41p Delayed again?

[bronko1975]

It's not official but the article below sounds like there may another another delay which would be good news.


http://blog.princelaw.com/2015/04/10/sh ... w-seminar/

[rimshaker]

Yea not really a surprise there. I pretty much wrote off all of 2015 once the last deadline came and went in january. Summer of 2016 is more likely when the fireworks really start.

I just wish dealers would stop using 41P fear mongering tactics every 6 months just to push their NFA sales.
Lots of folks out there who got rushed into buying a can (that they later regretted) just because of some 41P ruling date. This has been going on since 2013.

[sucker76]

Good news for me. My wife is delaying another can.

[bronko1975]

This delay could or I might as well say WILL cost me a lot of money...I rushed to get my first stamps and applied for 5 in a week. Once I start getting them approved i'm sure my obsession will kick into overdrive.

[eastern_hunter]

... chuckle ...


Ordered the last cans in what I thought would be enough time to clear before 41P went into effect. Then the Form 3 was "lost" for one of the cans and approvals in time for May (to avoid the need for grandfathering) are getting mighty close.


Fortunately, the WV Legislature passed a "shall sign" law and it was signed by the Governor. So the great challenge is reduced.

[AaronBaker]

This is great news!

I've got my suspicions about whether they ever pass 41P. They've got a new software developer and are consulting with industry partners to get Form 4 back on eForms by Fall 2015. Why bother with all that work and expenditure if you're going to make new rules that mean it's impossible for trusts to use eForms?

It just doesn't add up, unless they're going to somehow make fingerprints and photographs possible on eForms.

Aaron

[Abiqua]

This is great news!

I've got my suspicions about whether they ever pass 41P. They've got a new software developer and are consulting with industry partners to get Form 4 back on eForms by Fall 2015. Why bother with all that work and expenditure if you're going to make new rules that mean it's impossible for trusts to use eForms?

It just doesn't add up, unless they're going to somehow make fingerprints and photographs possible on eForms.

Aaron

You're using logic to analyze the actions of a gov't agency?

[AaronBaker]

You're using logic to analyze the actions of a gov't agency?

I get that you're taking a cheap shot at them in an attempt to be humorous, but...

Yep. Because while we may have political disagreements with the ATF, they are just a bureaucracy at heart. And they have a budget. As far as I know, Congress didn't allocate specific funds that must be spent on upgrading eForms. So if they spend that money on eForms, they can't spend it elsewhere. If someone at the top knew that eForms was going to be a dead system in 6 months, they wouldn't be very likely to approve huge amounts of spending on it.

When dealing with the government, it's too glib to say logic doesn't apply. It does. You also just have to understand the motivations. What seems illogical at first may be perfectly logical if you understand the motivations of the players involved.

It's easy to dismiss the ATF as a bunch of morons, or jack-booted thugs, or just plain crazy gun-haters. But that's far too simplistic a view, and it robs you of the opportunity to understand your opponent.

Aaron

[Abiqua]

Double tap.

[Abiqua]

You're using logic to analyze the actions of a gov't agency?

I get that you're taking a cheap shot at them in an attempt to be humorous, but...

Yep. Because while we may have political disagreements with the ATF, they are just a bureaucracy at heart. And they have a budget. As far as I know, Congress didn't allocate specific funds that must be spent on upgrading eForms. So if they spend that money on eForms, they can't spend it elsewhere. If someone at the top knew that eForms was going to be a dead system in 6 months, they wouldn't be very likely to approve huge amounts of spending on it.

When dealing with the government, it's too glib to say logic doesn't apply. It does. You also just have to understand the motivations. What seems illogical at first may be perfectly logical if you understand the motivations of the players involved.

It's easy to dismiss the ATF as a bunch of morons, or jack-booted thugs, or just plain crazy gun-haters. But that's far too simplistic a view, and it robs you of the opportunity to understand your opponent.

Aaron

Very well written. But your premise is flawed. I was not taking a cheap shot nor trying to be humorous. Nor do I believe that they are "a bunch of morons, or jack-booted thugs, or just plain crazy gun-haters." I don't even believe them to be my opponent. They are simply ordinary people doing their job in a highly dysfunctional organization.

The gov't runs nothing like the private sector. The various workgroups within organizations are little feifdoms, reacting to change and outside forces only when they have to. Two different groups can be working towards opposing goals, knowingly or unknowingly. The very real possibility is that the eforms workgroup is living in the now, moving ahead with their work under the existing rules because it is all they CAN do.

[AaronBaker]

The gov't runs nothing like the private sector. The various workgroups within organizations are little feifdoms, reacting to change and outside forces only when they have to. Two different groups can be working towards opposing goals, knowingly or unknowingly. The very real possibility is that the eforms workgroup is living in the now, moving ahead with their work under the existing rules because it is all they CAN do.

Well, that's a fair point in this debate. (And sorry for assuming, but it seems like too many people just view the ATF as evil, without any deeper analysis.)

I don't really have an insider view of this issue, but it seems to me that there must be someone high up enough in the ATF hierarchy that has a handle on the budget and would be able to see these two efforts as completely at odds, and do something, one way or the other.

If that isn't the case, my hope just rests on their inability to adequately address the comments levied during the comment period.

Aaron

[BearTHIS]

You're using logic to analyze the actions of a gov't agency?

I get that you're taking a cheap shot at them in an attempt to be humorous, but...

Yep. Because while we may have political disagreements with the ATF, they are just a bureaucracy at heart. And they have a budget. As far as I know, Congress didn't allocate specific funds that must be spent on upgrading eForms. So if they spend that money on eForms, they can't spend it elsewhere. If someone at the top knew that eForms was going to be a dead system in 6 months, they wouldn't be very likely to approve huge amounts of spending on it.

When dealing with the government, it's too glib to say logic doesn't apply. It does. You also just have to understand the motivations. What seems illogical at first may be perfectly logical if you understand the motivations of the players involved.

It's easy to dismiss the ATF as a bunch of morons, or jack-booted thugs, or just plain crazy gun-haters. But that's far too simplistic a view, and it robs you of the opportunity to understand your opponent.

Aaron

Unfortunately I wholeheartedly agree with Abiqua on this one. Government gives zero fucks about wasting money vs political winds. They have taxing authority, they can get more when needed, they can print more when needed, and the wasteful spending on a an outside software consultant for a few million to service the relatively tiny amount of citizens affected by it is both insignificant to the mainstream press and to politicians. They don't give a s--t and can throw a small army of lawyers to fight court challenges at it for years without anyone asking about the money. It is 100% POSSIBLE that the NFA branch is proceeding with the eforms update with regard to the status quo while at the same time the top of the BATFE/DOJ is putting full time employee resources into implementing a rule that would make it obsolete before it even launches. No one that matters really cares about it, unfortunately.

[Fulliautomatix]

What I wonder about sometimes is how they originally came to the amount of $200 for the transfer tax. In 1934, $200 would buy nearly 6ozt.of gold. Today that would equate to $6800. If they really wanted to curtail ownership they could simply adjust the transfer tax upwards. They'd be killing two birds with one stone. Increasing tax revenue and decreasing NFA transfers. Granted, they'd kill that cash cow very quickly. What would it take for the ATF to adjust that fee?

[jryock]

What I wonder about sometimes is how they originally came to the amount of $200 for the transfer tax. In 1934, $200 would buy nearly 6ozt.of gold. Today that would equate to $6800. If they really wanted to curtail ownership they could simply adjust the transfer tax upwards. They'd be killing two birds with one stone. Increasing tax revenue and decreasing NFA transfers. Granted, they'd kill that cash cow very quickly. What would it take for the ATF to adjust that fee?

It would take an act of Congress to "adjust" the $200 tax since that amount was written into the code. It would be interesting to see them revisit it now that we have Heller, Palmer, and McDonald.

However, I do not believe now is the right time to revisit it. As the numbers increase for NFA items, there will be a clear indicator to the courts that these items are commonly possessed; luck for us the BATFE keeps a handy little database of all the people legally using those items.