{"id":2845,"date":"2013-12-04T19:53:56","date_gmt":"2013-12-05T00:53:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/monachuslex.com\/?p=2845"},"modified":"2013-12-04T19:53:56","modified_gmt":"2013-12-05T00:53:56","slug":"its-time-to-comment-on-atfs-disastrous-proposed-rulemaking","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/?p=2845","title":{"rendered":"It\u2019s time to comment on ATF\u2019s disastrous proposed rulemaking"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"ATF_Regs-244x300\"For those of you who are not familiar with the issue, the ATF is proposing to\u00a0modify<\/a>\u00a0the regulations\u00a0governing NFA applications for trusts, corporations, and other non-individual legal entities.<\/p>\n

If you are not a NFA collector, you might be tempted to ask \u201cWhy should I care?<\/em>\u201d \u00a0The answer is that the proposed rulemaking will have disastrous consequences for collectors, the firearms industry, and ultimately the Second Amendment itself.<\/p>\n

The Issue<\/strong><\/p>\n

Current ATF regulations require an individual applicant to comply with a number of requirements that \u2018legal-entity\u2019 applicants are exempt from. \u00a0The most important of these is the requirement that applicants get approval from their local chief law-enforcement officer (CLEO) before an application may be submitted. \u00a0This is known colloquially as the \u2018CLEO Sign-off.\u2019<\/p>\n

In many jurisdictions, the CLEO will not sign the form which acts as a complete and arbitrary ban on the acquisition.<\/p>\n

That\u2019s where the NFA trust (or other legal entity) comes into the picture. \u00a0Currently, legal-entity applicants do not need CLEO Sign-off. \u00a0This allows applicants in those jurisdictions where the CLEOs will not sign to avoid the de-facto ban that individual applicants face.<\/p>\n

The proposed change wants to do away with this option. \u00a0It would require that all\u00a0\u2018responsible persons\u2019 of a legal entity complete the same requirements that individual purchasers must currently complete\u00a0including the process of securing a CLEO sign off which would subject legal-entity applicants to the same arbitrary bans that CLEOs have been using against individual applicants.<\/p>\n

But it doesn\u2019t end there. \u00a0The proposed change would also require that any new \u2018responsible person\u2019 of the legal entity submit a form \u00a05320.23 along with fingerprints, photographs, and CLEO sign-off within 30 days of assuming their position with the legal entity.<\/p>\n

What Can You Do To Help?<\/strong><\/p>\n

The rulemaking process requires that the public and those affected by a proposed rule have an option to comment on the proposed rule. \u00a0This is known as the \u2018notice and comment period.\u2019 \u00a0The notice and comment period for this proposed rulemaking ends on December 9th.<\/p>\n

We need you to make your voice heard. \u00a0At the bottom of this article is a link that will take you to Regulations.gov where you may submit your own comment. \u00a0The following are suggested comments you might consider:<\/p>\n

Suggested Comment #1<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Rulemaking which imposes such a significant burden upon both citizens and industry should not be undertaken lightly. \u00a0Here, we have burdensome rulemaking which has the potential to damage or destroy segments of one of America\u2019s few growing industries and it is not based upon an identified problem. \u00a0Rather, it is based upon mere conjecture.<\/p>\n

Suggested Comment #2<\/p>\n

ATF\u2019s assertion in the proposed rulemaking that a disqualified person might form a trust or other legal entity in order to avoid undergoing a background check runs counter to current ATF directives. \u00a0Since 2009, ATF has required that the responsible party who picks up an NFA item from a dealer pursuant to an approved Form 4 and tax stamp complete a 4473 form and undergo an individual background check prior to taking possession of the NFA item.<\/p>\n

Suggested Comment #3<\/p>\n

NFA items are expensive, already heavily regulated, and virtually unheard of in criminal hands. \u00a0In fact, there have only been two crimes committed with NFA items during the last 79 years and both of those were crimes committed by law enforcement officers. \u00a0This despite the fact that there are over a quarter of a million legally owned pre-1986 machine guns in the ATF registry and untold tens of thousands of AOWs and suppressors.<\/p>\n

Suggested Comment #4<\/p>\n

The ATF stated in the proposed rulemaking that they had complied with the\u00a0Regulatory Flexibility Act. \u00a0However, there is no indication in the proposed rulemaking that the needs of small businesses were considered. Instead, the ATF took a \u2018one-size-fits-all\u2019 approach to regulating which will have a devastating impact upon the many small businesses that supply the NFA market.<\/p>\n

Suggested Comment #5<\/p>\n

The proposed rulemaking intrudes unnecessarily upon the sovereignty of states by interfering with the lawful uses of trust instruments for legitimate estate planning purposes. \u00a0In addition, the proposed rulemaking demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the many ways that a trust might be used to pass assets on to one\u2019s heirs. \u00a0By defining the term \u2018responsible person\u2019 so broadly as to include beneficiaries, one finds oneself having to contemplate the absurd possibility of fingerprinting, photographing, and securing CLEO sign-offs for unborn children.<\/p>\n

Suggested Comment #6<\/p>\n

ATF\u2019s assertion that CLEOs who had been unwilling to sign off on applications in the past would do so in the future based upon changes in the wording of the certification has been proven to be false. \u00a0When contacted, numerous CLEOs who have refused to sign in the past have stated that nothing in the new verbiage would change their mind about signing certifications in the future. \u00a0The proposed rulemaking would result in thousands of law-abiding collectors being banned from going through the very process that the ATF NFA Branch is charged with overseeing.<\/p>\n

Suggested Comment #7<\/p>\n

By requiring that any new \u2018responsible person\u2019 submit a 5320.23 as well as a CLEO sign-off within 30 days of their appointment, the proposed rulemaking radically intrudes upon the traditional uses of trusts and upon the rights of settlors to manage their estate plans.<\/p>\n

Suggested Comment #8<\/p>\n

ATF has failed to consider less intrusive forms of regulation that might accomplish the same goals. \u00a0By eliminating the CLEO sign-off and narrowing the definition of \u2018responsible person\u2019, ATF could still require fingerprints and background checks on the person primarily responsible for a legal entity application without exposing law-abiding citizens to the arbitrary and capricious CLEO sign-off ban.<\/p>\n

Suggested Comment #9<\/p>\n

Passage of this proposed rule would do nothing to enhance safety but would only place additional bureaucratic roadblocks in front of law-abiding collectors and swamp ATF staff who are already overwhelmed. \u00a0The result would be a drastic increase in the processing time for NFA applications and potentially a collapse of the booming suppressor industry.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

These are merely suggestions. \u00a0You are welcome to pick one or more of the above comments or write your own but now that you know just how significant the issue is we are facing, I urge you to head on over to the\u00a0Regulations.gov page for the proposed rulemaking<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0make your voice heard!<\/p>\n

Thank you!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

For those of you who are not familiar with the issue, the ATF is proposing to\u00a0modify\u00a0the regulations\u00a0governing NFA applications for trusts, corporations, and other non-individual legal entities. If you are not a NFA collector, you might be tempted to ask … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[5,6,7,13,139,145,138,150],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2845","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-abuse-of-discretion","category-abuse-of-power","category-administrative-regulations","category-batfe","category-class-iii","category-due-process","category-nfa","category-regulatory-rulemaking"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2845","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=2845"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2845\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2846,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2845\/revisions\/2846"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2845"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2845"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/monachuslex.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2845"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}