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

[BWT]

An Update, an encouraging one. I emailed about approximately 60 Sheriff's from cspoa.org.

ETA: I heard back from 2 already.

I just finished my letter to manufacturer's.

Might interest some here. (especially our industry professionals)

Dear FFL/SOT or Retailer,

I’m emailing you to raise awareness, and ask that you do so too, I do this for not only your sake, but for the sake of your customers. If you’re not Familiar, the BATFE currently has a proposal out to expand Law Enforcement Certification for all Trustees in a Trust and all Employees within LLC.

What I’m encouraging you to do is alert your customers of this situation, and that their best method to combat this situation is to comment, and commenting here.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketD...=ATF-2013-0001

The amount of your business this will affect will be substantial. Which should further encourage you to weigh in on the matter. The BATFE refers to Trusts and LLCs utilized to take possession of NFA Items as “Legal Entities”. To take this number from the BATFE in the above proposal.

Table A—Numbers of Applications
CY 2012 Legal entity Individual Gov/FFL Total
Form 1 5328 3758 576 9662
Form 4 35237 25102 4746 65085
Form 5 135 588 8965 9688
Total 40700 29448 14287 84435

Of the Number of 84,435 Applications received in 2012, 69,425 were to non-Government’s and FFL’s. Of that 60,429 applications received by non-gov/FFL’s it appears that 35,237 of the Form 4’s were the applications of Legal Entities. This accounts for 58.3% approximately of the Form 4’s processed by the ATF. This will powerfully negatively affect your business. Please pass this onto your manager’s and please get this to the Leadership/Executives of your business.

I strongly encourage you to encourage your customer base to post and to comment on this matter, for yourselves to get involved with the NRA-ILA, ASA or other organizations in question, and to post on your website a link to the regulations.gov site to so that people will take this matter more seriously.

I’ve contacted Law Enforcement to comment (CSPOA.org), I’ve contacted my friends/families and internet forums. This battle is not lost.

Thank you for your time,

Sincerely,

Brandon

Almost 60% gents of the NFA buying community in 2012.

Gents... Find your voices.

Brandon

[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.

[PatrioticDisorder]

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 put very little faith in politicians, but one thing I know is they respond to pressure and in a close race in election year, they'll want every vote they can get. So I guess you can say my faith is in us who believe in liberty. The defeatist attitude we collectively have bothers me, I take every chance I can get to explain to the lay people I know why the NFA is bullshit and archaic (among other RKBA related issues), why SBRs and suppressors are not evil and in fact very useful to law abiding citizens and when explained correctly to people it's like a light bulb going off. The gun ban bullshit failed in the wake of Sandy Hook and Obama's reelection (perfect storm), we now have the momentum but will not win anything or even maintain our rights playing defense, we need to get on the offense when it comes to our rights.

[Tejasmtb]

I used your form, glad I came across this thread because I totally forgot to comment on the proposal. I have been very busy the last month buying all of my suppressors and sbr's in order to get all of my Form 1's and Form 4's in the system before anything changes in hopes of being grandfathered in based on the dates on my forms.

I've heard of Ted Cruz talking about Texas pushing for a Shall Sign initiative as well if this does indeed pass.

[Iraqgunz]

You completely missed my point. The fact that politicians put it to a vote shows that they for the most part could care less about our rights. I know the NFA is bullshit and I know that with the implementation of NICS and other databases that are smarter ways to do this.

But, no politician is going to try and repeal or modify NFA laws simply because the first time there is a mass shooting with NFA (don't forget what the Dorner incident did) the anti-gunners and anti-gun democrats will blame that person and party and they will go after them with a vengeance.

I put very little faith in politicians, but one thing I know is they respond to pressure and in a close race in election year, they'll want every vote they can get. So I guess you can say my faith is in us who believe in liberty. The defeatist attitude we collectively have bothers me, I take every chance I can get to explain to the lay people I know why the NFA is bullshit and archaic (among other RKBA related issues), why SBRs and suppressors are not evil and in fact very useful to law abiding citizens and when explained correctly to people it's like a light bulb going off. The gun ban bullshit failed in the wake of Sandy Hook and Obama's reelection (perfect storm), we now have the momentum but will not win anything or even maintain our rights playing defense, we need to get on the offense when it comes to our rights.

[scooter22]

Can someone please explain how 41P is only a *possibility*, considering Congress plays no part in it?

[luckydube56]

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.

This may be neither here nor there but you just reminded me of something I'd seen recently that explains the $200 stamp. The real reason for the NFA Tax Stamp has never truly been understood. People assume it was a stamp used as an economic barrier to entry. After all, back then $200 was a lot.

If you've never had the chance to watch 'Assaulted: Civil Rights Under Fire', the explanation for the tax stamp was to catch members of organized crime in a tax trap since such criminals (as is true today) would never have bothered to fill out what is essentially a registration form and pay for it to boot.

Ironic isnt it? The origins of the NFA was based on the assumption no criminal in his right mind would go through the cost and hassle; in fact they were counting on that assumption. Umm...hello? Sound familiar? We've been saying this all along.