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/
Bookmarks