Proposed ATF rule changes

[sawdeanz]

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

http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?pubId=201504&RIN=1140-AA23


Anyone else pick up on this? Two changes that are proposed to be passed in December that relate to NFA are to clarify the definition of pistol, and the other to require individual requirements (like fingerprint, CLEO sig. etc.) for trusts. The worst part is it would also require other members of the trust to go through the same process. This could not come at a worse time for me as I try to build my first SBR. I was planning on taking my time but now I feel like I've got to spend my money faster to get a trust set up and forms sent off to ATF.

Once word gets out do you think wait times will shoot up again?

 

[Phaedrus/69]

I dunno. Last year the rumor was trusts were going away. We'll have to wait and see. I'm kind of in the same boat, set my trust up early this year and am just getting started on research. My goal is to apply for at least one SBR stamp within the next few weeks and hopefully buy my first suppressor within the next few months.

 

[Ed Ames]

Any organized effort to push back against these? Looking at them the comment period for the pistol one ended in 2005!

A lot of people would be negatively impacted by the trust change.

 

[Elkins45]

The NFA rule is the 2013 proposal, it has just taken this long to get to the final rulemaking stage. "As proposed" it does all the stuff listed, but there was so much commentary against it that it has taken this long for all the comments to be addressed. It will be interesting to see if the overwhelming opposition has any impact or if they just plowed ahead and the public comment be damned.

 

[greyling22]

so if you had a preexisting trust would you be grandfathered in? or would you have to have all the people on it get photo'd, fingerprinted, etc after the fact?

 

[Gtscotty]

I saw the article concerning this Dec 2015 date on TTAG, but couldn't find any other sources stating whether the date was new, or had been on the ATFs page since the original rule proposal. If the date is new, I might need to move my plans forward.

As for whether the ATF will take all the negative comments info consideration.... I wouldn't count on it, I'm pretty sure they are just checking their legally required boxes with the comment period, and that they were told from the top that this change was going through right from the beginning.

 

[Ryanxia]

so if you had a preexisting trust would you be grandfathered in? or would you have to have all the people on it get photo'd, fingerprinted, etc after the fact?

Anything you already have approved will be fine. If you submit for another NFA item all trustees would need to meet those requirements if passed as is.

From the link it looks like Gtscotty said but it says 'planning to finalize' and the date of publication says Spring 2015 so it sounds like they are charging ahead. I wonder if everyone who already has an item submitted and pending approval will get rejected or if it will count for submittals after the date of enactment.

Edit: Just reread what Gtscotty said about that date being their original projected date or if its new. Good question.

 

[Aaron Baker]

ATF 41P has been around for a while now. It was a proposed rule change for trusts that would require fingerprints and photographs for all "responsible persons" on the trust. It would not do away with trusts. The ATF cannot unilaterally do away with trusts.

During the comment period, the ATF received something like 9000 comments. They are going through those, and had projected May 2015 as a date to be finished. They're running behind.

http://blog.princelaw.com/2015/04/1...sions-by-atf-at-the-nra-firearms-law-seminar/

According to the folks in the know, it's looking like any decision on 41P is delayed at least another 6 months.

Once word gets out do you think wait times will shoot up again?

Word is already out. You're just not in the loop on this. It was a big deal when it first came out, but has dragged on and isn't being talked about as much. A lot more people jumped in on getting a trust when they first heard. But wait times didn't suffer much because the ATF has been adding new employees and cross-training people to reduce NFA application backlogs. And they're doing a decent job of it. Wait times have shortened in the past few years.

Last year the rumor was trusts were going away.

A bad rumor based on a complete misunderstanding of what the ATF was proposing to do and what they even have the power to do. Trusts are never going away. They might just have to meet the same requirements as individuals (albeit with extra paperwork for extra trustees). It's still the best option for legally sharing possession of an NFA firearms among multiple people, and that isn't going to change.

so if you had a preexisting trust would you be grandfathered in?

The ATF is regulating the approval process for tax stamps. If your stamp is already approved, there's nothing to grandfather. They can't retroactively require you to do more work. You've already got the stamp.

Already having a trust doesn't mean anything, on the other hand. You have to already have the stamps with it. (Or, possibly, have some in process. They will probably "grandfather" any applications that are in process at the time of the rule change because to do otherwise would be a huge paperwork nightmare and create a ton more backlog.)

Going forward, if the rule changes, the new rules would apply to any new applications for new tax stamps, no matter whether you got your trust before or after the rule changed.

The sky isn't falling. No changes have happened yet. They may never happen, but at least not for another 6 months.

Aaron

 

[sawdeanz]

Word is already out. You're just not in the loop on this. It was a big deal when it first came out, but has dragged on and isn't being talked about as much.

Fair enough. I was familiar with the m855 proposal but apparently not all of the ATF's shenanigans. Now that I have a reason to I'm definitely going to be paying attention to it, and getting my paperwork in asap.

 

[Aaron Baker]

The "armor piercing" ammo reclassification is certainly working in our favor as far as slowing down the regulatory process.

What I always tell clients is, whether you're worried about a rule change or not, the sooner you get your paperwork submitted, the sooner you'll get through the wait time and be able to shoot your NFA firearms! There's many a person who wished they'd pulled the trigger on submitting a tax stamp six months ago, so that they'd already be shooting!

Aaron

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The trust thing has been going on since September 2013. ATF received thousands of comments and still hasn't replied to the issues raised during the comment period so the implementation date keeps getting pushed back.

The pistol changes have to do with pen guns, disguised guns, and AOWs.

 

[Swing]

Hey pallies. Some good news on 41P: Amendment to Block Executive Action ATF 41P Passes U.S. House

 

[Ed Ames]

So this, if it becomes law, would still allow AtF to require photos and fingerprints, but block the CLEO sign-off requirement portion of 41P?

 

[Ryanxia]

So this, if it becomes law, would still allow AtF to require photos and fingerprints, but block the CLEO sign-off requirement portion of 41P?

I believe it blocks 41P all together but wouldn't mind a confirmation on that.

 

[JSH1]

Hey pallies. Some good news on 41P: Amendment to Block Executive Action ATF 41P Passes U.S. House

The House is as far as this bill will go. No way it gets 60 votes in the Senate or it gets signed by the President.

 

[Ed Ames]

The House is as far as this bill will go. No way it gets 60 votes in the Senate or it gets signed by the President.

Sounded like this was an amendment to another bill. That's the same tool used to get this president to sign for national park carry in 2009, right? So it isn't completely hopeless.

 

[Swing]

Sounded like this was an amendment to another bill.

It is an amendment to the Commerce, Justice, Science (CJS) Appropriations Bill (H.R. 2578).

 

[JSH1]

Sounded like this was an amendment to another bill. That's the same tool used to get this president to sign for national park carry in 2009, right? So it isn't completely hopeless.

No, it isn't completely hopeless. However, the Senate is a more difficult chamber to get things through than the House.

It does seem to be a lot of work to simply maintain the status quo. Why not be a little bolder and remove suppressors from the NFA category altogether?

 

[Ed Ames]

I like the way you think.

 

[Aaron Baker]

I believe it blocks 41P all together but wouldn't mind a confirmation on that.

It doesn't, unfortunately. I'm not sure why. Seems like the American Suppressor Association could have lobbied for language that would have prevented all of 41P. Instead, the language only pertains to CLEO sign-off changes.

Here's the language passed by the House:

Sec. 548. 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).

Bear in mind that this is the appropriations bill that creates funding for the ATF, among other agencies. So they are preventing agency action by forbidding the funds to be spent on particular activities.

Despite not blocking all of 41P, I see this as good for a few reasons. First, it's a pretty minor amendment to the bill, and so it may actually pass the Senate in this form. Second, if it does, it stops any CLEO signoff changes. Third, if half of 41P is gutted, maybe it's less likely to be enacted.

Update: it also contains this language:

Sec. 553. None of the funds made available by this Act may be used to treat any M855 (5.56 mm x 45 mm) or SS109 type ammunition as armor piercing ammunition for purposes of chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code.

That's good for what it actually does. But one of the things preventing action on 41P was that the ATF was dealing with all of the comments on the M855 proposal, so it may be that the net result of this bill, if it passes in this form, is that it stops the CLEO signoff changes, but speeds up the enactment of the other 41P changes. That's just speculation, though. We'll have to wait and see.

Aaron

 

[JSH1]

It doesn't, unfortunately. I'm not sure why. Seems like the American Suppressor Association could have lobbied for language that would have prevented all of 41P. Instead, the language only pertains to CLEO sign-off changes.

Is anyone serious trying to get suppressors removed for the list of NFA items? It would seem that the American Suppressor Association would be trying but they don't list that as one of their goals.

Of course that does make business sense. Suppressors only sell for crazy prices because they are produced in low volumes by small manufacturers. If suppressors suddenly became legal without a tax stamp and the major gun manufacturers jumped into the market prices would tumble and the existing manufactures would likely go under.

 

[waterhouse]

Suppressors only sell for crazy prices because they are produced in low volumes by small manufacturers. If suppressors suddenly became legal without a tax stamp and the major gun manufacturers jumped into the market prices would tumble and the existing manufactures would likely go under.

I'd be willing to bet that suppressor companies would love for them to be non-NFA items. There is already $200 of built in "buffer" if you get rid of the tax stamp cost, and the number of people who would buy a suppressor without the current hassles would probably skyrocket. Lower margins, but I think there would be enough increase in sales to keep them profitable.

 

[JSH1]

I'd be willing to bet that suppressor companies would love for them to be non-NFA items. There is already $200 of built in "buffer" if you get rid of the tax stamp cost, and the number of people who would buy a suppressor without the current hassles would probably skyrocket. Lower margins, but I think there would be enough increase in sales to keep them profitable.

Does the advertised price include the manufacturer getting the $200 tax stamp and doing the paperwork for the customer?

I see suppressors advertised for $500 to $1500 in the USA. I then look at pictures of the internals and see a device that costs less than $100 to manufacture. I look at prices of suppressors in the UK and find them ranging from $75 for a .22LR to $600 for a 300 Win Mag. Why can suppressor manufactures in the USA charge so much more than those in the UK? The difference is way more than $200.

 

[Swing]

Is anyone serious trying to get suppressors removed for the list of NFA items?

None that I am aware of, though if anyone knows of one, I'm all ears too. Though I notice the NRA has started to run more pro-suppressor articles in their publications.

Does the advertised price include the manufacturer getting the $200 tax stamp and doing the paperwork for the customer?

Generally no. The customer pays the tax stamp. If you are meaning actually building the can, there is no per-item tax, but the manufacturer pays an annual $1,000 fee to be so licensed (SOT).

 

[JSH1]

That's what I thought. The $200 tax stamp is on top of the greatly inflated price for a suppressor. The inflated pricing has kept me out of the market more than the tax stamp.

The $1000 manufacturer license is peanuts to anyone that can afford the CNC equipment required to manufacture suppressors in any volume.

Here is a link to some UK suppressors and an interesting video on the manufacturing. On the prices: right now it take 1.5 US Dollars to buy a British Pound. Prices in the UK (and most of the world) are the final price including all taxes.

http://www.valmontfirearms.co.uk/soundmoderators.html