URGENT ACTION ITEM: Contact BATFE to oppose regulation change

Rimfaxe · Dec 5, 2013

Time is almost up on contacting the BATFE on a proposed change to the rules for Class III items (machine guns, silencers, short barreled rifles, etc.) The proposed rule change could make the already difficult task of getting a tax stamp to purchase a Class III item even more difficult.

We need to stop this totally unnecessary rule change.

EM John Pierce has put together a web page that explains the urgency of contacting BATFE, provides sample cut-and-paste text, and makes it a snap to respond to the proposal.

Here is the link to John's web page:

http://johnpierceesq.com/?p=389

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=ATF-2013-0001-0001

Ryanxia · Dec 5, 2013

Good to know, I thought the comment period ended a while ago even though they didn't exactly do it properly.

They were also discussing raising the tax stamp from $200 to $500, but maybe that's been taken out.

Tedzilla · Dec 5, 2013

It's important to oppose this 'modification' even if you don't currently have plans to exercise your right to own a Class 3 NFA item. We can't sit on our hands when our rights are being attacked by a highly organized, politically connected and well financed anti-constitutional movement.

Telekinesis · Dec 5, 2013

They were also discussing raising the tax stamp from $200 to $500, but maybe that's been taken out.

That would require an act of congress as the $200 tax is codified in the original legislation. The ATF has no ability to actually change the law itself.

We can't sit on our hands when our rights are being attacked by a highly organized, politically connected and well financed anti-constitutional movement.

Umm... The original proposal that started all this was made by the NFATCA, a group of NFA collectors

We have met the enemy, and he is us.

And the weapons are actually Title 2 weapons. "Class 3" is just a tax designation for dealers.

Akita1 · Dec 5, 2013

Does anyone know why the heck the NFATCA would suggest CLEO signoff for NFA trusts? Isn't that (part of) the point of using a trust in a difficult CLEO environment? Have poked around a bit but cannot find any legitimate reason for this petition by NFATCA.

Telekinesis · Dec 5, 2013

Does anyone know why the heck the NFATCA would suggest CLEO signoff for NFA trusts? Isn't that (part of) the point of using a trust in a difficult CLEO environment? Have poked around a bit but cannot find any legitimate reason for this petition by NFATCA.

My understanding is that the NFATCA was trying to remove the CLEO sign off for individuals and recommended that trustees be background checked as a compromise/sacrificial lamb. I'm pretty sure the conversation went like this:

NFATCA: "People are using trusts to get around the CLEO signoff, so individuals shouldn't have to get CLEO signoffs either (and you can background check those silly trust people)."

ATF: "By golly you're right! People ARE using trusts to get around the CLEO signoff! They should have to get CLEO signoffs too!"

Granted there's a lot more detail in there, but that's the 5 second recap.

Rimfaxe · Dec 5, 2013

that guy was a sell out.

Akita1 · Dec 6, 2013

Telekinesis said:
My understanding is that the NFATCA was trying to remove the CLEO sign off for individuals and recommended that trustees be background checked as a compromise/sacrificial lamb. I'm pretty sure the conversation went like this:

NFATCA: "People are using trusts to get around the CLEO signoff, so individuals shouldn't have to get CLEO signoffs either (and you can background check those silly trust people)."

ATF: "By golly you're right! People ARE using trusts to get around the CLEO signoff! They should have to get CLEO signoffs too!"

Granted there's a lot more detail in there, but that's the 5 second recap.

Thanks. I emailed him yesterday after reading the original petition and made a comment that his language was a bit broad so maybe that is why there is so much confusion out there amongst the laity. I insinuated that he didn't just get used, he actually started the fire and BATFE poured gasoline on it. Needless to say his response was less than agreeable.

Rimfaxe · Dec 6, 2013

A sad testiment to our resolve....

The White House press release attempts to justify this proposal by asserting that in 2012 alone, BATFE “received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations.” Yet BATFE does not cite even one instance in which any of those registered firearms was used to commit a crime.

NOW: go to this website and see the sad news: http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=ATF-2013-0001

Scroll down a bit and look at the Comments section:

Comments View All (3,745)

So more than 90% of the people who requested transfers using an NFA Trust in the past year have not bothered to comment on this legislation.

Why is there not more action on this topic? At the very least they should have received a letter from their Trust attorney requesting action. All I can say is What the hell is wrong with people? Honestly, it disgusts and depresses me.

Rimfaxe · Dec 6, 2013

Is this a lost cause? Where are the sheepdogs?

The NRA had one article from September 6, http://www.nraila.org/legislation/f...nfa-background-check-proposal.aspx?s=&st=&ps=

and not a peep from them since. I don't see anything. If you call the NRAILA office line, the recording says the office is closed (on Friday at 9:30 ET?).

the GOA site also has nothing. A note to them received the response: "Thanks for the advice." And no link on their website or call to action.

So after posting my comments here and on the gov't website, all that's left to do is to bend over and feel the change....again.

smogmage · Dec 6, 2013

Okay so I oppose this rule change and have watched the comments grow and grow. Comparatively I believe there is drastically more opposition to this rule change vs. the other regulation changes I have viewed.

My question is under what obligation are they to read all the comments and what weight exactly do they have on stopping this power grab?

Ryanxia · Dec 6, 2013

A couple of things:
Perhaps the NRA and other organizers haven't done much because this isn't a law that can be voted on, it will just be decided by the ATF from what it seems.
Without these organizations being vocal most people don't even know about this whole thing. I myself thought the comment period ended over a month ago and others I talk to all just give me a blank look because they had no clue this is even going on.

Queen_of_Thunder · Dec 6, 2013

Well it would be nice to see an analysis on any proposed or pending gun legislation or rule making. Would help for sure.

Rimfaxe · Dec 6, 2013

So where are they? AWOL!

I'll bet you that if Bloomberg's MAIG saw this they would have 100K comments supporting this 'common sense' approach. This fact that after 90 days this thing is sitting there with less than four thousand comments speaks to how our so called sheppards of 2nd Amendment Rights prioritze their work. The most efficient part of these operations is the telephone solicitation, junk mail begging, and the lightning fast credit card processing and check cashing. The half dozen pro 2A organizations that I actively support have done next to nothing to publicize and encourage action on this issue. The infrastructure is already in place. all it takes is some space on a website and a couple of links.

What gives here?

MErl · Dec 7, 2013

Pretty sure the vast majority see this process as a rubber stamp. Not even worth the time to comment as the decision is already made.

wacki · Dec 7, 2013

Pretty sure the vast majority see this process as a rubber stamp. Not even worth the time to comment as the decision is already made.

I can't stand this kind of Milquetoast mentality. So many of your ilk would rather spend hours convincing others to quietly surrender their rights than spend 30 seconds writing a pro-freedom email to senators and congressman.

Sol · Dec 7, 2013

I would pay a $500 tax stamp....if I could get an nfa item in a "reasonable" amount of time...like 3 days.

MErl · Dec 7, 2013

wacki said:
I can't stand this kind of Milquetoast mentality. So many of your ilk would rather spend hours convincing others to quietly surrender their rights than spend 30 seconds writing a pro-freedom email to senators and congressman.

Never said I did not comment. I said the comments, in this case, are meaningless. NFATCA tried to bargain with the devil and lost.

plodder · Dec 7, 2013

Did it

wacki · Dec 7, 2013

Merl said:
Never said I did not comment. I said the comments, in this case, are meaningless. NFATCA tried to bargain with the devil and lost.

Doubling down on the "can't do anything" attitude?

You could of said "go ahead and submit, but don't spend a lot of time on this". Instead you opted for the "Not even worth the time to comment as the decision is already made." You gave no support to the cause whatsoever. Every single key stroke you made was an effort to tell others to surrender. Not one keystroke offered support.

It takes about one minute to comment. You and I have already spent more time debating than most people take to comment. Also, I know plenty of lawyers that believe it is worth the time to comment. Even if the current president won't listen, the next one may. If we get a large number of comments, someone important will definitely listen. Zero comments will simply empower the anti-gunners.

If you read the forum rules your "not worth the time" attitude is strictly forbidden. From the sticky:

This is the place to co-ordinate, not to talk somebody else out of doing anything. If you cop a defeatist attitude in this forum, we’ll boot you.

TheHighRoad is known for it's heavy moderation. I wish comments like yours were heavily moderated and people displaying your attitude were quickly booted (temporarily from the activism forum). Comments like yours are explicitly forbidden after all. And debates like this are a frequent waste of time.

btg3 · Dec 8, 2013

Tedzilla said:
... your right to own a Class 3 NFA item. We can't sit on our hands when our rights are being attacked by a highly organized, politically connected and well financed anti-constitutional movement.

As heavily regulated/infringed as guns are, and especially NFA hardware, at what point do we consider that we have arrived at a government-granted privledge, rather than a right?

To go a step further, when do we go on the offensive to re-establish our full un-infringed rights rather take a defensive posture from the corner into which we've been driven?

wacki · Dec 8, 2013

Why is there not more action on this topic? At the very least they should have received a letter from their Trust attorney requesting action. All I can say is What the hell is wrong with people? Honestly, it disgusts and depresses me.

If it wasn't for SilencerTalk, I wouldn't of known. I haven't received one letter / notice from my trust attorney... and he's one of the most popular. I've ordered direct from silencer companies and I haven't heard a peep from them either. The ASA is a new organization with extremely limited funds. I suspect we are a victim of a fledgling industry that doesn't have the critical mass to raise the funds for community organizing.

in 2012 alone, BATFE “received more than 39,000 requests for transfers of these restricted firearms to trusts or corporations.” So more than 90% of the people who requested transfers using an NFA Trust in the past year have not bothered to comment on this legislation.

No. It's not a 1:1 ratio. I put in 14 requests in the last year. If everyone did that (unlikely) then there's only 2,785 people available to comment. In which case we are doing extremely well.

URGENT ACTION ITEM: Contact BATFE to oppose regulation change

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Similar threads