Official NFATCA 41p Comment & Legal Brief

Our counsel has prepared our official comment in opposition to NPRM 41P. A copy of the submission can be found here. Our attorneys have developed a four pronged response that challenges the ATF/White House action on several fronts, including Constitutional issues, Administrative procedures Act (APA) issues, federalism defaults and misuse of confidential tax information. We intend to vigorously defend your rights and attack the clearly illegal efforts of gun control advocates. Our original petition and the experiences of our members provide strong standing and we intend to drive this to success. Your help and support is greatly appreciated.

Stephen P. Halbrook, eh?

Things could get very interesting very quick.

Good stuff. Do we know when they will announce their decision on the new rules?

It’s hard to predict how long a final rule would take. ATF has to review and evaluate the comments (which could take a while given the number of comments and the level of detail they include). Then they have to draft a final rule and submit it for OMB review and approval before publication. I would think it will certainly take several months.

I think that applications would have to be processed according to the regulations that are in effect at the time of processing. Of course, given the delays that already exist in processing these forms, it means that if the regulation becomes final in its current form, a large number of currently sufficient applications will get kicked back based on the new standards. That’s why we are suggesting a long effective date to minimize the cost (both to ATF and to applicants) of rejecting and resubmitting applications, should they decide to move forward.

Because the rule applies to the processing of applications to make or transfer a firearm, I don’t think it could have any effect on applications that have already been approved.

And yes, Stephen Halbrook.

Updated ATF "Unified Agenda" statement indicates final action on proposed rule expected 06/00/2014: http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAg...&RIN=1140-AA43

You beat me to it.

Well I have to say that there were a lot of great comments posted from some very reputable people and organizations. Here are my thoughts...

What I wish will happen - Nothing

What I would accept happening - Requiring fingerprints and photos, but no CLEO signature.

What I think will happen - Ignoring all 7000+ comments and implementing the rule.

And we still have three more years left...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jason8844

Well I have to say that there were a lot of great comments posted from some very reputable people and organizations. Here are my thoughts...

What I wish will happen - Nothing (I am down with this too)

What I would accept happening - Requiring fingerprints and photos, but no CLEO signature. (Not I! For an individual yes, for trusts/corps/etc it's BS and illegal)

What I think will happen - Ignoring all 7000+ comments and implementing the rule. (..and with the current communist rule it will be implemented whenever they like. Could be tomorrow and nothing will be done about it. Complain, threaten litigation, etc. It will just go down and be forgotten just like every other single scandal to numerous to list. )

---

The law, the constitution and the balance of powers mean absolutely nothing to the current regime. It is absolutely mind numbing the crimes they are being allowed to perpetrate and even more so the lack of outrage of such.
This is about guns, politically incorrect and NFA weps? Only the military should be allowed those is the enemy's mantra. Here the minority, a very small politically incorrect one especially in todays climate will lose.

ddnc, IMO you are spot on with your assessment of the current administration. They are not concerned with law, the Constitution or the legal and moral obligation to represent the people and defend the Constitution. Everything that they do strikes me as a way to get around the "obstacles" that we call laws and rights.

My take on how things could play out...

1. They ignore the groundswell of public sentiment against their efforts and push it through, as is. This is the easiest course of action for them and gives them a "win" right now that cannot be undone in a snap. The timing for elections is about right and by the time it wends its way through the process, Obama is retired and earning speakers fees for being such a great leader. This is the most likely scenario.
2. They modify the NPRM and try something a little less drastic. I do not see them doing this because even though it keeps the issue on the table, it admits that they screwed up. This administration doesn't do that very well or very often.
3. They withdraw the NPRM. This actually could happen.

If they do the first or second option, we (NFATCA) will sue them via our 4-pronged offensive detailed in our legal brief attached to our 41P comment. Where our legal battle has legs is where all of the previous efforts have failed; it the fact that we will have standing. We will take this as far as we have to in order to secure elimination of the CLEO sign offs. Make no mistake... there will be some type of background check required for the delivery of an NFA weapon to an individual or non-natural person. The NFATCA will press for the least restrictive approach that comports with the existing legislation. As we have learned, existing legislation does not allow for fingerprints and photographs of non-natural person acquisitions of NFA weapons. It does allow for background checks. I think that the best approach would be for the background check to be done via NICS or something similar at time of delivery to the/a primary responsible party. Not anyone and everyone associated with the legal entity. I'll leave the nuts and bolts to our counsel.

As for option three... It might appear to some that doing that would eliminate NFATCA standing. Not so fast. We are carefully documenting the refusal of all CLEO's in a specific jurisdiction to sign a set of NFA transfer requests. Even if the 41P NPRM is withdrawn, we intend to press the fight to eliminate CLEO.

Sounds like a solid plan.

NRA's 41P comment strongly echoes and compliments our comments and legal brief.

http://nraila.org/media/11953938/com...atf_41p_1_.pdf

Not surprisingly, we are working with the NRA in our opposition to the ATF/White House initiative.

Jeff, can you provide some insight into the level of interest NRA has shared with you in regard to supporting efforts to protect NFA owners and ownership?

Previously, it has appeared that they were perfectly willing to throw NFA under the bus as "the greater evil". Given this, I'm curious to know what level of commitment they now have to supporting NFA (and, even more so, the reason for this apparent change).

The NRA is absolutely on board with this fight. Here is a link to their official 41P comment that was filed. They are 100% in support of our efforts and many of their board members are NFA enthusiasts who are directly helping the NFATCA effort. They have also very publicly embraced us and we have been an exhibitor at their annual meetings for several years. Things change and folks are becoming "more enlightened."

While NRA may be on board with THIS fight, that doesn't mean they aren't open to another FOPA/922(o) type scenario. Reading their 41p comments is what prompted my question above.

I'm hopeful that the answer is as simple as "because NFA is now 'cool'", but the winds of change are constant, especially within our political landscape.

I'm seeing and feeling a real shift toward NFA. It is so much more mainstream with this NRA board and ILA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ExecDirector

I'm seeing and feeling a real shift toward NFA. It is so much more mainstream with this NRA board and ILA.

---

I am going to be a Debbie Downer here, but I wish I could share your optimism. I called the NRA ILA about 3 months ago inquiring about what they are doing for members like myself who are NFA collectors. The nice gentleman on the phone told me that while the NRA is committed to all pro-2nd Amendment issues, they have to pick and choose their fights. They are more concerned with fighting Bloomberg and Feinstein on the AWB and UBC-s that they can not commit much to an NFA fight.

While I am saddened by their response, I understand their position and allocation of resources.

That's not what they are telling us. Seems like we have an opportunity...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ExecDirector

That's not what they are telling us. Seems like we have an opportunity...

---

I am sure your info is better than mine. I have no doubt the guy I talked to was an intern and drew the short straw that day and had to answer phones. You guys are way more connected and probably know Chris Cox himself.

I've broken bread with him and had several meetings, both formally and informally. You will likely not be surprised that he like guns. All guns.

The wheels of the government turn *very* slowly. The regulations.gov website is still reporting that there were were only 9504 official comments received. However, we are 22 days past the closing of the comment period (that the NFATCA had officially requested an extension for) and there are still 1500+ comments yet to be posted for public review. From cursory examination, public comment/sentiment is almost universally opposed to 41P.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ExecDirector

The wheels of the government turn *very* slowly. The regulations.gov website is still reporting that there were were only 9504 official comments received. However, we are 22 days past the closing of the comment period (that the NFATCA had officially requested an extension for) and there are still 1500+ comments yet to be posted for public review. From cursory examination, public comment/sentiment is almost universally opposed to 41P.

---

I noticed that as well. However, I fear their decision is a forgone conclusion. Did the usual suspects like Mayors Against Illegal Guns (or as I call them "Illegal Mayors Against Guns") post a comment? I doubt they did. I am sure Bloomberg himself made a personal phone call to Obama about it. Who actually makes the final call on the proposal? The President? The Director of the ATF? A nameless and faceless bureaucrat?

Even though these comments only dealt with things like the proposed CLEO on trusts, could these comments help make a case for eliminating the CLEO signature on the forms for individuals too?

Still have not found any comments from the "regular" anti gun crowd orgs... As for the decision, it will come from DOJ, but is likely being directed by the White House. Our efforts to completely remove CLEO signature requirements on all forms will continue.

It looks like the American Silencer Association met with the NFA Branch in West Virginia this month and posted a blog about how they think the ATF is going to respond and how long they will take to rule on the proposed change. The entry is dated January 15th, 2014.

http://americansilencerassociation.com/blog/