Honeoye Falls, NY –(Ammoland.com)- INTRODUCTION by Bob Esposito ( http://tiny.cc/f2yc5w ) : The proposals outlined in ATF 41P (that the Obama Administration wants implemented by the end of the year) will require anyone using an NFA Trust to submit fingerprints, be photographed, proof of citizenship, and obtain their local Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO)’s approval for EVERY NFA item they purchase or transfer. For many, the CLEO requirement will be a defacto ban on NFA items in their jurisdiction, because many CLEOs simply refuse to sign off on any NFA transfers.
It is understood that the NFA community represents a minority of gun owners, but we should all be opposed to this. It’s just another attempt to keep chipping away at our rights. They may be coming for us today, but they will be coming for you tomorrow. No one should have an “It’s not MY problem” attitude toward this. As a citizen, you have until December 9, 2013 to officially voice your opposition. After that, no further comments will be allowed.
Completing the following steps is the best way for an individual to make an impact:
- 1. Go to regulations.gov
- 2. Search “ATF 41P”
- 3. Click on the comment box and leave your opinion
- 4. Or click this link to open the page: http://tiny.cc/qj7a5w
The best way to make a positive impact is to make intelligent, well informed comments, as these will be considered when the ATF decides how/if they will implement the policy. Talk about how this will cost jobs of thousands in the silencer industry or how the CLEO requirement takes away valuable resources from local law enforcement. We can stop this if enough people throw their weight into it.
(Please read all of David Goldman’s article below)
Gun Trust Lawyer, By David M. Goldman, Comments to ATF 41P, October 18th, 2013
While many people will be waiting to the last-minute to file their comments to 41P, we felt that it was important to file something sooner to provide our clients and readers some guidance on preparing comments. We have created a webpage which contains our comments, exhibits, as well as a copy of 41P as published in the registry. As the comments and exhibits are over 140 pages we have included an index to the comments to help you find the information in which you have the most interst.
While we are very familiar with the NFA and ATF, administrative rule making is not something that we deal with. It is for this reason and to make sure we preserve the right to appeal any outcome that we have hired Tom Odom at the Firearms Industry Consulting Group. They are one of the fine lawyers that we work with around the country. If you are looking to have a professionally written response tailored to your involvement or objectives, I would highly recommend contacting us or them and we would be happy to help with the process.
With the exception of ATF’s proposal to add new section 479.90 with respect to decedents’ estates, David M. Goldman opposes the remainder of the proposed rule making for the reasons set forth below and in the Exhibits to these Comments incorporated herein by reference.
- Part I, below, demonstrates that ATF failed to identify any problem for its proposed rule to correct. ATF neither quantified any benefits from its proposed rule (pages 2-5), likely because the proposal predominantly addresses conduct that is already criminalized, nor identified a single example that illustrates the problem that it speculates may exist (pages 5-13). Indeed, there is scant evidence of misuse of registered NFA firearms (pages 13-14).
- Part II illustrates that trusts serve many legitimate purposes (pages 14-21), establish distinct roles with very different powers with respect to trust assets (pages 21-26), and arise in varied contexts, some of which should ameliorate concerns regarding potential misuse (pages 26-29), but that ATF has not considered these distinctions in formulating its proposed rule. Some trusts specifically designed to hold NFA firearms have numerous safeguards against improper transfer of trust assets that may be more effective than anything ATF proposes yet ATF failed to acknowledge such provisions or explain why some combination of them would be inadequate (pages 29-32).
- Part III explains how the CLEO certification requirement renders the proposed rule unworkable and demonstrates the need to abandon the certification for individuals as well as legal entities (pages 33-41).
- Part IV documents ATF’s underestimate of the cost of its proposed rule due to understated costs (pages 42-45) as well as omitting altogether lost tax revenue (pages 45-46) and the cost of hearing loss attributable to the greater unavailability of silencers (pages 46-48).
- Part V details the many less-intrusive alternatives that ATF failed to consider in formulating its proposed rule (pages 48-54), including a more-limited concept of responsible persons and use of modern methods of conducting background checks.
In addition, there are 90 pages of exhibits. If you are looking to review the materials or provide them to others to review, I would ask that you link to this article or the 41P page which is located at – http://www.GunTrustLawyer.com/41p.html – on our website so that the latest version will be available to those who look. As ATF is not doing anything with comments because of the shutdown, we may hold off on filing our response, but wanted to let others review, comment and use it to help in their responses.
Gun Trust Lawyer, David Goldman’s Comments to 41P
Below are links to the draft versions of our comments and exhibits that are going to be filed in response to ATF’s 41P. These are being made available to help others prepare their own comments and serve as a guide. In addition, I have included a copy of the proposed rule change.
Guntrustlawyer 41P comments.pdf:
GuntrustLawyer Exhibits to 41P.pdf:
ATF 41P Proposed Rule Change.pdf:
I have some updated information on this. (11/6/2013)
If you go to my forum thread and scroll down to my 11/6/13 edit, you will find alternate forms of contact. The government website that takes comments is down, and I looked through the federal register to find out if there was another way.
Turns out there was.
You can mail comments to the following address:
Brenda Raffath Friend
Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs, and Services
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
U.S. Department of Justice
99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226
ATTN: ATF 41P
You can also fax them here: (202) 648–9741
*Notice* If you mail or fax in comments, you MUST have the docket number attached to them.
I have it listed here: Docket No. ATF 41P; AG Order No. 3398–2013
Finally, if you want to call in, you can reach Brenda Friend’s office here:
Link to ar15.com post here:
AR15.Com originated in 1996 as a mailing list for firearm enthusiasts. As the years passed and interest grew, a website came into existence to present those same enthusiasts with a means to collect, share, and explore information. Shortly afterwards, a bulletin board was added to create a more interactive experience for the growing list of users. The site was still in it’s infancy, but was growing in popularity. Visit: www.ar15.com