake to examine whether there are added costs to small entities. And ATF did not consider whether there are suitable alternatives to imposing the same regulatory requirements on entities of all sizes.

If you did not contact SBA when we first recommended that you do so, it is not too late. Send correspondence to:
Dr. Winslow Sargeant
Chief Counsel for Advocacy
U.S. Small Business Administration
409 3rd St, SW
Washington DC 20416
Or, you can reach the Office at 202-205-6533 or advocacy@sba.gov

If you would like additional examples of issues to raise with SBA, please see the link above to our original post on the issue.


FFLS HERE IS A LETTER TEMPLATE FOR YOU TO FILL OUT AND SEND IN TO THE SBA. DO IT NOW!!!!

[Your Return Address]
September 3, 2013

Dr. Winslow Sargeant
Chief Counsel for Advocacy
U.S. Small Business Administration
409 3rd St, SW
Washington DC 20416

Re:ATF Proposal to Further Restrict Access to
Firearms Under the National Firearms Act
Docket Number ATF 41 P (RIN 1140-AA43)

Dear Dr. Sargeant:

I am writing to alert you to troubling issues raised by a recent initiative of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives ("ATF") and to urge you to contact ATF immediately to ensure it follows the proper statutory procedures with respect to its initiative, particularly the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. It is my understanding that the Regulatory Flexibility Act is designed to ensure that federal agencies develop regulations that are sensitive to the impact on small businesses, like mine, rather than adopt a one-size-fits-all approach when writing regulations.

Last week, the White House announced yet two more initiatives designed to make it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to obtain firearms that Congress has authorized for private ownership. One of those initiatives involves a proposal for ATF to issue new rules with respect to firearms regulated under the National Firearms Act ("NFA"). The customers I deal with are those who seek to lawfully acquire NFA firearms by going through the already-expensive and already-time consuming process of obtaining ATF approval. These customers seek to register their firearms in accordance with law. ATF's proposal targets these customers for added burdens while doing nothing about the unregistered NFA firearms used by the criminal element.

My customers seeking to acquire a NFA firearm already have to pay a $200 transfer tax. They also have to pay a higher sales price to legally acquire a firearm. They wait up to nine months to get ATF approval. Under current law, they have added costs as well. On top of those existing costs, delays, and burdens, ATF now proposes to add yet more. The margins in my business are not sufficient to bear much more and I fear this unwise proposal will drive me out of business. Given the current state of the economy, that means loss of jobs as well.

It may be that some large, national chains can absorb the costs of more regulation but that is simply not the case with small businesses. In addition to the loss of business, I am also concerned that the ATF proposal may increase my legal exposure, requiring higher legal fees and insurance costs. It appears to me that ATF's proposal may very well create a new trap that might catch even the most diligent small business Federal Firearms Licensee ("FFL"). At the very least, it would seem to impose substantial recordkeeping obligations and vastly increase costs to ensure regulatory compliance. Small businesses may be driven from the field if a more-nuanced approach is not adopted. I urge you to advise ATF that there do appear to be concerns that warrant closer consideration and preparation of a regulatory impact analysis.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.


Sincerely,




cc:Brenda R. Friend, Esq.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
99 New York Avenue, NE,
Washington, DC 20226


If you need the Microsoft Word Template for the letter get it here.

http://blog.princelaw.com/2013/09/01...g-information/

[PatrioticDisorder]

I think we're fighting a losing battle trying to stop the implimentation of this and the time blows particularly for myself. That said, being the eternal optimist that I am I think this may end up backfiring on the gun grabbers as long as we're willing to fight.

1. I think we now have a reason to fight NFA and the Hughes amendment in court if this thing goes into effect. Taxes have always been considered illegal on constitutionally protected rights (poll taxes and taxes on the news are a no go constitutionally). Assuming the case is not heard in a stacked left wing court, we win on merits easy.

2. Even if we didn't win in court the political tides are once again turning in our favor whether you know it now or not. 2014 and 2016 will be good years for those who believe in freedom and liberty. We'll have an opportunity to act legislatively to undo some of the bullshit we've had to endure for decades.

3. On the state level (this may be the most expedient route) I can envision republican controlled states passing "shall issue" style laws for getting NFA paperwork signed. It's my understanding this is already the case in TN and AK (although I've heard a leftist judge made a ruling unfavorable in TN). I believe we can get successfully lobby state legislatures to pass well written laws compelling CLEOs to sign off on NFA for anyone who is not a prohibited person. For example in my state (Florida) we have a virtual republican supermajority and Rick Scott is going to be in a hard fought battle for the governorship next year and he'll need every vote he can get. I'm pretty sure if this legislation found his desk he would sign it knowing the kind of people he'd be helping are the kind of people to go out and strongly support those who support our rights.

[Iraqgunz]

I think you are forgetting a lot of things. No politician is going to address the sleeping dog issue of NFA. Especially in light of Sandy Hook.

The SCOTUS has ruled there can be regulations and don't think for a minute that they will not come up with some more ominous or raise the "tax" aka registration fee. You also place way too much in politicians and the general voters at large. Both groups have put a power monger in the White House and the other group gave us the "we have a great insurance plan for everyone" Act.

I think we're fighting a losing battle trying to stop the implimentation of this and the time blows particularly for myself. That said, being the eternal optimist that I am I think this may end up backfiring on the gun grabbers as long as we're willing to fight.

1. I think we now have a reason to fight NFA and the Hughes amendment in court if this thing goes into effect. Taxes have always been considered illegal on constitutionally protected rights (poll taxes and taxes on the news are a no go constitutionally). Assuming the case is not heard in a stacked left wing court, we win on merits easy.

2. Even if we didn't win in court the political tides are once again turning in our favor whether you know it now or not. 2014 and 2016 will be good years for those who believe in freedom and liberty. We'll have an opportunity to act legislatively to undo some of the bullshit we've had to endure for decades.

3. On the state level (this may be the most expedient route) I can envision republican controlled states passing "shall issue" style laws for getting NFA paperwork signed. It's my understanding this is already the case in TN and AK (although I've heard a leftist judge made a ruling unfavorable in TN). I believe we can get successfully lobby state legislatures to pass well written laws compelling CLEOs to sign off on NFA for anyone who is not a prohibited person. For example in my state (Florida) we have a virtual republican supermajority and Rick Scott is going to be in a hard fought battle for the governorship next year and he'll need every vote he can get. I'm pretty sure if this legislation found his desk he would sign it knowing the kind of people he'd be helping are the kind of people to go out and strongly support those who support our rights.