Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 27 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
553 Posts
Discussion Starter #1

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,501 Posts
How bout 1 month instead of six months.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
Posting here does no good. Everyone who cares about this, has a thought about it, should submit a personal response per the instructions for providing public comments.

I didn't pay careful attention to the proposed changes. I'm posting solely because we often get participants here
who complain about government, complain about having no say, and then when they have an opportunity to do something,
do nothing.

ATF is following the law, the requirements for rule making. Everyone can (depending on their personal wishes)
respond or not, and state the reasons for their opinion.

If you don't choose to offer up a public comment, well you don't give up your right to moan and groan but you sure missed your opportunity to step up to the plate. You can be certain there will be public comments from people who don't share your viewpoint, whatever it happens to be. So might as well spend 10 minutes or an hour even reading the regs, reading the proposed regs, writing and submitting a thoughtful public comment. That is everyone's right.

Rule making is one of the few places where ordinary folks get a chance to have direct input. Usually, only big lobbying firms
and special interests bother. That is how we get undesirable rules. We keep our mouths shut. (This is with everything, not just
regulations involving guns. )
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,501 Posts
Posting here does no good. Everyone who cares about this, has a thought about it, should submit a personal response per the instructions for providing public comments.

I didn't pay careful attention to the proposed changes. I'm posting solely because we often get participants here
who complain about government, complain about having no say, and then when they have an opportunity to do something,
do nothing.

ATF is following the law, the requirements for rule making. Everyone can (depending on their personal wishes)
respond or not, and state the reasons for their opinion.

If you don't choose to offer up a public comment, well you don't give up your right to moan and groan but you sure missed your opportunity to step up to the plate. You can be certain there will be public comments from people who don't share your viewpoint, whatever it happens to be. So might as well spend 10 minutes or an hour even reading the regs, reading the proposed regs, writing and submitting a thoughtful public comment. That is everyone's right.

Rule making is one of the few places where ordinary folks get a chance to have direct input. Usually, only big lobbying firms
and special interests bother. That is how we get undesirable rules. We keep our mouths shut. (This is with everything, not just
regulations involving guns. )
I made my comment in jest. We both know that they aren't going to increase staffing to cut wait times. : )

Frankly, I don't know enough about the process to offer suggestions. I'm learning about it now though.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
I made my comment in jest. We both know that they aren't going to increase staffing to cut wait times. : )

Frankly, I don't know enough about the process to offer suggestions. I'm learning about it now though.
My remarks were not aimed in any way whatsoever at you or your post. I'm simply pointing out that here is an opportunity
for ordinary folks to have some input about how things work. If ordinary folks just shut up and do nothing, the only voices
the Agency will hear from will be special interest voices, often high paid lobbyists or law firms representing various
corporate points of view, or in this instance perhaps representing organized anti-groups.

This is the case with just about every rule ever made. Yup, they are published in The Federal Register, but few of us
bother to keep track of what IS published. Usually, unless we are paid to do so, we won't.

Well, here is an example of something which some here will care about, and here also is a 60 day response period
and the proper place for the responses is not here (though there is nothing wrong with posting them here) but to the
official who requested the public comments via the posting in The Federal Register.

So, my suggestion would be study the issue, study the old and the new proposed regulation, formulate your views and
state them succinctly without rancor, and submit them as directed in the announcement.

For those who have never looked at The Federal Register it is quite an enlightening exercise. It is available on the web.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
12,069 Posts
Yeah right like anything we say might make a licks worth of difference to what ATF wants. Dream on......
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
Yeah right like anything we say might make a licks worth of difference to what ATF wants. Dream on......
I take it that means you won't be participating in the democratic process.

Most proposed rule changes get few responses, and few of those are from the general public.

I don't have a clue (because I haven't looked into this specific proposed rule) if it is one that will garner many responses.
I do know that if they got only 200 individual responses (not corporate or special interest) it would cause them take notice of what was being said as 200 responses is a lot of public comment--- as things usually go.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,501 Posts
Done...

Dear Gary,

My two requests with an updated form 1are as follows:

1) That you find some way to speed up the process. In the digital age I think approval could be shortened to around 30 days.

2) I'd like to eliminate the police chief signature portion. In my opinion the chief does not have a need to know what's in my gun safe (or what's about to be).

Thank you for your consideration,

atctimmy
 
  • Like
Reactions: dcdalton

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
13,164 Posts
Good shot. You might want to do it again though. Mention the specific notice /citation in The Federal Register to which you
are responding. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-22/pdf/2013-17492.pdf

Address the 4 issues they asked for comment on.

Not picking on you. Just trying to be helpful for those who want some idea about how to do it well.

The process is fairly formal, and in fact I was a bit surprised that they didn't give more specific instructions
on how to submit the comments.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
8,501 Posts
Good shot. You might want to do it again though. Mention the specific notice /citation in The Federal Register to which you
are responding. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2013-07-22/pdf/2013-17492.pdf

Address the 4 issues they asked for comment on.

Not picking on you. Just trying to be helpful for those who want some idea about how to do it well.

The process is fairly formal, and in fact I was a bit surprised that they didn't give more specific instructions
on how to submit the comments.
Evaluate whether the proposed
collection of information is necessary
for the proper performance of the
functions of the agency, including
whether the information will have
practical utility;

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s
estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information,
including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;

—Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and

—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.
For others who want to know what Hoppy is talking about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,320 Posts
Posting here does no good. Everyone who cares about this, has a thought about it, should submit a personal response per the instructions for providing public comments.

I didn't pay careful attention to the proposed changes. I'm posting solely because we often get participants here
who complain about government, complain about having no say, and then when they have an opportunity to do something,
do nothing.

ATF is following the law, the requirements for rule making. Everyone can (depending on their personal wishes)
respond or not, and state the reasons for their opinion.

If you don't choose to offer up a public comment, well you don't give up your right to moan and groan but you sure missed your opportunity to step up to the plate. You can be certain there will be public comments from people who don't share your viewpoint, whatever it happens to be. So might as well spend 10 minutes or an hour even reading the regs, reading the proposed regs, writing and submitting a thoughtful public comment. That is everyone's right.

Rule making is one of the few places where ordinary folks get a chance to have direct input. Usually, only big lobbying firms
and special interests bother. That is how we get undesirable rules. We keep our mouths shut. (This is with everything, not just
regulations involving guns. )
This^^^^^^^^^is wisdom! Make your voice heard whenever you can. Government is a participatory activity and is run by those who show up to do it. Easier done at the planning stage than after it's a done deal.
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,105 Posts
The ATF had hired 10 contractors back in the summer of last year to help speed up the approval process.
It did cut the wait times, which were running about 10 months back then to around 6 months.

However, in the process of "sequestration" of certain government entities, would any one care to take a case who got "sequestered"?

That's right. The 10 contractors hired by the ATF.

Did anyone here really think that a rabid anti-gun administration would let that go untouched?



Dealer to dealer transfers, (tax exempt) used to take 2-3 weeks. Now they are running 6 months, effectively adding 6 months to the process.

Of the 10 original examiners that covered the whole U.S., two of them retired and one of them quit, last I heard there were 7 to do the job with a backlog of over 50,000 forms to approve and a hiring freeze upon the whole dept.



For the gun loving fools that voted for Obama, thinking that he wasn't so anti-gun, welcome to reality.



With the recent political tirade about people making their own guns and being able to do it legally and under the radar, who here actually believes that the process will be become easier, rather than more difficult?
If you do, you haven't been paying attention.



As for the Form 1's the only thing that might change about that is being able to pay for them online. That would be a step in the right direction but only because the ATF is screaming to improve their otherwise outdated and archaic methods of approval.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,892 Posts
Hopyard you are so right for 40 years I have written voted and fought for things I thought were not right. To this very day I have a perfect record. I have not brought about a single change. Three months ago I testified in committee on new laws regarding the Mountain Lion. I explained they only had allowed a group being paid 30 million a year by prop117 and had not allowed any body testify against. The Sergeant at arms presented my case to the ruling class and they allowed me to state more than my name and for or against.
When I presented facts they had no idea this travesty has been going on for over ten years. Guess what they passed the bill out of committee and told me thank you.

Having said all of that I still hope for the one difference I make other than filling somebodys file 13.

This is built on the tax code and will never help us in any way. They are going to raise fees to exclude all but the wealthiest in our country bowing to current administrations wishes.

I have sent my written comments in asking for a reduction of fees because of the electronic processing that does not require extensive research of court records by hand. The fees were based on 1934 technology and today the cost should be significantly less. Want to bet if I am still 0 and 0?
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
18,105 Posts
This is built on the tax code and will never help us in any way. They are going to raise fees to exclude all but the wealthiest in our country bowing to current administrations wishes.
I certainly hope not.

In 1934 when the 200 "tax" was set, it was basically unaffordable for all but the rich.
In todays dollars, the equivalent would be some where around 3300 bucks in todays dollars, once again making it unaffordable by all but the wealthy.

I hope that this administration would not seek to raise the fees, but I'd be willing to bet that its the only tax left in the U.S. that hasn't been raised since 1934. And really, with Obama, Biden, and some of the other talking heads at the helm, anything is possible.



With that being said...
There are those in the ATF that are trying to update their primitive system.

We have the technology in place to make it happen instantly. Want to buy a suppressor? Pay for it, file the Form 4 online, do the NICS check, whip out your credit/debit card and pay the tax online, then print out a receipt that is good until your tax stamp arrives in the mail.
One could walkout with their can in 15 minutes. The current 6-12 month wait is inefficient, outdated, and unneeded. The ATF is wasting millions of dollars a year dealing with this issue in man power alone.

This has been talked about for several months and was scheduled to be in place at the end of August, but that's another thing that I'll believe when I see. It could be a boon to sales of all things NFA, but somehow I doubt that this administration would see that as a step forward.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,956 Posts
How abt they just follow the rules they have and not add any more
How about they get rid of the illegal ones they have now and stick to something they do have legal authority over. Or better yet just go back to collecting taxes as they were first supposed to. Maybe disband???
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top