User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 12:26:04 PM EDT
[#1]
This may be what saves the eForms effort:
4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 1:29:47 PM EDT
[#2]
OST to get busy writing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 1:38:04 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This may be what saves the eForms effort: Quote HistoryQuoted:
This may be what saves the eForms effort: 4. Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. This. We need to ask questions about how these forms can be done electronically to comply with the governments mandate to reduce paper and clutter. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 4:45:37 PM EDT
[#4]
The forms have gone live. Download them while they're hot (and before they change them again).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/18/2016 11:46:49 PM EDT
[#5]
Thanks for posting this op. I nitpick forms for a living, so I'll do everything I can on these...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:36:30 AM EDT
[#6]
Question- do other people have to submit fingerprints to use their rights granted in the constitution?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:38:28 AM EDT
[#7]
Has anyone found the new 5320.23 Responsible Person form yet? I've only seen older draft versions with the old CLEO signoff.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 4:48:04 AM EDT
[#8]
Nvm found the definition of responsible person.
Photograph and Fingerprints. An individual maker (including any Federally licensed collector who is an individual but not any other type of Federal rearms licensee) must (1) attach to each copy in item 12 of the ATF Form 1, a 2 inch x 2 inch photograph of his/her frontal view taken within one year prior to the date of the application.  ill give them a frontal view of something
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 11:45:25 AM EDT
[#9]
Sent an email at 9:01 PM last night and had a response at 8:44 AM this morning. Did not realize they would be emailing me back, thought they would just read it and throw my questions in a pile and answer all the questions at once.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 11:58:57 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sent an email at 9:01 PM last night and had a response at 8:44 AM this morning. Did not realize they would be emailing me back, thought they would just read it and throw my questions in a pile and answer all the questions at once. You got a response? Mind if I ask what the response said? Was it an answer to your comment or acknowledgment of receipt? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 12:34:03 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You got a response? Mind if I ask what the response said? Was it an answer to your comment or acknowledgment of receipt? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Sent an email at 9:01 PM last night and had a response at 8:44 AM this morning. Did not realize they would be emailing me back, thought they would just read it and throw my questions in a pile and answer all the questions at once. You got a response? Mind if I ask what the response said? Was it an answer to your comment or acknowledgment of receipt? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 6:12:52 PM EDT
[#12]
Tag. As a owner of class 3 items I'll be writing in over the weekend.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 8:08:34 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Trading one freedom for another is not how we win. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
It makes it easier for individuals why should I care? I got mine.
Trading one freedom for another is not how we win. How is it trading freedome? ATF rule 41 does not prevent making or acquisition of firearms (as defined) by business entities (including trusts), nor does it preclude trusts or other business entities from having multiple authorized possessors. What rule 41 does do is take reasonable steps to prevent facially lawful possession of firearms by prohibited persons and remove burden found by many individuals to be insurmountable (which was impetus for most business entity registrations in the first place). I |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 8:33:39 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It makes it easier for individuals why should I care? I got mine.
Trading one freedom for another is not how we win. Don't waste your breath trying to explain it to the bootlicks. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 8:37:23 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How is it trading freedome? ATF rule 41 does not prevent making or acquisition of firearms (as defined) by business entities (including trusts), nor does it preclude trusts or other business entities from having multiple authorized possessors. What rule 41 does do is take reasonable steps to prevent facially lawful possession of firearms by prohibited persons and remove burden found by many individuals to be insurmountable (which was impetus for most business entity registrations in the first place). I Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
It makes it easier for individuals why should I care? I got mine.
Trading one freedom for another is not how we win. How is it trading freedome? ATF rule 41 does not prevent making or acquisition of firearms (as defined) by business entities (including trusts), nor does it preclude trusts or other business entities from having multiple authorized possessors. What rule 41 does do is take reasonable steps to prevent facially lawful possession of firearms by prohibited persons and remove burden found by many individuals to be insurmountable (which was impetus for most business entity registrations in the first place). I It kills eForms. It increases the processing time for forms. It adds extra time and expense to prepare each form for submission. (Photographs and getting fingerprinted is not free) It forces me to share a tax record (Form 1) with a local law enforcement official that has no right to said tax record. BATFE deflects any request for information about NFA applications (see Nolo's cases or the numerous failed FOIA attempts) because they are tax records, yet they are now requiring my trust to submit private tax records to CLEO. It requires detailed personal information about all responsible persons to be sent to CLEO. The privacy that should come with having a trust, LLC, company, partnership, or corporation, in terms of the members of said entity, is destroyed by 41F. What protection do we have that our CLEO won't disclose this information publicly? What protection do we have that our CLEO won't use this information in a manner inconsistent with basic privacy practices or detrimental to the responsible person? Will they protect this information properly? What happens when the CLEO has a information breach and every NFA form for their jurisdiction is compromised? There is nothing reasonable about this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 8:49:08 PM EDT
[#16]
We should be fighting this new rule every possibility we can get, like someone said earlier, it will be much easier to remove the sign off than getting rid of these new requirements once they are in effect. Our ultimate goal should be to abolish the NFA. But for those saying big woop, makes it easier for me so why should I care/ I actually do support this, you sound like the fudds who say why would you need a semi auto. We need to stand together, there are enough people out there waiting for their chance to rips us and our rights apart.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/19/2016 8:51:24 PM EDT
[#17]
Double post.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 1:38:48 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It kills eForms. It increases the processing time for forms. It adds extra time and expense to prepare each form for submission. (Photographs and getting fingerprinted is not free) It forces me to share a tax record (Form 1) with a local law enforcement official that has no right to said tax record. BATFE deflects any request for information about NFA applications (see Nolo's cases or the numerous failed FOIA attempts) because they are tax records, yet they are now requiring my trust to submit private tax records to CLEO. It requires detailed personal information about all responsible persons to be sent to CLEO. The privacy that should come with having a trust, LLC, company, partnership, or corporation, in terms of the members of said entity, is destroyed by 41F. What protection do we have that our CLEO won't disclose this information publicly? What protection do we have that our CLEO won't use this information in a manner inconsistent with basic privacy practices or detrimental to the responsible person? Will they protect this information properly? What happens when the CLEO has a information breach and every NFA form for their jurisdiction is compromised? There is nothing reasonable about this. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: How is it trading freedome?
ATF rule 41 does not prevent making or acquisition of firearms (as defined) by business entities (including trusts), nor does it preclude trusts or other business entities from having multiple authorized possessors. What rule 41 does do is take reasonable steps to prevent facially lawful possession of firearms by prohibited persons and remove burden found by many individuals to be insurmountable (which was impetus for most business entity registrations in the first place). I It kills eForms. It increases the processing time for forms. It adds extra time and expense to prepare each form for submission. (Photographs and getting fingerprinted is not free) It forces me to share a tax record (Form 1) with a local law enforcement official that has no right to said tax record. BATFE deflects any request for information about NFA applications (see Nolo's cases or the numerous failed FOIA attempts) because they are tax records, yet they are now requiring my trust to submit private tax records to CLEO. It requires detailed personal information about all responsible persons to be sent to CLEO. The privacy that should come with having a trust, LLC, company, partnership, or corporation, in terms of the members of said entity, is destroyed by 41F. What protection do we have that our CLEO won't disclose this information publicly? What protection do we have that our CLEO won't use this information in a manner inconsistent with basic privacy practices or detrimental to the responsible person? Will they protect this information properly? What happens when the CLEO has a information breach and every NFA form for their jurisdiction is compromised? There is nothing reasonable about this. I've highlighted the portions from both of you I find incorrect, or correct. 41f DOESN'T prevent prohibited persons from being added to a trust. It only prevents them from being a member of the trust when a new stamp is applied for. It does make filing by an individual much easier. Photographs and fingerprints are free. Have a cell phone? BATFE will mail you the fingerprint cards, and anyone can take the fingerprints. 41f DOESN'T require detailed personal information about ALL responsible persons to be sent to CLEO - only those in the trust @ the time of the stamp application. Those added to the trust after the stamp is approved need no further notification to CLEO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 2:03:55 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've highlighted the portions from both of you I find incorrect, or correct. 41f DOESN'T prevent prohibited persons from being added to a trust. It only prevents them from being a member of the trust when a new stamp is applied for. It does make filing by an individual much easier. Photographs and fingerprints are free. Have a cell phone? BATFE will mail you the fingerprint cards, and anyone can take the fingerprints. 41f DOESN'T require detailed personal information about ALL responsible persons to be sent to CLEO - only those in the trust @ the time of the stamp application. Those added to the trust after the stamp is approved need no further notification to CLEO. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted: How is it trading freedome?
ATF rule 41 does not prevent making or acquisition of firearms (as defined) by business entities (including trusts), nor does it preclude trusts or other business entities from having multiple authorized possessors. What rule 41 does do is take reasonable steps to prevent facially lawful possession of firearms by prohibited persons and remove burden found by many individuals to be insurmountable (which was impetus for most business entity registrations in the first place). I It kills eForms. It increases the processing time for forms. It adds extra time and expense to prepare each form for submission. (Photographs and getting fingerprinted is not free) It forces me to share a tax record (Form 1) with a local law enforcement official that has no right to said tax record. BATFE deflects any request for information about NFA applications (see Nolo's cases or the numerous failed FOIA attempts) because they are tax records, yet they are now requiring my trust to submit private tax records to CLEO. It requires detailed personal information about all responsible persons to be sent to CLEO. The privacy that should come with having a trust, LLC, company, partnership, or corporation, in terms of the members of said entity, is destroyed by 41F. What protection do we have that our CLEO won't disclose this information publicly? What protection do we have that our CLEO won't use this information in a manner inconsistent with basic privacy practices or detrimental to the responsible person? Will they protect this information properly? What happens when the CLEO has a information breach and every NFA form for their jurisdiction is compromised? There is nothing reasonable about this. I've highlighted the portions from both of you I find incorrect, or correct. 41f DOESN'T prevent prohibited persons from being added to a trust. It only prevents them from being a member of the trust when a new stamp is applied for. It does make filing by an individual much easier. Photographs and fingerprints are free. Have a cell phone? BATFE will mail you the fingerprint cards, and anyone can take the fingerprints. 41f DOESN'T require detailed personal information about ALL responsible persons to be sent to CLEO - only those in the trust @ the time of the stamp application. Those added to the trust after the stamp is approved need no further notification to CLEO. I'm tired of this bullshit about adding and removing trustees just to file a fucking Form 1 or Form 4. A trust is a legal entity designed to provide a well organized and efficient means of utilizing and benefiting from property, and in the case of death to convey property to others outside of probate and with the least hassle or delay. It is not a fucking favorites list or speed dial setting on your phone. I don't want to have to remove a trustee from my trust unless death or grave and unforgivable personal events make doing so necessary. I do not want a second to go by where my trust is not setup as intended to provide the greatest benefit and easiest conveyance of the property in the trust to the trustees and beneficiaries of the trust. This isn't a fucking game, and I'm getting tired of hearing the virtues of various workarounds and cheat codes being presented as reasons to accept this unlawful and unnecessary change. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 2:20:27 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: This isn't a fucking game, and I'm getting tired of hearing the virtues of various workarounds and cheat codes being presented as reasons to accept this unlawful and unnecessary change. Unfortunately, it is lawful. BATFE is the agency charged by Congress to administer the NFA, by regulation, and enforcing those regulations. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 2:27:59 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unfortunately, it is lawful. BATFE is the agency charged by Congress to administer the NFA, by regulation, and enforcing those regulations. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted: This isn't a fucking game, and I'm getting tired of hearing the virtues of various workarounds and cheat codes being presented as reasons to accept this unlawful and unnecessary change. Unfortunately, it is lawful. BATFE is the agency charged by Congress to administer the NFA, by regulation, and enforcing those regulations. I will find grounds upon which this can and will be fought in the legal system. Just because Congress gives an agency the power to write regulations does not make those regulations lawful. If it did, you'd have agencies demanding the right of jus primae noctis in order to get a permit, or payments of exorbitant fees to the director of the agency before getting approval of a request. Congress may have given them some limited authority, but contrary to the belief system in place at DOJ they are not God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 2:46:05 PM EDT
[#22]
where is the draft of from 5320.23, the responsible persons questionnaire?
Also, where do we email questions? is it [email protected]??? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/20/2016 4:51:22 PM EDT
[#23]
One a day keeps the ATF at bay....
"What weight of paper will the ATF accept for the new forms to be submitted on? If we print the forms onto wax paper, is crayon acceptable to fill out the form. If the form is burnt into a piece of tree bark, will tax stamp be affixed via staple? Thank you. " Don't care if it doesnt address one of their 4, they have to respond right? Fuck em |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2016 12:53:19 AM EDT
[#24]
I'm trying to think of a good way to word the tax angle of this. Since the BATFE claims NFA data is a tax record and thus protected then publishing this information to the CLEO currently goes against that policy since (please correct me if I am wrong) they are not privy to NFA records and only ATF agents can access this information directly. The wording I am trying to put together is trying to get them to speak to whether this policy change will remove the tax record status of NFA items and therefore opening registrations to further discovery and FOIA requests.
Let's see if they can explain why some records are published and others are considered private after 41F. I know I am pissing up a rope on this one, but at least if we can get them to document their change in policy then maybe future cases (or even Nolo's cases) could benefit from such statements when the government tries to hide behind the NFA as a tax record. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2016 1:18:30 PM EDT
[#25]
Sent a question asking if there has been an increase in crime w/ nfa items registered to trusts.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2016 4:34:03 PM EDT
[#26]
"will the form 1 be able to be submitted electronically to reduce the burden on someone submitting the form since sending it in the mail is a massive burden between the purchase of the stamp, envelope, and having to send it through an archaic 20th century process versus just sending it electronically."
Maybe they will respond to this one and maybe they won't, but I was kind of mad at USPS when I sent it so I wanted to get a shot in at the USPS since it will most likely be printed. I have gone ahead and created my own form letter for each form where all I have to do is just plug in an question I feel like. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/21/2016 5:22:35 PM EDT
[#27]
Will the federal government be assisting local law enforcement in protecting these tax forms? Who pays for that?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 10:40:05 AM EDT
[#28]
So am I reading this correctly?
They are redefining a "trust" as a person under the definitions 1D and 1E? |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 11:10:50 AM EDT
[#29]
Is anyone else getting responses like I did?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/23/2016 11:12:27 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
"will the form 1 be able to be submitted electronically to reduce the burden on someone submitting the form since sending it in the mail is a massive burden between the purchase of the stamp, envelope, and having to send it through an archaic 20th century process versus just sending it electronically." Maybe they will respond to this one and maybe they won't, but I was kind of mad at USPS when I sent it so I wanted to get a shot in at the USPS since it will most likely be printed. I have gone ahead and created my own form letter for each form where all I have to do is just plug in an question I feel like. Got a response from the ATF about my question. "We hope to have funding to allow the electronic submission of the forms subsequent to the changes resulting from the rulemaking. At this time, we do not know what funding will be provided, which forms will be developed, and when." So basically no. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 10:28:59 PM EDT
[#31]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the CLEO statement on 5320.23 seems to allow just as much latitude as the prior CLEO certification. As written, they have simply given the CLEO a different form to refuse to sign unless there is legal wording to compel signature (e.g. "shall sign").
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 10:30:40 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the CLEO statement on 5320.23 seems to allow just as much latitude as the prior CLEO certification. As written, they have simply given the CLEO a different form to refuse to sign. We haven't seen the final 5320.23, so we don't know for sure. We should have seen it already, but BATFE announced it in the Federal Register and has not posted it to their own site, reginfo.gov, or regulations.gov. They must have learned that playing by the rules is hard and it's better to break the law that follow it, at least if you are an agency in the Obama administration. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 10:45:04 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
We haven't seen the final 5320.23, so we don't know for sure. We should have seen it already, but BATFE announced it in the Federal Register and has not posted it to their own site, reginfo.gov, or regulations.gov. They must have learned that playing by the rules is hard and it's better to break the law that follow it, at least if you are an agency in the Obama administration. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the CLEO statement on 5320.23 seems to allow just as much latitude as the prior CLEO certification. As written, they have simply given the CLEO a different form to refuse to sign. We haven't seen the final 5320.23, so we don't know for sure. We should have seen it already, but BATFE announced it in the Federal Register and has not posted it to their own site, reginfo.gov, or regulations.gov. They must have learned that playing by the rules is hard and it's better to break the law that follow it, at least if you are an agency in the Obama administration. My mistake. I was reading an old draft that hopefully was before their decision to remove certification. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 10:46:13 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
My mistake. I was reading an old draft that hopefully was before their decision to remove certification. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the CLEO statement on 5320.23 seems to allow just as much latitude as the prior CLEO certification. As written, they have simply given the CLEO a different form to refuse to sign. We haven't seen the final 5320.23, so we don't know for sure. We should have seen it already, but BATFE announced it in the Federal Register and has not posted it to their own site, reginfo.gov, or regulations.gov. They must have learned that playing by the rules is hard and it's better to break the law that follow it, at least if you are an agency in the Obama administration. My mistake. I was reading an old draft that hopefully was before their decision to remove certification. I know. BATFE has failed to produce a new version. Unfortunately, no matter how much they break the law, nothing seems to slow them down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 10:54:37 PM EDT
[#35]
Late to the party, sorry.
So we're allowed to comment on the new forms? Will this have any effect on delaying the implementation of 41F? If I want to submit a few form 4's now, before 41F, do I have to use the new forms or the old forms? My goal is to get a few on the trust before fingerprints and photo are required. Thanks |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 10:58:37 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Late to the party, sorry. So we're allowed to comment on the new forms? Will this have any effect on delaying the implementation of 41F? If I want to submit a few form 4's now, before 41F, do I have to use the new forms or the old forms? My goal is to get a few on the trust before fingerprints and photo are required. Thanks Anything up to or before 6/30/16 can be done with the old forms. No only are you allowed to comment, it's pretty much your duty as an American gunowner to do so. Will it have any impact on the implementation of 41F? In theory, yes. If valid comments are not addressed, the final forms cannot be made final. BATFE has gone to great lengths to make the process as opaque as possible and bypass, sidestep, or outright break as many OMB and APA rules as they can, but that doesn't mean we can't put up a good fight in spite of their efforts. From what I can tell, they have ONE MAN answering these comments. Our job is to overwhelm ONE GOD FORSAKEN AGENT OF THE STATE. One. Not a legion of soulless enforcers. Not a building full of automatons. One man. The question is simply a matter of asking whether or not the freedom loving gun owners can ask more questions by 4/17/16 than Mr. Gary N. Shaible is capable of answering before 7/13/16. One man. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 11:08:05 PM EDT
[#37]
How about a hot link to the actual "ask a question" or "comment" section
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 11:09:57 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
How about a hot link to the actual "ask a question" or "comment" section I would love to offer that. I really would. In the past, that was possible. Back when BATFE played by the rules. Now... the only way to offer comments is to send them to [email protected]. You might want to CC Gary Schaible ([email protected]). They go to his inbox anyways, but no reason not to keep him under water in the loops. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 11:21:01 PM EDT
[#39]
Wow. Why isn't this bigger? I'm surprised this doesn't get more action in GD
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/24/2016 11:27:29 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Wow. Why isn't this bigger? I'm surprised this doesn't get more action in GD 1. It is stickied / tacked. That's where meaningful threads go to die. 2. Half of the interested parties think "But it's good for individuals, or people in Illinois, or one-legged-axe-murders" and move right along 3. It lacks Trump, Trannys, boobs, Super Precision, or Dillo Dust. 4. There aren't a lot of people on Earth that care about the Administrative Procedures Act.... trying to leverage it to undo an injustice requires first educating the masses on how it works. Most of those represented by "the masses" rarely would take the time to copy and paste a form letter. Asking for independent action, even though they'll post independent opinions and comments all day long here, is asking a lot. Fuck, if Mark Larue would offer 5 MBT triggers (or Bill Geissele an equal number of his triggers) and the only way to become eligible would be to BCC them on a comment sent to BATFE regarding these Forms, we'd have 5k comments by the end of March. Unfortunately, no one that matters cares, and few that care matter (in the "ability to rally the troops" sense). |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 8:34:54 AM EDT
[#41]
OST. Thanks
Friendly reminder: Keep your comments professional and on point. "With regards to the supporting documentation required, why is it necessary to submit fingerprints, photographs and a 5320.23 each time an application is made to transfer or make an NFA item? Specifically, the submission of mulitple copies of the same documentation seems to violate the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995." "On November 28, 2011, the White House issued a Presidential Memorandum for managing government records (https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/11/28/presidential-memorandum-managing-government-records). Can you explain how the implementation of 41F conforms to this memorandum? More specifically, will the BATFE be issuing guidance to local, state and other federal agencies on how to properly process, store and maintain forms submitted in conjunction with the transfer or making of an NFA item." "The proposed 5320.23 form contains a great deal of Personally Identifiable Information (PII). Is the BATFE prepared to accept the liability of possible mismanagement of PII information by requiring makers or transferees of NFA items to transfer PII to agencies and departments who may have not received the proper training on the management of such information?" |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 9:19:24 AM EDT
[#42]
"Can you explain why the use of the National Instant Background Check System (NICS) does not satisfy the requirement for the transfer or making of an NFA item? Why should potential NFA owners be required to submit fingerprints and photographs with each NFA item transferred or made when technological solutions exist that are faster, require less manpower and operate within an infrastructure already used for criminal background checks."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 11:20:02 AM EDT
[#43]
"Hi, I am wondering if the added steps that are necessary to now submit fingerprints and photographs for trusts put an undo burden on the collectors that use trusts. Specifically, how do I submit fingerprints and photos of my yet to be born son, who is currently in utero."
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 11:30:06 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Got a response from the ATF about my question. "We hope to have funding to allow the electronic submission of the forms subsequent to the changes resulting from the rulemaking. At this time, we do not know what funding will be provided, which forms will be developed, and when." So basically no. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
"will the form 1 be able to be submitted electronically to reduce the burden on someone submitting the form since sending it in the mail is a massive burden between the purchase of the stamp, envelope, and having to send it through an archaic 20th century process versus just sending it electronically." Maybe they will respond to this one and maybe they won't, but I was kind of mad at USPS when I sent it so I wanted to get a shot in at the USPS since it will most likely be printed. I have gone ahead and created my own form letter for each form where all I have to do is just plug in an question I feel like. Got a response from the ATF about my question. "We hope to have funding to allow the electronic submission of the forms subsequent to the changes resulting from the rulemaking. At this time, we do not know what funding will be provided, which forms will be developed, and when." So basically no. Same- and ignored my question on environmental impact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 11:58:02 AM EDT
[#45]
Four questions launched.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:34:06 PM EDT
[#46]
Fired off a volley.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:38:25 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
1. It is stickied / tacked. That's where meaningful threads go to die. 2. Half of the interested parties think "But it's good for individuals, or people in Illinois, or one-legged-axe-murders" and move right along 3. It lacks Trump, Trannys, boobs, Super Precision, or Dillo Dust. 4. There aren't a lot of people on Earth that care about the Administrative Procedures Act.... trying to leverage it to undo an injustice requires first educating the masses on how it works. Most of those represented by "the masses" rarely would take the time to copy and paste a form letter. Asking for independent action, even though they'll post independent opinions and comments all day long here, is asking a lot. Fuck, if Mark Larue would offer 5 MBT triggers (or Bill Geissele an equal number of his triggers) and the only way to become eligible would be to BCC them on a comment sent to BATFE regarding these Forms, we'd have 5k comments by the end of March. Unfortunately, no one that matters cares, and few that care matter (in the "ability to rally the troops" sense). Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Wow. Why isn't this bigger? I'm surprised this doesn't get more action in GD 1. It is stickied / tacked. That's where meaningful threads go to die. 2. Half of the interested parties think "But it's good for individuals, or people in Illinois, or one-legged-axe-murders" and move right along 3. It lacks Trump, Trannys, boobs, Super Precision, or Dillo Dust. 4. There aren't a lot of people on Earth that care about the Administrative Procedures Act.... trying to leverage it to undo an injustice requires first educating the masses on how it works. Most of those represented by "the masses" rarely would take the time to copy and paste a form letter. Asking for independent action, even though they'll post independent opinions and comments all day long here, is asking a lot. Fuck, if Mark Larue would offer 5 MBT triggers (or Bill Geissele an equal number of his triggers) and the only way to become eligible would be to BCC them on a comment sent to BATFE regarding these Forms, we'd have 5k comments by the end of March. Unfortunately, no one that matters cares, and few that care matter (in the "ability to rally the troops" sense). I, for one, think thats an excellent idea. I officially have an LT mount, trigger or a Geissele trigger or both on every gun I own. I'll take any chance for another. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 12:54:54 PM EDT
[#48]
Okay I am going to dig into this thread.
thanks for the heads up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 1:02:13 PM EDT
[#49]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 2/25/2016 1:02:54 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Okay I am going to dig into this thread. thanks for the heads up. 
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
