ATF's 41P and you

[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-th ... sfers.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/#!documentDetail;D=ATF-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/#!documentDe ... -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/brie ... 0br-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.

[Bone16]

Done!

Submitted text:

This proposed rule change is unrealistic in its intent. Having every single member of a corporation be fingerprinted and submit a form 4 for CLEO signature places not only an undue financial burden (at $20.00 per fingerprint card for processing locally) but also an inherent delay of due process for the review, signature, and return of the additional background checks both locally and with the ATF. I personally have had these take upwards of a month to process for the Class 3 weapons I own as an individual, and that is with an NFA friendly CLEO. It takes on average nine to twelve months to process a form 4 through the ATF. How much longer will it take for the examiners to review/ascertain the additional documentation provided for each NFA item bought?

This proposed rule change also violates the GPEA requirements (http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-105pu ... ubl277.pdf), which requires Federal agencies, by October 21, 2003, to allow individuals or entities that deal with the agencies the option to submit information or transact with the agency electronically, when practicable, and to maintain records electronically, when practicable. The Act specifically states that electronic records and their related electronic signatures are not to be denied legal effect, validity, or enforceability merely because they are in electronic form, and encourages Federal government use of a range of electronic signature alternatives.

Your preponderance of continuing to use paper copies only for your form requirements clearly violates the intent of this law, unrealistically encumbers your organization, as well as the citizens of the United States, with an archaic and draconian system that ignores the advancements in technology of even the late 20th century, let alone the 21st. I, as a member of the Armed Forces, have every single record of my 23 years of military service, including those that were paper originally, stored electronically with the appropriate Personnel Command. These records are utilized/reviewed on a regular basis for performance appraisals, promotion potential, assignments, and even security clearance validation and review. I also know that leading members of the NFA industry approached ATF last year regarding independently funding the automation of your form submittal, review, and processing capabilities, which was flatly refused.

Bottom line, ATF needs a top to bottom overhaul of the processing system, and this proposed rule change further unrealistically encumbers an already overworked staff, the local constabulary, as well as the legal entities of this country. Do not make this change.

[Conqueror]

FYI: ATF (and other public comments) will treat form letters as a single comment. This is not a poll or a vote, where more voices = more likely to get our way. ATF has a legal obligation to address the issues raised in comments. If a thousand comments are verbally identical, they can treat them as a unit. If you are going to use a form template, I suggest modifying it with some of your own verbiage and some of your own comments on the proposed rules.

[Bone16]

FYI: ATF (and other public comments) will treat form letters as a single comment. This is not a poll or a vote, where more voices = more likely to get our way. ATF has a legal obligation to address the issues raised in comments. If a thousand comments are verbally identical, they can treat them as a unit. If you are going to use a form template, I suggest modifying it with some of your own verbiage and some of your own comments on the proposed rules.

And that's why I wrote an individual response vice a form letter.

[BWT]

Thanks for the comments guys and insights.

[BWT]

We're at 6,600 comments! Get in there guys! 12/9/2013 is the dead line!