SIGN UP TO RECEIVE EMAIL UPDATES

What best describes your silencer interests?  Check all that apply:



 
Click here to receive email updates
 

HOW TO COMMENT AGAINST ATF 41P

The ASA needs your help. On Monday, December 9th, the comment period for ATF 41P, will end. For those unfamiliar with the proposed NFA rule change, please read our statement discussing ATF 41P.

Since ATF 41P was published in the Federal Register, the ASA has been working with industry to coordinate support against sections of the proposed rule change. Part of our coordination included drafting two user adjustable comment templates for individuals. Click the links to download:

41P Comment Template – Individual with Legal Entity

41P Comment Template – Individual without Legal Entity

Because form letters do not carry as much weight in the commenting process as customized letters, the ASA created hybrids, which give individuals a template, but still allow them to tailor their comments. If parts of the template do not apply to you, simply change or delete them before submitting.

Here is an example of a completed comment template. Note that non-applicable information has been removed by the individual.

The ASA encourages all individuals to submit comments to BATFE on the proposed rule change. If you would prefer to submit your own comment, please be respectful in your submission.

To submit, there are several available methods. You may submit comments, identified by docket number (ATF 41P), by any of the following methods:

  1. Federal eRulemaking Portal 
  2. Fax: (202) 648-9741
  3. Mail: Brenda Raffath Friend, Mailstop 6N-602, Office of Regulatory Affairs, Enforcement Programs and Services, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, U.S. Department of Justice, 99 New York Avenue NE., Washington, DC 20226; ATTN: ATF 41P.
All submissions must include the agency name, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, and the docket number for this rulemaking, ATF 41P. All comments received will be posted without change to the Federal eRulemaking portal, including any personal information provided. For additional information about the comment and rulemaking process, click here.
The comment period ends at 11:59 p.m. Eastern Time on Monday, December 9. Be sure to make your voice heard before then.
This entry was posted in 41P, American Silencer Association, Educational, NFA, Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

  1. Gary Miracle II
    Posted December 2, 2013 at 7:39 pm | Permalink

    No to ATF 41P……we are regulated too much as it is now!

  2. Trampus Michalsky
    Posted December 2, 2013 at 8:37 pm | Permalink

    Trampus Michalsky

    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. I have created a trust to receive NFA firearms and my experience tells me ATF is wrong on several key issues.

    First, I believe ATF is incorrect in saying that law enforcement officials only refuse to sign off due to liability fears.  ATF also estimates an unrealistically low cost for photographs and fingerprints.  ATF estimates that photographs would cost $8.00 and take an average of 50 minutes to obtain, and that fingerprints would cost $24.00 and take 60 minutes to obtain.  In my experience, the costs and times are higher.  It cost me $15.00 to get photographs, which took one hour.  And it cost me $50.00 to get fingerprints, which took me 2 hours.  Finally, ATF considers the cost of providing documents to establish the existence of a “legal entity,” based on an estimated average of 15 pages.  My own trust documents were 19 pages long.

    All of those costs have to be multiplied by the number of “responsible persons” on the application.  ATF estimates only two responsible persons per legal entity.  I believe that is a very low estimate.  My own trust includes 5 people who would qualify as “responsible persons” under ATF’s definition.  

    Another major problem in the proposed rule is the definition of “responsible person.”  Although the wording is different for different types of entities, generally ATF’s definition would include anyone who “possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority … to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of” the entity.  The laws on trusts and corporations are very complex.  In my case, it would be very difficult for me to say accurately which of the parties in my trust fall under this definition. For example, my trust includes beneficiaries who are under 18 years old. To get a clear answer on that, I would probably need to speak with a lawyer—another cost that ATF fails to consider.

    I appreciate your attention to my comments and I hope ATF will reconsider this process. I unequivocally oppose CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer, and suggest the elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement in its entirety. Allowing government officials to unilaterally deny otherwise lawful firearms transfers to citizens flies in the face of the core American principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. This should not be allowed to stand.

  3. Tyler
    Posted December 2, 2013 at 8:56 pm | Permalink

    If a law abiding gun owner is willing to pay a tax for something wait forever then there is no reason to add another step to the all ready too long process. A law enforcement sing off should not be required.

  4. Posted December 3, 2013 at 4:49 am | Permalink

    ATF 41P, in requiring CLEO approval for transfer of class 3 devices is placing an unnecessary burden on law abiding citizens. Our family ranch, a LLC, needs suppressed firearms to assist in the control of feral hogs. We need the ability to share costly suppressors as a matter of economics. With today’s effective background check system, this order is totally unnecessary and reeks of a politically motivated gun control effort.

  5. Kevin Jones
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 5:48 am | Permalink

    Individual without “Legal Entity”
    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. I have considered creating a “legal entity” to possess NFA firearms and my experience tells me ATF is wrong on several key issues.
    First, I believe ATF is incorrect in saying that law enforcement officials only refuse to sign off due to liability fears. That was not my experience. In [NAME OF JURISDICTION], the [POLICE CHIEF/SHERIFF] refuses to sign off on these transfers because [EXPLAIN AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE SUCH AS STATEMENTS MADE TO APPLICANTS].
    ATF also estimates an unrealistically low cost for photographs and fingerprints. ATF estimates that photographs would cost $8.00 and take an average of 50 minutes to obtain, and that fingerprints would cost $24.00 and take 60 minutes to obtain. In my experience, the costs and times are higher. I learned that it would cost me [AMOUNT] to get photographs, which took [AMOUNT OF TIME]. It also would have cost me [AMOUNT] to get fingerprints, which took me [AMOUNT OF TIME].
    All of those costs have to be multiplied by the number of “responsible persons” on the application. ATF estimates only two responsible persons per legal entity. I believe that is a very low estimate. Had I chosen to create a [TRUST/CORPORATION/PARTNERSHIP], it would have included [NUMBER] people who would qualify as “responsible persons” under ATF’s definition.
    Another major problem in the proposed rule is the definition of “responsible person.” Although the wording is different for different types of entities, generally ATF’s definition would include anyone who “possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority … to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of” the entity. The laws on trusts and corporations are very complex. In my case, it would be very difficult for me to say accurately which of the parties in my [TRUST/CORPORATION/PARTNERSHIP] would have fallen under this definition. [EXPLAIN AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE SUCH AS CHILD BENEFICIARIES]. To get a clear answer on that, I would probably have need to speak with a lawyer—another cost that ATF fails to consider.
    I appreciate your attention to my comments and I hope ATF will reconsider this process. I unequivocally oppose CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer, and suggest the elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement in its entirety. Allowing government officials to unilaterally deny otherwise lawful firearms transfers to citizens flies in the face of the core American principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. This should not be allowed to stand.

  6. James D. White
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 6:51 am | Permalink

    I James D. White am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. I have considered creating a “legal entity” to possess NFA firearms and my experience tells me ATF is wrong on several key issues.
    First, I believe ATF is incorrect in saying that law enforcement officials only refuse to sign off due to liability fears. That was not my experience. In [NAME OF JURISDICTION], the [POLICE CHIEF/SHERIFF] refuses to sign off on these transfers because [EXPLAIN AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE SUCH AS STATEMENTS MADE TO APPLICANTS].
    ATF also estimates an unrealistically low cost for photographs and fingerprints. ATF estimates that photographs would cost $8.00 and take an average of 50 minutes to obtain, and that fingerprints would cost $24.00 and take 60 minutes to obtain. In my experience, the costs and times are higher. I learned that it would cost me [AMOUNT] to get photographs, which took [AMOUNT OF TIME]. It also would have cost me [AMOUNT] to get fingerprints, which took me [AMOUNT OF TIME].
    All of those costs have to be multiplied by the number of “responsible persons” on the application. ATF estimates only two responsible persons per legal entity. I believe that is a very low estimate. Had I chosen to create a [TRUST/CORPORATION/PARTNERSHIP], it would have included [NUMBER] people who would qualify as “responsible persons” under ATF’s definition.
    Another major problem in the proposed rule is the definition of “responsible person.” Although the wording is different for different types of entities, generally ATF’s definition would include anyone who “possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority … to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of” the entity. The laws on trusts and corporations are very complex. In my case, it would be very difficult for me to say accurately which of the parties in my [TRUST/CORPORATION/PARTNERSHIP] would have fallen under this definition. [EXPLAIN AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE SUCH AS CHILD BENEFICIARIES]. To get a clear answer on that, I would probably have need to speak with a lawyer—another cost that ATF fails to consider.
    I appreciate your attention to my comments and I hope ATF will reconsider this process. I unequivocally oppose CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer, and suggest the elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement in its entirety. Allowing government officials to unilaterally deny otherwise lawful firearms transfers to citizens flies in the face of the core American principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. This should not be allowed to stand.

  7. Alexander Callage
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 7:05 am | Permalink

    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. I have considered creating a “legal entity” to possess NFA firearms and my experience tells me ATF is wrong on several key issues.
    First, I believe ATF is incorrect in saying that law enforcement officials only refuse to sign off due to liability fears. That was not my experience. In [NAME OF JURISDICTION], the [POLICE CHIEF/SHERIFF] refuses to sign off on these transfers because [EXPLAIN AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE SUCH AS STATEMENTS MADE TO APPLICANTS].
    ATF also estimates an unrealistically low cost for photographs and fingerprints. ATF estimates that photographs would cost $8.00 and take an average of 50 minutes to obtain, and that fingerprints would cost $24.00 and take 60 minutes to obtain. In my experience, the costs and times are higher. I learned that it would cost me [AMOUNT] to get photographs, which took [AMOUNT OF TIME]. It also would have cost me [AMOUNT] to get fingerprints, which took me [AMOUNT OF TIME].
    All of those costs have to be multiplied by the number of “responsible persons” on the application. ATF estimates only two responsible persons per legal entity. I believe that is a very low estimate. Had I chosen to create a [TRUST/CORPORATION/PARTNERSHIP], it would have included [NUMBER] people who would qualify as “responsible persons” under ATF’s definition.
    Another major problem in the proposed rule is the definition of “responsible person.” Although the wording is different for different types of entities, generally ATF’s definition would include anyone who “possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority … to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of” the entity. The laws on trusts and corporations are very complex. In my case, it would be very difficult for me to say accurately which of the parties in my [TRUST/CORPORATION/PARTNERSHIP] would have fallen under this definition. [EXPLAIN AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE SUCH AS CHILD BENEFICIARIES]. To get a clear answer on that, I would probably have need to speak with a lawyer—another cost that ATF fails to consider.
    I appreciate your attention to my comments and I hope ATF will reconsider this process. I unequivocally oppose CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer, and suggest the elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement in its entirety. Allowing government officials to unilaterally deny otherwise lawful firearms transfers to citizens flies in the face of the core American principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. This should not be allowed to stand.

  8. Matthew J Kennedy
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 7:30 am | Permalink

    As I respect and acknowledge the great men and women who work for the BATFE so can not let this bill pass. This is time when the people who have the loudest voice (YOU) need to stand up and speak and not allow anymore of our freedoms be taken away. I am fine with the fact that if the President wants to add additional information to NFA forms, but please do not leave the decision of whether us law abiding citizens may have or not have these items just because of the personal beliefs of another. I am speaking of the CLEO sign off. What gives the right to one man or women to determine whether I as a law abiding citizen can have these items? Its almost like asking my business neighbor if it ok to pay my employees this week. Well, he has nothing to do with my employees and if they are doing there job then they deserve to be paid. Please don’t let our rights be determined by individuals. This nation was not founded on one individual, but on principles of freedom. If we allow this to happen then what next? are we going to be told where we can buy food or how much. If we give away our freedom a little at a time then not after long we won’t have any freedoms. I implore you to examine all the evidence and the comments and to search you hearts to why this is a justifiable cause. We have stepped away from our core beliefs as a nation and I ask that you not contribute to the fall of our freedom. I like everyone else who has written a comment loves to shoot. Please don’t take away the very things that allow us to exercise
    this right with better safety. My prayers are with you all and I ask that yours be with the people of the USA as well because if you allow this to happen you will destroying the principles and the constitutional rights that have been set before us. God Bless and may God guide your hearts in the right direction.

  9. Clint Owens
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 9:16 am | Permalink

    This is unAcceptable just another layer of paperwork for local pd. why should I need to get Cleo sign off if I have a trust in place and the ATF vets me already this is useless and burdonsom to my local pd this can’t go into effect

  10. Wyatt Heyrend
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 9:33 am | Permalink

    Individual with “Legal Entity”
    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. I have created a trust to receive NFA firearms and my experience tells me ATF is wrong on several key issues.
    First, I believe ATF is incorrect in saying that law enforcement officials only refuse to sign off due to liability fears. ATF also estimates an unrealistically low cost for photographs and fingerprints. ATF estimates that photographs would cost $8.00 and take an average of 50 minutes to obtain, and that fingerprints would cost $24.00 and take 60 minutes to obtain. In my experience, the costs and times are higher. It cost me $15.00 to get photographs, which took one hour. And it cost me $50.00 to get fingerprints, which took me 2 hours. Finally, ATF considers the cost of providing documents to establish the existence of a “legal entity,” based on an estimated average of 15 pages. My own trust documents were 19 pages long.
    All of those costs have to be multiplied by the number of “responsible persons” on the application. ATF estimates only two responsible persons per legal entity. I believe that is a very low estimate. My own trust includes 5 people who would qualify as “responsible persons” under ATF’s definition.
    Another major problem in the proposed rule is the definition of “responsible person.” Although the wording is different for different types of entities, generally ATF’s definition would include anyone who “possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority … to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of” the entity. The laws on trusts and corporations are very complex. In my case, it would be very difficult for me to say accurately which of the parties in my trust fall under this definition. For example, my trust includes beneficiaries who are under 18 years old. To get a clear answer on that, I would probably need to speak with a lawyer—another cost that ATF fails to consider.
    I appreciate your attention to my comments and I hope ATF will reconsider this process. I unequivocally oppose CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer, and suggest the elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement in its entirety. Allowing government officials to unilaterally deny otherwise lawful firearms transfers to citizens flies in the face of the core American principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. This should not be allowed to stand.

  11. steve gunsel
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 10:31 am | Permalink

    Just found out the wait for suppressor paperwork from atf is now 15 months! Not sure what the official excuse is, but it is hard to imagine anything other than aggravation.

  12. Matt Higdon
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 10:39 am | Permalink

    I am a silencer owner and wish I would have started using silencers much earlier in life. Shooting is more enjoyable to those nearby and the end user! If I go shooting now I always use a silencer. I see no negative aspects to using a silencer! Once again people are being misled by for some reason to think of silencers as evil!

  13. James
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 10:51 am | Permalink

    This is a senseless law to put into place. I am a law abiding citizen that uses the gun trust for 100% legal purposes. I would ask that you sent me a check for $500.00 which was the cost of my gun trust if you sign the executive order into law. This would credit me for the resources I put into the trust. Thanks.

  14. Rosita Elizondo
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 10:54 am | Permalink

    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. I have created a trust to receive NFA firearms and my experience tells me ATF is wrong on several key issues.
    First, I believe ATF is incorrect in saying that law enforcement officials only refuse to sign off due to liability fears. ATF also estimates an unrealistically low cost for photographs and fingerprints. ATF estimates that photographs would cost $8.00 and take an average of 50 minutes to obtain, and that fingerprints would cost $24.00 and take 60 minutes to obtain. The actual costs and times are higher. $15.00 to get photographs + one hour and $50.00 to get fingerprints + 2 hours; that’s $65, not $32! Finally, ATF considers the cost of providing documents to establish the existence of a “legal entity,” based on an estimated average of 15 pages. Some trusts are approx. 15-25 pages long!
    All of those costs have to be multiplied by the number of “responsible persons” on the application. ATF estimates only two responsible persons per legal entity. I believe that is a very low estimate.
    Another major problem in the proposed rule is the definition of “responsible person.” Although the wording is different for different types of entities, generally ATF’s definition would include anyone who “possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority … to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of” the entity. The laws on trusts and corporations are very complex.
    I appreciate your attention to my comments and I hope ATF will reconsider this process. I unequivocally oppose CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer, and suggest the elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement in its entirety. Allowing government officials to unilaterally deny otherwise lawful firearms transfers to citizens flies in the face of the core American principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. This should not be allowed to stand.

  15. Audrey Waldron
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    I oppose any and all rule changes.

  16. Larry Fechner
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 11:07 am | Permalink

    No

  17. Cass tucker
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 11:16 am | Permalink

    Please reconsider the law change! My son who is 6 was afraid of firearms, until I aquired a suppressor. He is now learning to shoot without being scared of the firearm. I also hunt with my suppressor! I don’t know about you but I enjoy listening without the need of a hearing aid!

  18. Daniel Palmer
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 12:06 pm | Permalink

    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. I have created a trust to receive NFA firearms and my experience tells me ATF is wrong on several key issues.
    First, I believe ATF is incorrect in saying that law enforcement officials only refuse to sign off due to liability fears. ATF also estimates an unrealistically low cost for photographs and fingerprints. ATF estimates that photographs would cost $8.00 and take an average of 50 minutes to obtain, and that fingerprints would cost $24.00 and take 60 minutes to obtain. In my experience, the costs and times are higher. It cost me $15.00 to get photographs, which took one hour. And it cost me $50.00 to get fingerprints, which took me 2 hours. Finally, ATF considers the cost of providing documents to establish the existence of a “legal entity,” based on an estimated average of 15 pages. My own trust documents were 19 pages long.
    All of those costs have to be multiplied by the number of “responsible persons” on the application. ATF estimates only two responsible persons per legal entity. I believe that is a very low estimate. My own trust includes 5 people who would qualify as “responsible persons” under ATF’s definition.
    Another major problem in the proposed rule is the definition of “responsible person.” Although the wording is different for different types of entities, generally ATF’s definition would include anyone who “possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority … to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of” the entity. The laws on trusts and corporations are very complex. In my case, it would be very difficult for me to say accurately which of the parties in my trust fall under this definition. For example, my trust includes beneficiaries who are under 18 years old. To get a clear answer on that, I would probably need to speak with a lawyer—another cost that ATF fails to consider.
    I appreciate your attention to my comments and I hope ATF will reconsider this process. I unequivocally oppose CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer, and suggest the elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement in its entirety. Allowing government officials to unilaterally deny otherwise lawful firearms transfers to citizens flies in the face of the core American principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. This should not be allowed to stand.

  19. Seth Witmer
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 12:15 pm | Permalink

    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. I have created a trust to receive NFA firearms and my experience tells me ATF is wrong on several key issues.
    First, I believe ATF is incorrect in saying that law enforcement officials only refuse to sign off due to liability fears. ATF also estimates an unrealistically low cost for photographs and fingerprints. ATF estimates that photographs would cost $8.00 and take an average of 50 minutes to obtain, and that fingerprints would cost $24.00 and take 60 minutes to obtain. In my experience, the costs and times are higher. It cost me $15.00 to get photographs, which took one hour. And it cost me $50.00 to get fingerprints, which took me 2 hours. Finally, ATF considers the cost of providing documents to establish the existence of a “legal entity,” based on an estimated average of 15 pages. My own trust documents were 19 pages long.
    All of those costs have to be multiplied by the number of “responsible persons” on the application. ATF estimates only two responsible persons per legal entity. I believe that is a very low estimate. My own trust includes 5 people who would qualify as “responsible persons” under ATF’s definition.
    Another major problem in the proposed rule is the definition of “responsible person.” Although the wording is different for different types of entities, generally ATF’s definition would include anyone who “possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority … to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of” the entity. The laws on trusts and corporations are very complex. In my case, it would be very difficult for me to say accurately which of the parties in my trust fall under this definition. For example, my trust includes beneficiaries who are under 18 years old. To get a clear answer on that, I would probably need to speak with a lawyer—another cost that ATF fails to consider.
    I appreciate your attention to my comments and I hope ATF will reconsider this process. I unequivocally oppose CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer, and suggest the elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement in its entirety. Allowing government officials to unilaterally deny otherwise lawful firearms transfers to citizens flies in the face of the core American principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. This should not be allowed to stand.

  20. Rafael Olivares Jr.
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    There are too many regulations that make it tough for us law abiding citizens that want to purchase a suppressor and also a lot of penalties if god forbid you break the law .

  21. matthew cascio
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 6:54 pm | Permalink

    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. I have created a trust to receive NFA firearms and my experience tells me ATF is wrong on several key issues.First, I believe ATF is incorrect in saying that law enforcement officials only refuse to sign off due to liability fears. ATF also estimates an unrealistically low cost for photographs and fingerprints. ATF estimates that photographs would cost $8.00 and take an average of 50 minutes to obtain, and that fingerprints would cost $24.00 and take 60 minutes to obtain. In my experience, the costs and times are higher. It cost me $15.00 to get photographs, which took one hour. And it cost me $50.00 to get fingerprints, which took me 2 hours. Finally, ATF considers the cost of providing documents to establish the existence of a “legal entity,” based on an estimated average of 15 pages. My own trust documents were 19 pages long.All of those costs have to be multiplied by the number of “responsible persons” on the application. ATF estimates only two responsible persons per legal entity. I believe that is a very low estimate. My own trust includes 5 people who would qualify as “responsible persons” under ATF’s definition.Another major problem in the proposed rule is the definition of “responsible person.” Although the wording is different for different types of entities, generally ATF’s definition would include anyone who “possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority … to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of” the entity. The laws on trusts and corporations are very complex. In my case, it would be very difficult for me to say accurately which of the parties in my trust fall under this definition. For example, my trust includes beneficiaries who are under 18 years old. To get a clear answer on that, I would probably need to speak with a lawyer—another cost that ATF fails to consider.I appreciate your attention to my comments and I hope ATF will reconsider this process. I unequivocally oppose CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer, and suggest the elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement in its entirety. Allowing government officials to unilaterally deny otherwise lawful firearms transfers to citizens flies in the face of the core American principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. This should not be allowed to stand.

  22. Posted December 3, 2013 at 9:54 pm | Permalink

    I agree no change is needed, get the government out of it.

  23. mirgc
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 10:18 pm | Permalink

    Don’t forget to put something in for the american made surplus firearms embargo as well! Lot’s of WWII M1′s and M1a’s waiting to come home.

  24. Mike Roberson
    Posted December 3, 2013 at 11:51 pm | Permalink

    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. I have considered creating a “legal entity” to possess NFA firearms and my experience tells me ATF is wrong on several key issues.
    First, I believe ATF is incorrect in saying that law enforcement officials only refuse to sign off due to liability fears. That was not my experience. In [NAME OF JURISDICTION], the [POLICE CHIEF/SHERIFF] refuses to sign off on these transfers because [EXPLAIN AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE SUCH AS STATEMENTS MADE TO APPLICANTS].
    ATF also estimates an unrealistically low cost for photographs and fingerprints. ATF estimates that photographs would cost $8.00 and take an average of 50 minutes to obtain, and that fingerprints would cost $24.00 and take 60 minutes to obtain. In my experience, the costs and times are higher. I learned that it would cost me [AMOUNT] to get photographs, which took [AMOUNT OF TIME]. It also would have cost me [AMOUNT] to get fingerprints, which took me [AMOUNT OF TIME].
    All of those costs have to be multiplied by the number of “responsible persons” on the application. ATF estimates only two responsible persons per legal entity. I believe that is a very low estimate. Had I chosen to create a [TRUST/CORPORATION/PARTNERSHIP], it would have included [NUMBER] people who would qualify as “responsible persons” under ATF’s definition.
    Another major problem in the proposed rule is the definition of “responsible person.” Although the wording is different for different types of entities, generally ATF’s definition would include anyone who “possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority … to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of” the entity. The laws on trusts and corporations are very complex. In my case, it would be very difficult for me to say accurately which of the parties in my [TRUST/CORPORATION/PARTNERSHIP] would have fallen under this definition. [EXPLAIN AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE SUCH AS CHILD BENEFICIARIES]. To get a clear answer on that, I would probably have need to speak with a lawyer—another cost that ATF fails to consider.
    I appreciate your attention to my comments and I hope ATF will reconsider this process. I unequivocally oppose CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer, and suggest the elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement in its entirety. Allowing government officials to unilaterally deny otherwise lawful firearms transfers to citizens flies in the face of the core American principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. This should not be allowed to stand.

  25. Richard R Harris
    Posted December 4, 2013 at 4:27 am | Permalink

    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. I unequivocally oppose CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer, and suggest the elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement in its entirety. Allowing government officials to unilaterally deny otherwise lawful firearms transfers to citizens flies in the face of the core American principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. Their personal opinions should not stand in way of signing for a legal weapon or silencer if the individual has a clean background. The local Sheriff signed for my silencer but refused to sign for my machine gun! Same paperwork, same requirements. Had to move to a different locality. This should not be allowed to stand.

  26. James Martin
    Posted December 4, 2013 at 10:29 am | Permalink

    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. The Gov’t can’t enforce the laws it has on the books now. I don’t support restricting the rights of law abiding citizens even further more than they do already. A 12 month wait for a suppressor is enough red tape.

  27. Molvit
    Posted December 4, 2013 at 12:50 pm | Permalink

    Dear BATFE,

    I am writing you to notify you that I strongly disagree with the proposals put forth in September of 2013, regarding expanding the Chief of Law Enforcement/Sheriff Signature on each individual in a legal entity (Trust/LLC).

    Currently the BATFE tests during an individual transfer for the following per the release of BATFE statement at,

    http://www.regulations.gov/#!documen…2013-0001-0001

    - National Crime Information Center
    - TECS (Treasury Enforcement Communication System)
    - National Law Enforcement Telecommunications System
    - Interstate Identification Index
    - National Instant Criminal Background Check System

    They will also be required to submit fingerprints, CLEO Certificate and passport size photo taken within the last year.

    I feel that these are far more than sufficient for an individual. That the requirements for Law Enforcement Certification, Fingerprints and Pictures should be removed. I propose the removal of the Chief of Law Enforcement Certificate as Chief’s of Law Enforcement aren’t required or instructed to perform any back ground checks.

    Also, according to the document above, the BATFE certifies themselves the legality of the item in the locale of the individual or legal entity requesting access. This also nullifies reasoning for a Chief of Law Enforcement Signature.

    The BATFE explains the lineage and logic/reasoning behind the intent of a Chief of Law Enforcement signature as being necessary because it pre-dated federal databases, federal records and state databases. Acknowledging the extremely extensive nature of the current checks.

    There is an obvious issue with this as Law Enforcement Officials receive no funding, training or directive on how to handle or certify these documents. Which is highlighted by the ignorance of Law Enforcement Officials involving instances (cited by the ATF in the proposal above) asking will they be held liable for items they approve.

    The BATFE fails to mention the alternative for signatures of approval in this regulation such as Local Prosecutors, District Attorneys, Local Judges, State Judges or District Judges. These individuals would not have access to State Databases stated, which the ATF cites as the reasoning for expanding Chief of Law Enforcement Certification in the NPRM.

    The BATFE also vastly underestimates the time required to receive Chief of Law Enforcement signature as 1 and a half hours for interview and an hour for fingerprinting. The BATFE also minimizes the example in their citation as the average legal entity (Trust or LLC) as only having 2 trustees or employees.

    The average American household has 3 members (according to http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/b…c2010br-14.pdf ) not counting relatives such as uncles, aunts, grand parents, grandchildren, or cousins and the average employer firm has at least 15 paid employees (according to http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html as of 2008). The numbers put forth by the BATFE are intellectually dishonest.

    The BATFE also fails in this proposal to cite any vehicle for the turnover of employees that Legal Entities such as businesses experience.

    I have absolute confidence in the BATFE to remove the requirements for Law Enforcement Certification, Fingerprinting and Photographing. While still being able to conduct satisfactory amounts of checks for individuals in legal entities.

    Thank you,

  28. brent barnfield
    Posted December 4, 2013 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

    This is absolutely insane! The citizens obtaining class three articles are not the criminals that so called “gun control” advocates are going after. How many class three items have been used in a crime within the last 30 years?? There are better places to put energy into vs this…. For most its a HOBBY!

  29. Jose Hernandez
    Posted December 5, 2013 at 8:45 am | Permalink

    We already submit ourselves for a rigorous background check willingly. We follow all your rules and stipulations. Yet you are coming after us with more gun control. More and more of these laws will make us criminals by default. Please think about what you are proposing.

  30. Justin
    Posted December 5, 2013 at 1:16 pm | Permalink

    No, absolutely not!

  31. Todd Hadock
    Posted December 5, 2013 at 10:26 pm | Permalink

    Dear BATFE,
    I have always received courteous and professional service when inquiring about transfers and I thank you. Since I live in the very progun state of Utah, I have never had problem getting a CLEO Signiture. However, there are many law abiding citizens in other less hospitable juridictions that through no fault of their own cannot get a CLEO signiture and a trust is their only currently available option. I have thought that trusts would be a way to pass on my collection to my family without having to pick favorites and create animosity. I think with all the overlapping background checks and information available to to these agencies makes a CLEO signiture for trusts an unnessissary hoop to jump through.

    Respectfully,
    Todd Hadock

    have considered trusts as a great way to leave my NFA collection to my family. The thought of how to divide

  32. Stephen G Franks Jr.
    Posted December 6, 2013 at 2:44 pm | Permalink

    I oppose the ATF 41P proposal we already have enough restrictions on NFA items now there is no reason to add any extra hoops to jump through. I think the taxes we pay and time we have to wait now is more than sufficient. The addition of this proposal is unnecessary and a waste of tax payers dollars. again I oppose this proposal and say work on making the system we have now more effective And efficient and not add more laws to this process.

  33. Keith
    Posted December 6, 2013 at 2:50 pm | Permalink

    I oppose ATF 41p

  34. Walter
    Posted December 7, 2013 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. I am planning to create a trust to receive NFA firearms and my experience tells me ATF is wrong on several key issues.

    First and foremost, the ATF does not have the right to create or modify laws. Only Congress has that right.

    Also, the ATF estimates an unrealistically low cost for photographs and fingerprints – as with any cost estimate, the government’s estimate is always on the wrong side of the argument – in this case a power grab in order to take away my rights under the guise of law. Then on top of that, all of those costs then have to be multiplied by the number of “responsible persons” on the application.

    The ATF estimates only two responsible persons per legal entity. That is a very unrealistic assumption. My own trust will include several people who would qualify as “responsible persons” under ATF’s definition.

    Another major problem in the proposed rule is the definition of “responsible person.” Although the wording is different for different types of entities, generally ATF’s definition would include anyone who “possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority … to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of” the entity. The laws on trusts and corporations are very complex. In my case, it would be very difficult for me to say accurately which of the parties in my trust fall under this definition. For example, my trust might include beneficiaries who are under 18 years old. To get a clear answer on that, I would probably need to speak with a lawyer—another cost that ATF fails to consider.

    I appreciate your attention to my comments and I hope ATF will reconsider this process. I unequivocally oppose CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer, and suggest the elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement in its entirety.
    Allowing government officials to unilaterally deny otherwise lawful firearms transfers to citizens flies in the face of the core American principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. This should not be allowed to stand.

    It is about time for the ATF to stand up for the rights of the citizens that they swore to protect.

    In conclusion, I would like to paraphrase my second paragraph, “We already have laws on the books that are successfully accomplishing this.” So stop the power grab.

  35. Dan L
    Posted December 8, 2013 at 11:58 pm | Permalink

    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations.
    First of all, what past or even theoretical crime this is supposed to prevent? The only thing offered so far in defense of this action so far has been the prima facie absurd notion that a “prohibited person” would attempt to obtain NFA items by filing paperwork with the ATF. Momentarily laying aside the notion that a criminal would be interested in following the law at all by going through the motions of filing paperwork with the ATF, isn’t the ENTIRE POINT of the ATF processing this paperwork supposed to be to check for this kind of thing?
    If the reviewing agents are unable to check the names on the legal entity (LLC, trust, etc) and discover something so elementary as the fact that the person(s) listed are prohibited by NICS checks, why does this processing take a calendar year or more to complete? One wonders what’s actually being checked, and why it’s done this way at all.
    Many of us have the misfortune to reside in areas with politically-motivated CLEOs who will only sign these types of forms for their buddies, or in exchange for favors. The LLC route allows citizens to avoid having to deal with political favoritism while still adhereing to the law.
    Additionally, because of the artificially high price (due exactly to these sort of onerous and capricious regulations being proposed) of NFA items, it is frequently desireable that an entity such as an LLC be created with several people on it. This would allow, for example, a parent and adult child to both have use of said items instead of creating the bizarre situation in which they would be criminally liable for one of them having control of an item away from the “registered” person, ie the registered owner leaving town for the weekend.
    Once again, NOTHING in the current system allows felons or otherwise prohibited persons to possess these items: There IS no loophole to close. The proposed rule change is simply a case a bureaucratic CYA at the expense of the public. At this point, the ATF should be working to streamline the NFA application process, which has become a fiasco even by governmental standards.

  36. Ringo
    Posted December 9, 2013 at 8:26 am | Permalink

    I oppose ATF 41p

  37. Zachary
    Posted December 9, 2013 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations.
    First of all, what past or even theoretical crime this is supposed to prevent? The only thing offered so far in defense of this action so far has been the prima facie absurd notion that a “prohibited person” would attempt to obtain NFA items by filing paperwork with the ATF. Momentarily laying aside the notion that a criminal would be interested in following the law at all by going through the motions of filing paperwork with the ATF, isn’t the ENTIRE POINT of the ATF processing this paperwork supposed to be to check for this kind of thing?
    If the reviewing agents are unable to check the names on the legal entity (LLC, trust, etc) and discover something so elementary as the fact that the person(s) listed are prohibited by NICS checks, why does this processing take a calendar year or more to complete? One wonders what’s actually being checked, and why it’s done this way at all.
    Many of us have the misfortune to reside in areas with politically-motivated CLEOs who will only sign these types of forms for their buddies, or in exchange for favors. The LLC route allows citizens to avoid having to deal with political favoritism while still adhereing to the law.
    Additionally, because of the artificially high price (due exactly to these sort of onerous and capricious regulations being proposed) of NFA items, it is frequently desireable that an entity such as an LLC be created with several people on it. This would allow, for example, a parent and adult child to both have use of said items instead of creating the bizarre situation in which they would be criminally liable for one of them having control of an item away from the “registered” person, ie the registered owner leaving town for the weekend.
    Once again, NOTHING in the current system allows felons or otherwise prohibited persons to possess these items: There IS no loophole to close. The proposed rule change is simply a case a bureaucratic CYA at the expense of the public. At this point, the ATF should be working to streamline the NFA application process, which has become a fiasco even by governmental standards.

  38. Jared Brooks
    Posted December 9, 2013 at 1:47 pm | Permalink

    OPPOSED

  39. DS COBDEN
    Posted December 9, 2013 at 4:29 pm | Permalink

    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. I have considered creating a “legal entity” to possess NFA firearms and my experience tells me ATF is wrong on several key issues.
    First, I believe ATF is incorrect in saying that law enforcement officials only refuse to sign off due to liability fears. That was not my experience. In [NAME OF JURISDICTION], the [POLICE CHIEF/SHERIFF] refuses to sign off on these transfers because [EXPLAIN AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE SUCH AS STATEMENTS MADE TO APPLICANTS].
    ATF also estimates an unrealistically low cost for photographs and fingerprints. ATF estimates that photographs would cost $8.00 and take an average of 50 minutes to obtain, and that fingerprints would cost $24.00 and take 60 minutes to obtain. In my experience, the costs and times are higher. I learned that it would cost me [AMOUNT] to get photographs, which took [AMOUNT OF TIME]. It also would have cost me [AMOUNT] to get fingerprints, which took me [AMOUNT OF TIME].
    All of those costs have to be multiplied by the number of “responsible persons” on the application. ATF estimates only two responsible persons per legal entity. I believe that is a very low estimate. Had I chosen to create a [TRUST/CORPORATION/PARTNERSHIP], it would have included [NUMBER] people who would qualify as “responsible persons” under ATF’s definition.
    Another major problem in the proposed rule is the definition of “responsible person.” Although the wording is different for different types of entities, generally ATF’s definition would include anyone who “possesses, directly or indirectly, the power or authority … to receive, possess, ship, transport, deliver, transfer, or otherwise dispose of a firearm for, or on behalf of” the entity. The laws on trusts and corporations are very complex. In my case, it would be very difficult for me to say accurately which of the parties in my [TRUST/CORPORATION/PARTNERSHIP] would have fallen under this definition. [EXPLAIN AND PROVIDE EVIDENCE SUCH AS CHILD BENEFICIARIES]. To get a clear answer on that, I would probably have need to speak with a lawyer—another cost that ATF fails to consider.
    I appreciate your attention to my comments and I hope ATF will reconsider this process. I unequivocally oppose CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer, and suggest the elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement in its entirety. Allowing government officials to unilaterally deny otherwise lawful firearms transfers to citizens flies in the face of the core American principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. This should not be allowed to stand.
    It is about time for the ATF to stand up for the rights of the citizens that they swore to protect.
    In conclusion, I would like to paraphrase my second paragraph, “We already have laws on the books that are successfully accomplishing this.” So stop the power grab.
    DSC

  40. Jerry
    Posted December 9, 2013 at 4:44 pm | Permalink

    I am opposed to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives proposed rule, docket number ATF 41P, on transfers of NFA firearms to “legal entities” such as trusts and corporations. I have created a trust to receive NFA firearms and my experience tells me the BATFE is wrong on a few key issues.
    I personally believe the BATFE is incorrect in saying that law enforcement officials only refuse to sign off due to liability fears. This is currently not an issue that I have experienced. As a law abiding citizen who stays current on their taxes, I hope that I never have to experience it. However, CLE officials change office and this stance can easily be reversed in another direction. Others have been much less fortunate in receiving CLEO signoff.
    I appreciate your attention to my comments and I hope the BATFE will reconsider this process. I unequivocally oppose CLEO signoff requirements for any NFA transfer, and suggest the elimination of the CLEO signoff requirement in its entirety. Allowing government officials to unilaterally deny otherwise lawful firearms transfers to citizens flies in the face of the core American principle that we are a nation of laws, not men. This should not be allowed to stand. There are many of us who abide by the law and steer clear of troubles specifically so we can exercise a right with so much red tape as it is. Please cut us a break.

  41. E. Moya
    Posted December 9, 2013 at 8:50 pm | Permalink

    Just a new method for government to infringe on our civil liberties . As we all know there are very few law enforcement chiefs that will sign off on a FFT. This is no more than a back handed tactic to stop the sales of all class 111 equipment .
    Thank You.

9 Trackbacks

  1. By American Silencer Association Statement On ATF 41P on December 3, 2013 at 8:04 am

    [...] ASA COMMENT [...]

  2. [...] group that has led opposition is the American Silencer Association.  This group of suppressor makers has banded together to make their individual voices heard.  [...]

  3. [...] comment to the Federal Register. Directions, and two of ASA draft comments for individuals, can be viewed here. Included in ATF 41P is an amendment to require a Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) signoff [...]

  4. [...] of silencer manufacturers that have banded together to make their voices heard, has made up some sample letter templates that you can download, modify to match your circumstances, and send in. Note that they have two [...]

  5. [...] Silencer Association has published an excellent statement on ATF 41P. ASA is a heroic group that has met with great success this year in a number of states [...]

  6. [...] Lots of good advice out there on how to comment against ATF 41P, which will change the way NFA trusts work and generally make it impossible for many people to get NFA items like suppressors. I feel bad that I haven’t been harping on this issue, but as loathe as I am to be fatalistic, I don’t think there’s any stopping this. I certainly would never discourage anyone from writing, but I wouldn’t feel too bad if you didn’t get around to it. [...]

  7. By American Silencer Association Statement On ATF 41P on December 5, 2013 at 2:37 pm

    [...] comment to the Federal Register. Directions, and two of ASA draft comments for individuals, can be viewed here. Included in ATF 41P is an amendment to require a Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) signoff for [...]

  8. [...] your voice heard and stop this legislation by submitting a template letter from the American Silencer Association to the Federal Register by the deadline at 11:59 PM EST on Monday, December 9, 2013. G&A [...]


Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>