Suppressors Is there a joined effort to comment on the proposed rule changes?

[raider1v1]

I emailed the ASA, but other than sending in a comment what else can I do?

The comment period is open now. See here

https://www.federalregister.gov/art...er-firearms-background-checks-for-responsible

Would calling our reps help?

 

[11B-B4]

Defiantly call your reps, state and federal. The Fed is telling state govt that it needs to be involved with this process (CLEO). So it effects the efficiency of state LE. So this should be of concern to state reps as well.

We are talking to some key parties, ASA being one of them on what to do when. We're not sure yet as of right now. We met with some notable politicians who said that a supermajority vote to override an executive order is near impossible. It has happened i think 2 times in history. It seems like congress doesn't care about this issue and said it would most likely be left up to the industry to file suit against the Fed.

But if enough consumers rise up against this there may be a possibility of a super majority override or a supreme court ruling on the industry vs fed lawsuit should it come to reality and go that high. The peoples voices matter. Thanks.

-Evan

 

[raider1v1]

What are some comment points that we should bring up when submitting comments to the BATFE?

 

[bronson90]

I've sent it to my attorney for review... In my current trust obviously I am the grantor, but I have designated other trustees which would all be subject to the new background check... Not that any of my trustees won't pass the background check; I just thinking that multiple background checks are certain to add more time to the already ridiculously long wait...


I'm thinking the easiest way around this for me is to have my attorney draft a new trust with just myself as the only trustee and then just have my wife & minor children listed as beneficiaries. So as the only trustee I would only be the only one subject to the new proposed background check.

 

[raider1v1]

I've sent it to my attorney for review... In my current trust obviously I am the grantor, but I have designated other trustees which would all be subject to the new background check... Not that any of my trustees won't pass the background check; I just thinking that multiple background checks are certain to add more time to the already ridiculously long wait...


I'm thinking the easiest way around this for me is to have my attorney draft a new trust with just myself as the only trustee and then just have my wife & minor children listed as beneficiaries. So as the only trustee I would only be the only one subject to the new proposed background check.

The problem with that is that you lose major benefits of the trust. PLUS their outlined plan does nothing to stop adding people after you get your stamp. So, its millions of dollars wasted for nothing.

I was hoping for a bit of help with that points to include such as that.

 

[karb]

I've sent it to my attorney for review... In my current trust obviously I am the grantor, but I have designated other trustees which would all be subject to the new background check... Not that any of my trustees won't pass the background check; I just thinking that multiple background checks are certain to add more time to the already ridiculously long wait...


I'm thinking the easiest way around this for me is to have my attorney draft a new trust with just myself as the only trustee and then just have my wife & minor children listed as beneficiaries. So as the only trustee I would only be the only one subject to the new proposed background check.

If you have NFA items on that trust, then every single item will need to transfer over to the newly designated trust. Yep, 200
Stamp transfer per item. All you need to do is amend who is who, and what they do. Send the updated material to WV.

 

[karb]

Defiantly call your reps, state and federal.

it would most likely be left up to the industry to file suit against the fed.

-Evan

Yes, and I'm thinking this is going to happen. There's a lot of discussion among SOTs about
Their lively hood being jeopardized over the sign off with trusts.

 

[ss355]

One of the assumptions that the BATF made when explaining that ATF 41P is not an unfunded mandate was that there was an average of two "responsible persons" per trust/corporation based on a "random" selection of 39 trusts from a particular pile or some such. If we can somehow show that this number is lowball and that the average number of "responsible persons" per trust/corp is 4 or more, then perhaps we can show that this is an unfunded mandate. Make it a fiscal issue.

These folks are also spearheading an effort against ATF 41P:

Have You Been Denied a CLEO Signature? We Need to Know! | Prince Law Offices, P.C.

 

[bronson90]

The problem with that is that you lose major benefits of the trust. PLUS their outlined plan does nothing to stop adding people after you get your stamp. So, its millions of dollars wasted for nothing.

I was hoping for a bit of help with that points to include such as that.

The only benefit with the trust for me was the ability to circumvent the CLEO signature... The previous police chief in our small town wouldn't sign for anyone. He retired a few years ago and from what I understand the new chief will sign.

If you have NFA items on that trust, then every single item will need to transfer over to the newly designated trust. Yep, 200
Stamp transfer per item. All you need to do is amend who is who, and what they do. Send the updated material to WV.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that statement. I've got 14 NFA items in my current trust and since nothing is changing with those items or with regards to the trust, there would be no reason to pay another tax... The trust would still be valid and anything previously purchased on behalf of the trust would still be legally owned by it.

So let's play pretend for a minute and say these new proposed rules changes are enacted as they are currently written... My first reaction would be to have a new trust written with just myself as the only trustee. That a way when I submit my forms to the ATF I only have to include fingerprint cards for me and not all of the other trustees as well. Also I would assume that it is quicker for the ATF to do a single background check versus multiple background checks which would be the case if multiple trustees are listed...

Again these are just my kneejerk thoughts of how I personally could still use a trust to hold my NFA items if the current administration enacts these proposed rules...

 

[raider1v1]

One of the assumptions that the BATF made when explaining that ATF 41P is not an unfunded mandate was that there was an average of two "responsible persons" per trust/corporation based on a "random" selection of 39 trusts from a particular pile or some such. If we can somehow show that this number is lowball and that the average number of "responsible persons" per trust/corp is 4 or more, then perhaps we can show that this is an unfunded mandate. Make it a fiscal issue.

These folks are also spearheading an effort against ATF 41P:

Have You Been Denied a CLEO Signature? We Need to Know! | Prince Law Offices, P.C.

well yah i have 4 on mine. theres no way that i would be able to say 'hey i need this documentation' i would just have to take them off the trust.

 

[karb]

The only benefit with the trust for me was the ability to circumvent the CLEO signature... The previous police chief in our small town wouldn't sign for anyone. He retired a few years ago and from what I understand the new chief will sign.



I'm going to have to disagree with you on that statement. I've got 14 NFA items in my current trust and since nothing is changing with those items or with regards to the trust, there would be no reason to pay another tax... The trust would still be valid and anything previously purchased on behalf of the trust would still be legally owned by it.

So let's play pretend for a minute and say these new proposed rules changes are enacted as they are currently written... My first reaction would be to have a new trust written with just myself as the only trustee. That a way when I submit my forms to the ATF I only have to include fingerprint cards for me and not all of the other trustees as well. Also I would assume that it is quicker for the ATF to do a single background check versus multiple background checks which would be the case if multiple trustees are listed...

Again these are just my kneejerk thoughts of how I personally could still use a trust to hold my NFA items if the current administration enacts these proposed rules...

If you have your attorney draft a NEW trust, as you said in your previous post that I referred to, then
You will have to transfer all items over. If you mean NEW to be the same trust you have now, but re-written,
Then that's called an amendment. Just ask the attorney if your trust is revocable, and allows such flexibility.

 

[gunshinestate]

One of the assumptions that the BATF made when explaining that ATF 41P is not an unfunded mandate was that there was an average of two "responsible persons" per trust/corporation based on a "random" selection of 39 trusts from a particular pile or some such. If we can somehow show that this number is lowball and that the average number of "responsible persons" per trust/corp is 4 or more, then perhaps we can show that this is an unfunded mandate. Make it a fiscal issue.

These folks are also spearheading an effort against ATF 41P:

Have You Been Denied a CLEO Signature? We Need to Know! | Prince Law Offices, P.C.

Another "cost" lowball in the proposal is the time spent by the CLEO to sign off on the forms. It says the CLEO will take an average of something like 30 minutes and then they calculate the time spent, money paid, etc. I've yet to deal with the CLEO stuff but 30 min spent by the CLEO seems pretty darn low to me. Seems like the cost will be MUCH higher once the CLEO is spending MOST of his/her day signing off on every responsible person.

 

[ss355]

Another "cost" lowball in the proposal is the time spent by the CLEO to sign off on the forms. It says the CLEO will take an average of something like 30 minutes and then they calculate the time spent, money paid, etc. I've yet to deal with the CLEO stuff but 30 min spent by the CLEO seems pretty darn low to me. Seems like the cost will be MUCH higher once the CLEO is spending MOST of his/her day signing off on every responsible person.

Good point. And the way the language of 41P is written, it seems to imply that CLEOs will have to perform additional background checking on every responsible person of the trust/corp so they can, with clear conscious, state that they have "no information indicating that possession of the firearm ... would be in violation of state or local law." That's going to require time, and time means money.

 

[raider1v1]

any new info on this? Now that the closing date for comments is quite a bit closer and there seems to be some clarification on some of the questions.

 

[luckydube56]

any new info on this? Now that the closing date for comments is quite a bit closer and there seems to be some clarification on some of the questions.

Since you ask

"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”) 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.

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"

 

[TwoNiner]

Why doesn't the ATF just legalize suppressors and make it so honest citizens can buy them just like a brake or flash hider without forms, background checks, and outrageous fees. $200 in taxes? For what? To fund their pizza parties? I've just been researching suppressors for long range and I found that in my state of CA you can't even buy one. Whoever passed these stupid laws watched too many Hollywood action movies.

Here the ATF already gives thousands of guns to criminals in Mexico for free, never owning up to it after all the evidence is revealed, and I can't even get a machined can of steel to stick on the end of my rifle!

 

[THE MGD]

if the proposal made more sense, such as every person on the trust needs to include a photo copy of their drivrers licensr included in the trust. (not sure every state does this , but in my state you have to give a digital thumb print for your license. so goverment has picture address & print. This also makes it easier for law enf. to match ids so you dont have to wait for atf agents everytime. For those without a state id, have a form to submit to atf including prints and recieve back a photo id card.
and after atf gets used to making cards, make the tax stamp wait / check a one time process and issue a card. hell have a 3yr expiration if it bothers you so much. bring back common sense

 

[CMH]

Another "cost" lowball in the proposal is the time spent by the CLEO to sign off on the forms. It says the CLEO will take an average of something like 30 minutes and then they calculate the time spent, money paid, etc. I've yet to deal with the CLEO stuff but 30 min spent by the CLEO seems pretty darn low to me. Seems like the cost will be MUCH higher once the CLEO is spending MOST of his/her day signing off on every responsible person.

OR..... If it took every CLEO 8 hours to properly research all trust parties so they could certify them as a responsible persons, but 15 out of 16 CLEO's are expected to refuse to do so, you arrive at 30 minutes a piece for all CLEO's, on average across the country. Maybe they didn't lowball it at all.