Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Site Notices
10/30/2020 2:42:12 PM
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 50
Posted: 9/24/2013 2:50:24 PM EST
[Last Edit: 1/15/2016 8:53:42 AM EST by orpheus762x51]
This is bad news for anyone wanting to get into silencers or SBRs.

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, LLC, Corporation, etc 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.

I understand 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

ALTERNATE FORMS OF CONTACT BELOW

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.

*ETA 9/25/13*

It is not enough to simply comment on this proposal.  I am respectfully asking that anyone who leaves a comment to please ask any pro-2nd Amendment friends, coworkers, or family to go comment as well.

Writing your representatives won’t hurt either.  The more attention we draw towards these abuses, the better chance we have at keeping them from being enacted.
To those who have already commented, thank you.  Remember, the deadline is December 9th.  We need to flood the ATF with as many comments as possible by then.


*ETA 9/26/13*

Here is the comment that I personally left.  Feel free to copy/add/modify it.

_________________________________

I oppose these proposed regulation changes for the following reasons:

1. The Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) certification is antiquated and a gross waste of resources.  It predates the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) and allows for CLEOs to arbitrarily deny law-abiding citizens with no criminal record the right to possess legal NFA items.

2. A proof of citizenship is not a requirement to vote or to obtain a federal tax return, it should not be a requirement to legally transfer and possess an NFA item.

3. Requiring fingerprints and photographs of every “responsible person” on an NFA trust, or part of a corporation or LLC carrying NFA items, is an unacceptable invasion of privacy.  If that personal information were obtained by the local, state, or federal government, it could be made public or abused.  Unless a person is suspected of a crime, such information should not be forcibly extracted from them.

4. NFA trusts are often used to ensure that a child may inherit the assets of the trust from a deceased parent.  They are valuable tools for estate planning, and beneficiaries should not have to submit to these violations of their civil liberties simply because they have inherited private property.

5. These proposals will have absolutely no impact on crime.  Since the National Firearms Act was passed in 1934, there have been 2 murders with legally obtained, registered NFA items.  No criminal is going to spend the $300 to $1000 to form an NFA trust, pay the ATF $200 for a tax stamp for each NFA transfer, submit a Form 1 or Form 4, wait 5 to 9 months for approval, pay upwards of $10,000 for a machine gun and upwards of $2000 for a silencer, and finally complete the transfer with a local SOT Federal Firearms License holder before committing a crime.

These proposals have nothing to do with curbing gun violence and have everything to do with forcing law abiding citizens to navigate a labyrinth of bureaucracy to obtain NFA items or surrender their right to possess them.  There are already numerous laws regulating the transfer and possession of NFA items, we simply do not want or need more.  I oppose these proposed regulation changes in their entirety and I implore the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives to retract this proposal completely and indefinitely.

_________________________________


*ETA 9/27/13*

Here's the flyer I put together to encourage people to go comment, feel free to print it out and hang it at your local shop or range, so long as the owners are ok with it.



*ETA 10/16/13*

David Goldman of the Apple Law Firm has put together an in-depth legal dissertation on ATF 41P.  According to his blog, this draft has been made public to help guide individuals opposed to the rule change to make informed and impacting comments.

Link to the article here: http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/41p.html


*ETA 10/25/13*

As of today, there are 1,925 comments received.  We are doing well, but we can do better than this.  If you have already commented, thank you for getting involved, but we need as many people voicing opposition to this as possible.  Please, call your friends, get a family member to comment, find someone else to comment and continue to spread the word.  Use facebook, twitter, or other social media.  Post fliers at your local range or gun shop.  Do whatever you can to get the word around about this.



*ETA 11/6/13*

ALTERNATE FORMS OF CONTACT

It has come to my attention that the website for submitting comments is down for some unknown reason.  I called the ATF to see if there is an alternate way to submit comments and, as you can probably imagine, they were less than helpful.

Thankfully, after some painful wading through the federal register,  I found the proposal for the rule change and the alternate forms of submission.

The full text can be found here: Federal Register/ Vol. 78, No. 174/ Monday, September 9, 2013/ Proposed Rules

In addition to using the regulations.gov website, you can mail or fax your comment in.
However, for your submitted comment to be valid by mail or fax, you MUST have the docket number of the proposal attached to it.
I have it listed here:  Docket No. ATF 41P; AG Order No. 3398–2013

You can mail your comments to the following contact:
Brenda Raffath Friend
Mailstop 6N–602
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 fax your comments here:
(202) 648–9741

You can reach Brenda Friend's office here:
(202) 648–7070



*ETA 12/2/13*

There is one week left before the comment period is closed on ATF 41P

At the time of this update, regulations.gov is showing that it has received 4,016 comments on 41P.  I encourage everyone receiving this message to continue spreading the word as far and wide as you can.  We have done some good work so far, but it's not over yet.  We need to keep up the fire until the very last minute.  Every comment submitted in opposition is ammunition that can and will be used later in the courts and regulatory bodies to dismantled, discredit, and roll back this ill-convinced rule change.




*ETA 12/9/13*

As of this morning there are 7,291 comments received on regulations.gov.  Excellent work everyone, but it's not over yet.  There are still a few hours left to submit comments.  The cut off is tonight at 11:59PM eastern standard time.

If you've already commented, thank you for going that far, but we need to get as many people to submit comments as possible.  After that, contact your congressional representatives, senators, and local law enforcement officials.  Encourage others to do the same.

Don't give an inch.  There have been countless fights throughout our nation's history for our Liberty, Freedom, and Natural Rights that required inconceivable amounts of blood and toil.  All this fight requires is civil participation.  Make your voices heard, and they will listen.  God speed, ladies and gentlemen.

Semper Fidelis



*ETA 12/10/13*


The comment period is closed, but this isn’t over yet.  I want to commend everyone on this board for having the fortitude to submit a comment and for passing the word on to others.  The last time I checked, there were over 9,000 comments submitted on regulations.gov.  Outstanding work ladies and gentlemen!  Some federal rule changes posted for comments are lucky to get a few hundred comments, and the vast majority of them get none, but having over 9,000 is something they can’t ignore.  

Now is the time to write your congressional representatives.

You can point out the fact that this rule change was met with uncharacteristic public opposition.  You can talk about the burden it will put on local law enforcement through administrative costs.  Probably most effectively, you could draw attention to the more legally-worded comments, such as the one filed by Silencer Shop (link).

As far as the implementation of 41P, I don’t have any information as to how quickly they will try to change procedure.  If I hear anything news worthy, I’ll be sure to post it here.

Again, thank you very much to anyone who commented.  Just don’t get complacent, keep your representatives on their toes and keep fighting the good fight.



*ETA 12/11/13*

Today I found out that Firearm Industry Consulting Group, a division of Prince Law Offices, P.C., filed a comment on 41P that was over 500 pages long.

FICG Files Comment in Opposition to ATF – 41P

According to the blog post, it sounds like some heavy-hitters will be taking this thing to court if the ATF tries to implement this garbage rule change.
Again, I would like to extend a heartfelt thank you to everyone who submitted a comment.  Should this enter any type of litigation, the number of comments submitted will make a difference by demonstrating the public opposition to this rampant abuse of power.



*ETA 12/17/13*

It looks like the ATF has scheduled "Final Action" on 41P in their Unified Agenda Statement for June 2014.

According to David Goldman's blog they could decide to implement all, some, or none of 41P on, before, or after that date.

I know it's not very helpful, but it at least gives us a ball park idea of when we could expect to see movement on this.  The NRA stated in their 41P comment that the provisions in 41P are "nearly certain to be followed by legal action".  Hopefully that means the NRA will throw it's weight into the fight should this go to the courts.  Couple that with the words coming from FIGC, Silencer Shop, AAC, and others, it looks like there maybe enough momentum to stop this, or at least the CLEO part of it.

Now's the time to call, write, and email your reps.  If they see a steady stream of public opposition to this up to June, we may end up coming out of this okay.


*ETA 1/23/14*

Here's a blog post from NRA-ILA regarding 41P:

Comments Reveal Strong Opposition to Proposed Rule on NFA Trusts

It doesn't seem to have a whole lot to say, other than how the ATF may drag it's feet in reviewing the comments.  Still, I will be keeping an eye on this.  As far as I can tell, action on this is still expected around June 2014.  If I hear anything on it, I'll be sure to post it here.


*ETA 2/27/14*

Here's an article from Examiner.com that details ATF's actions in not making all the 41P comments public.

ATF denying public access by disqualifying gun trust rule change comments

Still no word on final implementation as of yet.  It looks like June 2014 is still looking like the date that some sort of determination will be made.



*ETA 4/5/14*


So I spoke with my local SOT today and I've got some news...

First of all, no, I will not disclose his identity... so take this for what it is.  I haven't had the time yet to verify if any of what he said is true, but here goes:

eFile is going away.  He said that because of all the problems with it, the ATF is taking it down indefinitely.   There is no word on whether or not there will be a replacement brought online.   Again, this could be wrong, but according to my local SOT, the ATF is going back to the all paper system.

The second thing I heard today is that it lools like 41P is happening for sure.  He did say that the amount of comments they were inundated with slowed them down immensely.  One good thing that I heard is that the Form 1s and Form 4s will have to be completely redesigned.  They won't implement the changes until all the new forms are out and distributed to FFLs with SOTs.  

The June deadline for them to announce the changes still stands, but that's not to say the changes will come on that particular date.  He also said that the one glimmer of hope there is is that the CLEO comments may be changed to something to the effect of "I certify that these finger prints and photographs are of the person named on this form".  If that's the case, there may be a way to go after antiNFA CLEOs from a legal stand point if they won't sign.

Again, everything in this update could be total BS, but I'm doing my best to read the tea leaves and give everyone the heads up.


*ETA 4/17/14*


This was just posted on the Americans Opposed to ATF 41P Facebook page:

"We have been asked several times on the current status. ATF's action date of June 1st, 2014 means absolutely nothing. The American Silencer Association (ASA) reported that it spoke with ATF during the SHOT Show and that the ATF stated that they never anticipated the amount of filing; that they only have one person working part-time reviewing the comments; and that they anticipated that it would take a year or two before they determine whether they are going to move forward and if so, what the final rule would be. We believe, to the extent a final rule is implemented and we can obtain funding to litigate it, we should be able to have it invalidated on judicial review due to the numerous violations of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA)."


Some here despair over what they think was a meaningless thumb-in-the-eye to the ATF.  Some think that all we have done is delayed the inevitable by a couple months.

But I think we've done a damn good job.

In light of this latest revelation, it looks like 41P has moved from the "when it happens" category to the "if it happens" category.  That sliver of hope would not have been possible without thousands of us sending our comments in.  I think we see the tide turning.  This isn't a time to rest, everyone should continue to write, email, and call their Representatives and Senators about their opposition to 41P.  

It's now a fact that we have delayed the implementation of 41P (by years possibly), now we just have to keep up the pressure and it may go away entirely.



*ETA 5/4/14*



The Guardian just posted this piece on 41P.  It doesn't contain much news, but it sort of confirms what we already know.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/03/obama-executive-action-gun-loophole-stalled-nra-opposition




*ETA 5/12/14*


I just read an update on David Goldman's blog from last week showing a "clarification" by the ATF on the whether or not dealers are required to fill out a 4473 and run a NICS check for trustees on NFA transfers.

I know we are talking about the ATF here, but the fact that they have offered additional "clarification" on transfers to trusts under the current rules may be a positive indicator that 41P may (and I cautiously say MAY) end up scuttled.


What I'm taking away from this is:

(1) Trustees acting on behalf of a Trust have to fill out 4473's and undergo a NICS check for NFA transfers.  This contradicts many of the reasons they put 41P on the table to begin with (see background checks, CLEO cert, etc).

(2) Individuals still have to get CLEO approval, finger prints, and fill out the 4473, but don't necessarily have to do the NICS check (the reality of this may differ from the interpretation).  No change there.



Granted we still have no idea how this will all play out, but this latest development does look encouraging.  Essentially you would end up with a point-of-sale NICS check like you have to do for everything else.  


Link to David Goldman's blog for full text: http://www.guntrustlawyer.com/2014/05/does-a-trust-need-a-nics-check.html







*ETA 5/27/14*


I just saw that Prince Law Offices, P.C. posted a blog entry titled "ATF Confirms No Plans to Revise Gun Trust Regulations Before 2015".

From the blog post, I gathered that the ATF's "Unified Agenda" now shows an effective date of "01/00/2015"

There isn't much in the way of news here, other than the fact that ATF has now put it in writing that no change will be made until at least 2015.  Prince Law Offices went on to speculate that 41P will undoubtedly face many judicial challenges if the ATF moves forward with it.

While this definitely gives us some room to breathe, and prepare for the worst, those of you who live in jurisdictions without a friendly CLEO should definitely take advantage of the extra time if you are interested in acquiring any NFA items.  With Form 1 and Form 4 processing times nearing 12 months, there's no time like the present to get in line for a stamp.  All indicators are showing that they will continue to process Forms 1 and 4 under the current rules as long as they are submitted before the final ruling.





*ETA 9/14/14*


ATF Form 5320.23 was recently discovered on reginfo.gov.

If 41P goes through, it looks like this will be the form that every "responsible person" (i.e. every Grantor, trustee, or beneficiary) will have to complete and submit with their Form 1/ Form 4.













Under definitions, you'll see that they've cast a pretty wide net...


Definitions

4. Responsible Person:

(a) In the case of a trust, any individual, including any grantor, trustee, or beneficiary, who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any trust instrument or other document, or under State law, to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm;  

(b) In the case of a partnership, any individual, including any partner or manager, who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any contract, agreement, article, certificate, bylaw, or instrument, or under State law, to direct the management and policies of the partnership to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on the behalf of the partnership;  

(c) In the case of an association, any individual, including any member, officer, director, board member, owner, or manager, who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any contract, agreement, article, certificate, bylaw, or instrument, or under State law, to direct the management and policies of the association to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on the behalf of, the association;  

(d) In the case of a company (including a Limited Liability Company (LLC)), any individual, including any member, officer, director, board member, owner, shareholder, or manager, who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any contract, agreement, article, certificate, bylaw, or instrument, or under State law, to direct the management and policies of the company to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the company; and  

(e) In the case of a corporation, any individual, including any officer, director, board member, owner, shareholder, or manager, who possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority under any contract, agreement, article, certificate, bylaw, or instrument, or under State law, to direct the management and policies of the corporation to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of, the corporation.




Now here's the part that gives me a little bit of hope...


5. Law Enforcement Certification

I certify that I am the chief law enforcement officer of the organization named below having a jurisdiction in the area of residence of ______(Name_of_Responsible_Person)______ .  I am satisfied that the finger prints and photographs accompanying this form are those of the responsible person identified on the form.  I have no information that receipt or possession of the firearm described in items 3a – 3d would place the responsible person in violation of State or local law.




On this new form, the CLEO certification states that the signer has no information that "would place the responsible person in violation of State or local law" as opposed to the current Form 4 that states that the CLEO has no information that the applicant "will use the firearm or device described on this application for other than lawful purposes".

Some CLEOs refuse to sign on the grounds of liability, but it would seem that Form 5320.23 would remove that liability.


Thanks to HansohnBrothers for the heads up.



*ETA 11/4/14*


Today, ASA posted that the proposed "Final Action" date for 41P will be pushed back yet again, this time to May 2015.  

Thanks to our efforts here, and the "shall sign" CLEO certification laws popping up around the country, we may be able to come out of this completely unaffected.

I hate to speculate, but if "shall sign" sweeps the nation as a reaction to 41P, this will actually put prospective NFA Firearm Owners at an advantage because it removes the anti-gun-CLEO obstacle completely.  Only time will tell what becomes of 41P, but in the mean time, we all need to be prepared to support the State-level push for "shall sign" CLEO laws.

Thanks to doubleshot00 for the heads up on the ASA article.



*ETA 2/17/15*

I stumbled upon this little nugget on lawnews.tv:

http://lawnews.tv/rule-41p-gun-trust-update-per-atf-booth-shot-show-2a-tcot/#.VOOK7hbMYbg




I attended the SHOT show last week and visited with the agents at the ATF booth to ask this very question.  ATF confirmed that they had 9500 comments to proposed rule 41P and that for the immediate future they would take no action and that we should continue to use our existing trust methods to acquire NFA items.

View Quote


While it doesn't give any concrete info, it's an encouraging sign.


*ETA 4/17/15*

Pulled this from Prince Law blog:

http://blog.princelaw.com/2015/04/10/shocking-statementsconcessions-by-atf-at-the-nra-firearms-law-seminar/




ATF Attorney Ryan stated that ATF is “still sorting through the comments filed in opposition to ATF-41P” and that he still has a number of them to review. Since ATF is still sorting through the issues presented in the comments, they cannot have drafted a final rule taking into account those comments/issues and cannot have responded to the comments/issues. More importantly, once a draft final rule is prepared with responses to all the issues raises, it will have to go up to the Chief Counsel’s Office. While he said he had no idea when to expect ATF to take any action, it clearly seems based on his comments that the action date of May 2015 will be pushed back at least another six months.

View Quote



*ETA 4/28/15*

NSSF posted this yesterday:
http://www.nssf.org/share/BP2/2015/042715.htm


NO IMPLEMENTATION YET SEEN FOR NOTICE 41P AS FINAL RULE . . . NSSF has confirmed with ATF that the bureau is unlikely to publish Notice 41P (NFA Trusts) as a Final Rule for quite some time. This is in part because EPS resources are being diverted to help process the 310,000 public comments received in response to the armor piercing ammunition framework proposal. In addition, it seems ATF has not prepared to revise the NFA database so that it can track "responsible persons" for NFA trusts. The proposed rule would require the responsible person(s) on an NFA Trust be fingerprinted.
View Quote


It also looks like there is nothing preventing anyone from filing additional comments, even after the comment period has ended.  I am not sure what effect it would have, but seeing as the M855 ban got buried under more than 300,000 comments, it will probably help.  It certainly won't hurt.


*ETA 5/26/15*

ATF 41P has now officially been pushed back to December 2015:

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201504&RIN=1140-AA43


*ETA 6/5/15*


Originally Posted By CleverNickname:
...apparently the House appropriations bill for the Justice Department (among other things) has an amendment to prevent the ATF from requiring the CLEO signoff.  I assume since it's an appropriations bill it just defunds it.

View Quote



*ETA 10/5/15*

More on the House vote and a "round table with ATF"


The ATF is "still reviewing" comments and there is no clear news as to when/if 41P will be enacted.  Rep. John Carter (R-TX) successfully added an amendment to H.R.2578, the appropriations bill that among other things, will fund the DOJ for FY 2016.  After the amendment was agreed on, H.R.2578 passed the House and is now awaiting action in the Senate.

Hopefully, H.R.2578 will pass the Senate without incident.  If it does, 41P will die a slow, administrative death, and we'll be clear of this.  I can't help but think of how some on this board were singing defeat at the outset.  I am certain that without members here and citizens elsewhere flooding the ATF with comments of their opposition, CLEO sign offs for trusts would already be a reality.  Now there is a a paragraph attached to an act of Congress that may end up saving us from that fate.

Here's is what I've gathered.  The committee exchange between Carter and Fattah is particularly amusing.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2578


H.Amdt.320

Amends Bill:  H.R.2578 — Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016
Sponsor:  Rep. Carter, John R. [R-TX-31] (Offered 06/02/2015)
Latest Action:  On agreeing to the Carter (TX) amendment (A052) Agreed to by voice vote. (06/02/2015)






               Amendment Offered by Mr. Carter of Texas

 Mr. CARTER of Texas. I have an amendment at the desk.
 The Acting CHAIR. The Clerk will report the amendment.
 The Clerk read as follows:


At the end of the bill, before the short title, insert the
following:
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to
propose or to issue a rule that would change the Chief Law
Enforcement Officer certificate requirement in a manner that
has the same substance as the proposed rule published on
September 9, 2013 (786 Fed. Reg. 55014).



 The Acting CHAIR. Pursuant to House Resolution 287, the gentleman
from Texas and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
 The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas.
 Mr. CARTER of Texas. I rise with an amendment to limit unnecessary
burdens on firearm owners and law enforcement officers.
 The Second Amendment's intent is clear: firearm ownership ``shall not
be infringed.'' However, the ATF has proposed a rule requiring an
additional layer of approval from local law enforcement officers to
purchase suppressors and other firearms regulated by the National
Firearms Act. This rule broadly expands existing requirements and
further burdens local law enforcement officers who are already
overworked and understaffed.
 The ATF knows full well that there are cities and jurisdictions that
refuse to give approval for political reasons.

                             {time}  2310

 Action films are fun to watch, but they are wrong about suppressors.
Suppressors dampen the sound of a firearm, but do not make guns silent.
They simply are a form of hearing protection for the shooter, for other
human beings, and for any hunting dogs that are around.
 Suppressors increase safety while shooting, allow people to easily
hear and react to range safety instructions and to other sportsmen.
 My amendment ensures Americans' rights are protected and does not
eliminate background checks. It will protect suppressor suppliers;
manufacturers; tens of millions of dollars in annual revenue; thousands
of jobs nationwide; and, more importantly, the Second Amendment rights
of a law-abiding gunowner.
 I urge support for this commonsense provision, and I reserve the
balance of my time.
 Mr. FATTAH. Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
 The Acting CHAIR. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized for 5
minutes.
 Mr. FATTAH. If the gentleman from Texas would join me in a quick
colloquy.
 Mr. CARTER of Texas. I would be happy to.
 Mr. FATTAH. This is the amendment relative to trust and gun trust and
whether there needs to be a background check or not?
 Mr. CARTER of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
 Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.
 Mr. CARTER of Texas. This is the amendment that requires an
additional approval by a law enforcement officers for purchases of
certain either weapons or suppressors.
 Mr. FATTAH. Right. Now, in this instance, in 2006, our information is
that there were 4,600 of these applications, and then that grew to
40,000 in 2012 and then 72,000 in 2013 and 90,000 in 2014.
 Are those numbers relatively accurate, as best as you know?
 Mr. CARTER of Texas. If the gentleman will yield, those numbers could
be accurate. I cannot contest those numbers.
 However, it has been made absolutely clear, both by target shooters
and by hunters, that suppressors make for a more accurate weapon, less
damage on the shooter, less damage on the people and animals around the
shooter, a better ability to be safe with your fellow hunters.
 Mr. FATTAH. Thank you, Judge.
 Reclaiming my time, I rise in opposition to this. It is clear, given
the majority that we have, that we won't be on a successful vote count
on this.
 I do want to make the point, right, that the Second Amendment, as it
was ruled on by the Supreme Court, says that there can be reasonable
regulation, and so that is our job. That is where we come into this
picture at. We are supposed to be the reasonable regulators. We are
supposed to decide where and when and under what circumstances there
should be some speed bump.
 The question here is, for these types of circumstances, where someone
is going to have a weapon in which discerning that it has been fired,
you are going to be less able to do it, whether that is something where
someone should have to have a small speed bump on the way to getting
it.
 Now, it doesn't seem like there is a major hurdle here because we
have jumped from 4,600 of these in 2006 to 90,000 in 2014.
 I don't know, unless we are going to just have a universal access to
them, there doesn't seem to be a major impediment.
 Mr. CARTER of Texas. Will the gentleman yield?
 Mr. FATTAH. I yield to the gentleman.
 Mr. CARTER of Texas. Because an application was made doesn't
necessarily mean that the law enforcement people dealt with it and
approved that application. Now, if you are telling me these are 90,000
approved applications, I understand your argument.
 One of the issues seems to be finding a law enforcement agency in the
modern society we live in that actually has some knowledge of the
individual that is making the request and is willing to process it.
 Mr. FATTAH. Judge, I will just say this then, reclaiming my time,
that everybody, even those who are not involved in law enforcement,
understands the challenge of having a firearm in which the sound is
suppressed.
 We just had an incident in one of our Capitol buildings where someone
tried to bring a weapon in. We know that weapons are dangerous. That is
why you can't bring them into the U.S. Capitol.
 Making them more accessible in the communities and among the people
that we represent, if we think that is a great thing to do, the
majority will have its way on this. I stand in opposition to it.
 I yield back the balance of my time.
 Mr. CARTER of Texas. Madam Chair, I only claim time to say that I
serve on this subcommittee with both these honorable gentlemen. I want
to commend them for a great bill.

[[Page H3736]]

 The chairman has asked for time. I yield such time as he may consume
to the gentleman from Texas.
 Mr. CULBERSON. I do want to express my strong support for the
gentleman's amendment. It is an appropriate and necessary additional
protection for Americans' Second Amendment rights.
 Judge Carter is exactly right. This is the right place for the bill.
This is the right place for this amendment. He has drafted it very
narrowly and very carefully, and I urge Members to join us in
supporting this very important Second Amendment amendment before the
House.
 Mr. CARTER of Texas. To finish, I am honored to serve on this
subcommittee with these two fine gentlemen. They have made a great work
product here, and I am very glad that we were able to all work
together.
 I yield back the balance of my time.
 The Acting CHAIR. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Carter).
 The amendment was agreed to.

View Quote




Prince Law Blog also reported from a round table with the ATF that nothing really new has come of 41P.

From Prince Law Blog, August 5, 2015
A Round Table Discussion with ATF
http://blog.princelaw.com/2015/08/05/a-round-table-discussion-with-atf/




ATF 41P was mentioned several times. The news? ATF is still reviewing comments and there is no news as to when/if they will move forward with any kind of final rule. Additionally there are 4 reviewers for the comments and all of them have been assigned to ATF 41P.

View Quote




*ETA 11/29/15*

ATF has once again kicked the can down the road on 41P, but this time they only moved the "action date" one month instead of six, from 12/00/15 to 01/00/16.  At this point what they decide on is pure speculation, but it looks like it is time to get moving writing and calling you Senators.  

H.R. 2578 (Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act) has passed the House, but now it is waiting in the Senate.  If it passes the Senate in it's complete, unaltered form, it will become law and defund 41P.  In the short term, this is the only guaranteed way for 41P to go away for good so WRITE/EMAIL/CALL YOUR SENATORS NOW!


*ETA 1/4/16*

Thanks to Obama's latest temper tantrum on anti-2A EOs, 41P is being finalized.  The order has been passed down to ATF from DOJ on January 4th, and will take affect 180 days from the signed date.

As it currently stands, the "responsible persons" of a trust will be required to submit fingerprints and photos, but it eliminates CLEO sign off.  It still requires a CLEO notification, but (at least for now) it appears the CLEO sign off may no longer be a barrier to NFA ownership.

If there is any silver lining to this, it's that trusts in "no-sign" CLEO areas might not have as much trouble in the NFA world, but beyond that, there are now at least two more hoops to jump through for trustees.

Final Rule

Regardless of how this pans out, I'm thankful for everyone's support on this board.



*ETA 1/15/16*


medicmandan pointed this out on pg 49:

Originally Posted By medicmandan:
Looks like it will be published in the Federal Register tomorrow which would be an implementation date of July 13.

https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2016/01/15/2016-00192/machineguns-destructive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms-background-checks-for-responsible-persons
View Quote



While the CLEO notification (as opposed to certification) requirement looks to be a non issue, the photos and prints will definitely be an added pain for "responsible persons" in trusts.  If you want to avoid the added hassle, you now have until July 13th.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:02:52 PM EST
Done. Don't care if I'm on the list now.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:08:29 PM EST
What happens if I move from one county (where I know my sheriff personally) to another county?  Do I have to get him to sign off on it too?

What a freaking joke.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:12:11 PM EST
This is bullshit!!! My state just started making suppressors legal.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:15:06 PM EST
done
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:18:35 PM EST
Hit.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:20:37 PM EST
hit it.  Already on the "list" so they know what I have and where I live
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:21:59 PM EST
Done
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:24:46 PM EST
hit
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:26:18 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/24/2013 3:27:55 PM EST by sterinn]
dbl
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:27:42 PM EST

This would be an absolute awful law that further restricts lawful ownership of items deemed regulated by the NFA.  Essentially, this is a defacto ban on NFA items in a jurisdiction where the Chief Law Enforcement officer simply refuses any and all NFA transfers or possession based on his own opinions which would otherwise be legal.
View Quote


Put on "the list"



.........again.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:28:44 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/24/2013 3:29:14 PM EST by mongo001]
Commented.

ETA:  Basically asked what is the case for change?
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:34:08 PM EST
I thought the CLEO signature requirement was going away?  Did something change?
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:38:29 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Ameshawki:
I thought the CLEO signature requirement was going away?  Did something change?
View Quote



Yep. The good ole BATFE pricks changed that part so that everything needs the CLEO/Fingerprint bullshit.

What, you thought they'd actually make something better for us???? hahahahahahahahahahah
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:38:53 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Ameshawki:
I thought the CLEO signature requirement was going away?  Did something change?
View Quote


It most certainly did.

Instead of getting rid of the CLEO requirement for individual transfers, they want to expand it to individuals and trusts, essentially making it next to impossible to obtain NFA items.

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/08/foghorn/breaking-atf-to-extend-cleo-sign-off-to-every-person-listed-on-gun-trusts/

breaking-atf-guts-nfa-trusts-wants-to-require-cleo-sign-off-for-every-person-listed-on-trust
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:40:06 PM EST
Like I said in the other thread about this.....someone write me up something halfway decent and I'll send it in.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:41:45 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:54:01 PM EST
Meh. They're going to do what they want to do regardless of how many comments or letters are sent their way.

Link Posted: 9/24/2013 3:59:01 PM EST
Done.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:00:11 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FP2000H:
Meh. They're going to do what they want to do regardless of how many comments or letters are sent their way.

View Quote


This.

Better get your stuff in before this shit takes effect.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:03:44 PM EST
As much as I know they don't give a damn, I commented anyway. At least I got to rant a little.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:04:04 PM EST
Commented.

I'm on the list anyway.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:10:04 PM EST
I did this monday. sad that tthere was not bigger response. this should be as bid as colorado firemission.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:11:12 PM EST
Try to leave a thoughtful comment. I am in the process of writing my comments and doing a bit of research so I can post them before the deadline is up. I encourage everyone else to do the same.

As much as I and many other gun owners are upset with this, we need to do our best to fight it with some tact and rationality.

Ranting won't help.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:14:23 PM EST
Originally Posted By orpheus762x51:
This is bad news for anyone wanting to get into silencers or SBRs.

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.

I understand 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

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.
View Quote

De facto bans on certain firearms or firearm related items, by forcing a CLEO (Chief Law Enforcement Officer) to sign off for "permission", are neither constitution nor ethical.  If the will of the people is not behind gun law changes, as represented by lawful congressional bills, it is not the place of the bureaucracy to legislate in their place.
View Quote
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:14:44 PM EST
A short and to the point bit of text:



The CLEO certification is an archaic remnant of a bygone period where electronic records were unavailable to people running background checks.  It does not provide any benefit to the background checking process, and is a burden both on the CLEO, and the applicant.  Because it's not mandatory for the CLEO to sign your certification, yet you need it to be approved by the ATF, it has become a vehicle for nepotism and political favor.



The CLEO certification should be dropped for all individuals and/or entities, and the ATF should go forward with only a background check on the responsible party.  
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:18:02 PM EST
Hopefully, someone that is legally able to own an NFA item gets denied by their local CLEO and with no alternate avenue of going the Trust route, they file suit. There is no way it would be found Constitutional to put the decision of who can own what into the hands of a local CLEO.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:19:57 PM EST

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ShadowAngel:


Hopefully, someone that is legally able to own an NFA item gets denied by their local CLEO and with no alternate avenue of going the Trust route, they file suit. There is no way it would be found Constitutional to put the decision of who can own what into the hands of a local CLEO.
View Quote


I bought a Suppressor on the 12th, and my check has already been cashed.  Hopefully, should things go bad, I'll be in under the wire.  Otherwise, I'll be in that position, as my CLEO is a non-signer.



 
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:20:06 PM EST
To those of you who actually give a damn, I would encourage everyone to TELL EVERY PRO 2A PERSON YOU KNOW TO GO COMMENT in opposition of this regulation change.

Email people, call them.  Print out flyers and ask to hang them up at your local range.  Do something!

They can't hear us unless we speak up...  

Hell, if Colorado can throw out a couple state senators, there's no reason we can't put up a fight against this.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:22:36 PM EST
people need to wake up and start sending out letters
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:25:14 PM EST
Hit with this:



The more you impose your useless regulations that do nothing to deter crime and only serve to infringe on the freedoms of productive members of society the more people will decide to stop complying with what is already an unconstitutional bureaucracy. Leave middle America alone. When was the last time a NFA trust weapon was used in a crime? These political games are pathetic. Apparently you have forgotten your oath to uphold the Constitution. As a Peace Officer I have not forgotten mine. Ridiculous red tape will do nothing more than to compress a powder keg that you have been dangerously close to exploding already. NFA regulations should be loosened or done away with altogether as they serve no functional purpose in these times. I do say this from the bottom of my heart and with all sincerity - You may all go to hell.




Do you think I get an extra star for each one of these I've done since the first time my name appeared on their list?
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:26:54 PM EST
I know for a fact my CLEO will not sigh for a suppressor.. This is just a suit waiting to happen..
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:27:04 PM EST
Title should be changed to FIREMISSION
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:27:13 PM EST
My comment, not that it will do a fucking thing:

Get rid of CLEO sign offs and make NFA weapons point of sale items. There is no difference between the background check done by the ATF's NFA branch and the one done over the phone at an FFL.
View Quote
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:27:43 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By FP2000H:
Meh. They're going to do what they want to do regardless of how many comments or letters are sent their way.

View Quote


So am I.  
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:30:13 PM EST
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:30:58 PM EST

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By criio1:


Title should be changed to MONTH OLD DUPE
View Quote




 
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:31:08 PM EST
Here's a quick flyer I threw together if you guys want to print it out and ask to hang it at your local range or gun shop.

Please, spread the word far and wide!  This cannot go unchallenged!



Uploaded with ImageShack.us" />

Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:31:15 PM EST
I can't wait till elections.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:31:34 PM EST
Done.

Funny how this administration doesn't want CLEO's enforcing federal immigration law but they want them to serve as a de facto ban on NFA items in many parts of the country where it is legal to own such items and where the local government is PREEMPTED by state law from passing their own gun control legislation.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:34:06 PM EST
Done ...needs a bump too.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:37:50 PM EST
[Last Edit: 9/24/2013 4:39:19 PM EST by M4-CQBR]
So as i understand this thread thus far, i can still get a suppressor through the "Trust" process at this time. Until December 9th - Is this correct?
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:38:21 PM EST
Commented and bump.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:40:37 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By M4-CQBR:
So as i understand this thread thus far, i can still get a suppressor through the "Trust" process at this time. Until December 9th - Is this correct?
View Quote


Nobody knows. Stuff in the process could get denied once the rule goes into effect.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:45:23 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By orpheus762x51:
Here's a quick flyer I threw together if you guys want to print it out and ask to hang it at your local range or gun shop.

Please, spread the word far and wide!  This cannot go unchallenged!

http://<a href=http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/1623/h21v.jpg</a>

Uploaded with ImageShack.us" />

View Quote

Going to blast that out over facebook and to friendly 2A supporters.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:47:01 PM EST
Done
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:47:44 PM EST

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ShadowAngel:
Nobody knows. Stuff in the process could get denied once the rule goes into effect.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By ShadowAngel:



Originally Posted By M4-CQBR:

So as i understand this thread thus far, i can still get a suppressor through the "Trust" process at this time. Until December 9th - Is this correct?




Nobody knows. Stuff in the process could get denied once the rule goes into effect.


Yup, it's a risk, but one I took...



 
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:48:06 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By M4-CQBR:
So as i understand this thread thus far, i can still get a suppressor through the "Trust" process at this time. Until December 9th - Is this correct?
View Quote


Possibly.  I could be totally wrong here, but as I understand it, there is currently a 5-8 month wait on Form 1s and Form 4s for suppressors and SBRs.

I called the ATF and asked if these proposals go into effect, what effect it will have on applications currently in the pipeline.  The girl on the phone was polite, but said "we cannot comment at this time".

Decemeber 9th is the deadline to submit a comment, after that the comments are closed and the ATF will review them and make thier determination.

I suspect that there are already (lobbiests? lawyers?) from a few of the silencer companies already wrangling with the senior leadership at BATFE, based on a couple phone conversations I had the other day.


The bottom line is, we cannot let up on this.  If you've already commented, get anyone you know who would be against this to comment too.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:48:26 PM EST
Hit... I HATE these damn unelected bureaucrats... hate the elected ones as well, but the unelected bastards in a lot of ways are fucking worse.
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:48:34 PM EST
Hit
Link Posted: 9/24/2013 4:49:55 PM EST

Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By orpheus762x51:
Possibly.  I could be totally wrong here, but as I understand it, there is currently a 5-8 month wait on Form 1s and Form 4s for suppressors and SBRs.



I called the ATF and asked if these proposals go into effect, what effect it will have on applications currently in the pipeline.  The girl on the phone was polite, but said "we cannot comment at this time".



Decemeber 9th is the deadline to submit a comment, after that the comments are closed and the ATF will review them and make thier determination.



I suspect that there are already (lobbiests? lawyers?) from a few of the silencer companies already wrangling with the senior leadership at BATFE, based on a couple phone conversations I had the other day.





The bottom line is, we cannot let up on this.  If you've already commented, get anyone you know who would be against this to comment too.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By orpheus762x51:



Originally Posted By M4-CQBR:

So as i understand this thread thus far, i can still get a suppressor through the "Trust" process at this time. Until December 9th - Is this correct?




Possibly.  I could be totally wrong here, but as I understand it, there is currently a 5-8 month wait on Form 1s and Form 4s for suppressors and SBRs.



I called the ATF and asked if these proposals go into effect, what effect it will have on applications currently in the pipeline.  The girl on the phone was polite, but said "we cannot comment at this time".



Decemeber 9th is the deadline to submit a comment, after that the comments are closed and the ATF will review them and make thier determination.



I suspect that there are already (lobbiests? lawyers?) from a few of the silencer companies already wrangling with the senior leadership at BATFE, based on a couple phone conversations I had the other day.





The bottom line is, we cannot let up on this.  If you've already commented, get anyone you know who would be against this to comment too.


I just got a SBR form 1 (on a trust) back after 7 months.



 
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 50
Top Top