Articles Posted in ATF / BATFE

While ATF could change, what is published, they have updated their Unified Agenda Statement for 41P to show that Final Action is not expected until June of 2014.

This date could continue to roll forward or with enough political pressure the date could be moved up. The June date should be thought of a target date that may or may not change as we get closer to it. You might think of it like “average life expectancy”. You could die sooner, you could die at the average age, or you could live many years longer than the average. Also, it is important to remember that just because we hit an implementation date does not give us any better idea of what may be implemented.

.

Joshua Prince and Tom Odom have put together over 400 pages of comments and exhibits. Below are the broad topics that their extensive comment covers. If you enjoy reading about the Second Amendment, you will enjoy the extensive research and history that is included in this document. Joshua said they were able to shave off 40 or 50 pages by incorporating my comments by reference. I have included their conclusion below for you to read.

1. PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES HAVE DENIED INTERESTED PERSONS A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING
2. ATF’S PROPOSED RULE RAISES IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

The NFATCA has posted a comment to 41p, requested a hearing and has some unusual arguments claiming must of the proposals and even some of the current procedure is not authorized by congress. IN addition, they have an interesting Legal Memorandum prepared by Stephen Halbrook that’s worth taking a look at.

His memo covers

I. NO AUTHORITY EXISTS TO REQUIRE FINGERPRINTS AND PHOTOGRAPHS OF “RESPONSIBLE PERSONS” OF TRUSTS AND OTHER ARTIFICIAL PERSONS

One of Clients has submitted a comment to 41P and given us permission to post a copy as it is not likely that it will appear on the published comments before the time to respond has closed. You may want to use parts of this comment to help you express your personal experiences or situation.

In summary, this comment discusses

• ATF has failed to show any real benefits from its proposed rule;

Below Summary of the issues covered in Attorney Glenn Bellamy’s 41P comments and exhibits:

1. The Requirement of a local CLEO certification is not statutory in origin and exceeds the ATF’s statutory authority, making the proposed regulations vulnerable to attack.
2. The regulatory requirement of a local CLEO certification imposes a discretionary third party approval that exceeds the statutory authority.

In response to 41P we have asked others to send and inquiry to their local police to determine if ATF’s proposed changed to the CLEO signature would make a difference in the policy to provide or not to provide signatures on Form 1 or Form 4 applications. Below is the type of response we are looking for to provide in future comments to the ATF. If you have received a response from your local police department, please print a copy of your inquiry, the response and draft a short verified statement telling your story . Sign it under penalty of perjury and then send it to us to be submitted in additional comments that are being prepared.

Response from Orlando Police Orlando-police-letter.pdf

Tuesday, October 22, 2013 2:25 PM Dear Mr. Myers:

ATF is answering their phones and the electronic filing is back online at http://www.atfonline.gov.

ATF reported today that they the payments are back online as of 10/22 but previously reported that they are having problems with the payments. In an email they reported:

This is to advise that ATF eForms is experiencing issues with the pay.gov link that prevents the filing of taxpaid eForms 1 and 4. The pay.gov function had to move to a secondary site last week due to some of its own issues. ATF’s firewall security is preventing communications to this secondary site from within eForms. We are in the process of working with the Department of Justice to allow the ATF firewall to communicate with the pay.gov secondary site.