AlexanderA said:
Now, however, -- I just read the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking -- we get the worst possible result. The CLEO signoff stays, and now it will apply to all entities -- individuals, trusts, corps, etc. Each "responsible party" of a trust or corp will have to submit a separate form containing the CLEO signature, photo, and fingerprints. If "responsible parties" are later changed or added, this new form will have to be submitted within 30 days of the change.
Somebody showed bad faith, and I don't think it was the ATF. Reading the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, it looks like the change was made at the last minute. Holder's office and the White House are to blame for this. All I can say is that we should flood them with comments during the 90-day comment period (as if it will do any good).
Yeah I noticed the difference from what they have wanted for some years now too.
The ATF has been wanting to get rid of trusts for awhile. Offering to remove CLEO signoff if the public would agree. So it is an issue that would have been on the minds of people in the ATF.
However the ATF did not have an acting director and I don't know who was briefing the president or his cabinet on behalf of the ATF at the time.
They also were under scrutiny for the Fast and Furious and not in a position to be creating more disliked legislation.
However in July an ATF director was confirmed for the first time in years (and it would only be a formality to be sworn in after so he likely started working then) and just sworn in.
This has come less than a month later.
The new people briefing the president or his cabinet, potentially that new director or his staff, is likely who brought this issue to the attention of the presidential candidate and actually got changes proposed. Changes that removed the pro-gun aspect because they are much more confident now that higher ups are on thier side.
It likely was on thier radar because others in the ATF were grumbling about it already, they have been proposing it for a long time.
With a new director and staff and likely restructuring there is new people between the president and the ATF, and it appears they are more favorable with using ATF expertise in firearm regulations to help Obama figure out ways of increasing firearm restrictions.
Otherwise it is unlikely something as mundane as trusts and the NFA would even be well known to the President.
It is a relatively obscure area of law pertaining to a minority of the population and is not on the radar of the average citizen.
Someone new has been briefing the president or his legal advisors and shined a spotlight on this issue and got the big guys to push for change.
Someone in the ATF helped the presidential legal advisors understand there was some more anti gun actions that could be taken with high chance of success and little challenge through mere regulatory changes and reinterpretation of existing law.
Also being an obscure thing most of the public is unaware of and that impacts a small population it is unlikely to result in rallying opposition and congressional action.