Talking points for new BATFE Rules

[benenglish]

Thank you for the detailed explanations. So, to boil this down, is it fair to say that a proposal to have all the persons in the trust get CLEO sign offs in order to prevent prohibited persons from acquiring title II items would require investigations by ATF whose cost would far exceed the estimated $1.8 million?

Yes, but only if the ATF is actually trying to be competent. That would entail actually interviewing everyone in a trust or corp to determine who is responsible.

If, on the other hand, the ATF simply promulgates a brain-dead definition of "responsible person", then all bets are off. They could do as little or as much work as they wanted to make such determinations.

I could answer the question better if you could quote me the precise definition of "responsible person" and tell me where in the process that determination must be made. AFAIK, those specifics are still up in the air, right?

 

[ScorpionHunter]

I could answer the question better if you could quote me the precise definition of "responsible person" and tell me where in the process that determination must be made. AFAIK, those specifics are still up in the air, right?

Here is a link to the proposal.
http://princelaw.files.wordpress.co...uctive-devices-and-certain-other-firearms.pdf

They outline the problem with trusts on page 10, and define "responsible person" on page 17.

 

[SIG_Fiend]

Thanks for all the hard work compiling all of this Sean!

 

[1slow01Z71]

Thanks for all the hard work compiling all of this Sean!

Yes thanks a lot Sean.

You can add Spreadfire Arms and Silencer Shop to your list.

 

[benenglish]

...define "responsible person" on page 17.

That definition of "responsible person" is extremely broad. I still can't answer your specific question because a real answer depends on the internal workflow of the ATF, something I know nothing about. However, I can say with some confidence that if I had to do an investigation to determine who is responsible under that definition, I could pin responsibility on pretty much anyone in the corp or trust or any member of their family.

Pare it down and read it like this: "...the term includes any individual...who possesses...the power...to...possess...a firearm for...the entity." Note that the possession need not be legal, just within the power of the person in question. Under that definition, if the trust is hq'd at your house, anyone in the house who can open the gun safe could be considered responsible.

I don't like what I see and I don't like that this proposal isn't the final language. All in all, this looks like a trap. Of course, that's a viewpoint created by a career full of paranoia. Perhaps the ATF is just a bunch of nice guys and would never stretch the language of a part of the CFR to cover situations it wasn't meant to. I dunno. As I said in another thread, I've never been through the process.

Sorry I can't be more specific. All I can say is that if I had that definition to work with and I wanted to hurt somebody with an out-of-the-blue responsibility determination, I could easily do so. That's not good.

 

[grumper]

If they go with Ben's hypothetical definition of responsible person wouldn't that help our case ?

If every person who has access or could potentially have access, no matter what the circumstances, were responsible persons it would cost the CLEOs millions of dollars to certify them all.

Letting TGT members shoot your stuff would make them responsible persons too. And I'm fine with it if they want to play that game. Just makes it more likely the entire rule change will be thrown out if it overburdens the system.

Edit: Ben's observation is a good point to bring up during the comment period. Vague definitions get statutes ruled unconstitutional all the time don't they ? Or would it be better to not point out that flaw (thus denying them an opportunity to correct it) and let it be vague and turn to the courts later to hash it out ?

 

[TheDan]

Perhaps the ATF is just a bunch of nice guys and would never stretch the language of a part of the CFR to cover situations it wasn't meant to.

 

[Tejano Scott]

Unless ATF changes the language of the proposal tomorrow, it's not the ATF asking for or requiring the CLEO to sign off. It's us. So, no unfunded mandate.

Semantics. Enforcing Federal Firearms law is a Federal (ATF) responsibility that is being abdicated to local governments. Sure, they can say no. But to take your position would be to assume ownership of NFA items is not a constitutional right. What's next? Require local CLEOs to do background checks for all guns? Would that amount to an unfunded mandate in your eyes? If not, then I'm not sure what the difference is here. Either way, I am sure we can all agree that this is a delegation of Federal responsibility to States (and no money is being given to States). As I understand, Williamson county, not too far from you, refuses to approve NFA items because they do not have the resources for this. Watch how many other counties will follow suit when they go from being asked to sign off on a few hundred requests per year vs. a few thousand.

 

[hkusp1]

Comments opened for the proposed trust regulations yesterday.

If you choose to comment please be professional about it and don't just regurgitate old sayings because they will just be ignored.

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=ATF_FRDOC_0001-0016


Sent from a creepy ass cracka.

 

[Renegade]

The rules suck, but it seems there would be a lot less opposition if a guaranteed CLEO signoff could be obtained.

The best way to do this is to authorize ATF/SAC for jurisdiction applicant is in, to be a valid CLEO, and require him to sign. This keeps the process in the Fed system, does not involve local or state LEOs, protects CLEOs from election issues, etc. So simple, so easy, so you know it will never happen.

 

[hkusp1]

The best way to solve this "problem" would to be to just require a nics check on nfa items.


Sent from a creepy ass cracka.

 

[Renegade]

The best way to solve this "problem" would to be to just require a nics check on nfa items.


Sent from a creepy ass cracka.

Except it would require an Act of Congress to change the law and require closing the gun show loophole to bring private transfers under NICS.

 

[1slow01Z71]

Really don't like that it requires so much personal info to make a comment.

 

[hkusp1]

I really don't like that they are trying to take my job away from me and continuously violating Americans rights.


Sent from a creepy ass cracka.

 

[breakingcontact]

I really don't like that they are trying to take my job away from me and continuously violating Americans rights.


Sent from a creepy ass cracka.

Exactly. Continuously violating the Constitution. Each time they get away win it, it's easier the next time. Our Constitution is starting to look like swiss cheese.

 

[ScorpionHunter]

Semantics.

You don't have to convince me. Convince the ATF. Put it in a comment letter.

 

[ScorpionHunter]

The best way to solve this "problem" would to be to just require a nics check on nfa items.


Sent from a creepy ass cracka.

Or better yet, not prosecute violations of the NFA. Holder's justice dept sees fit not to charge "low level" drug offenders that could face mandatory minimum sentences. Why not do the same with suppressors at the very least? 10 years for sticking a 5 ounce tube of aluminum off a .22 to protect against hearing loss? Sounds a bit draconian to me.

 

[TX69]

 

[SC-Texas]

The rules suck, but it seems there would be a lot less opposition if a guaranteed CLEO signoff could be obtained.

The best way to do this is to authorize ATF/SAC for jurisdiction applicant is in, to be a valid CLEO, and require him to sign. This keeps the process in the Fed system, does not involve local or state LEOs, protects CLEOs from election issues, etc. So simple, so easy, so you know it will never happen.

I do not think that teh degeral.gov may REQUIRE the county.gov to sign.

i.e. an elected official is not going to be told what to do by the ATF as for as signing documents.

I do not see where the ATF has the authority to REQUIRE and elected state, county or city official to sign anything.

 

[SC-Texas]

Now, we could pass a law at the state level requireing sheriffs to sign within 10 days