MR Redenck
Regular Member
SEND THIS NOW, DO IT!!!
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/05/easy-way-to-comment-on-atfs-power-grab.html
http://onlygunsandmoney.blogspot.com/2011/05/easy-way-to-comment-on-atfs-power-grab.html
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
All gun owners, look!!! Everybody look!!! COMMENT AGAINST THE ATF POWER GRAB!
- Thread starter MR Redenck
- Start date
MR Redenck
Regular Member
Bump for those who missed it.
MR Redenck
Regular Member
Up again. Make sure yall do this.
Thanks.
Thanks.
Guido
Regular Member
Done 
MR Redenck
Regular Member
Bump again.
Come on folks, lets do this.
If you post on any other sites, please put this link on there.
Come on folks, lets do this.
If you post on any other sites, please put this link on there.
SDguy
Regular Member
Did it from here in South Dakota
Thundar
Regular Member
My comments sent individually and through the link provided in this thread
30 May, 2011
xxxx xxxxxx
xxxxx xxxxxx
xxxxx
SUBJECT: OMB Control Number 1140-NEW Comments
1. This correspondence is comment on The Department of Justice 30 Day notice published in the Federal Register / Vol 76, No83, Friday April 29, 2011 page 24058.
2. It is listed in the Federal Register as:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
[OMB Number 1140–NEW]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection Comments Requested: Report of
Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles
3. I have previously provided comment about the burden that the proposed action has upon FFLs, but BATE has, for whatever reason, failed to take the comments into account in their summary of previous comments, and repeats the same assumption and methodology errors in paragraph 5 of their summary of comments as of 25 February 2011
4. I repeat the comments here to ensure that there is no confusion.
5. The accuracy of the BATFE’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection is grossly understated due to faulty assumptions underpinning the methodology used by the BATFE.
6. The methodology used is invalid. The methodology assumes that the entire burden is only the time it takes to fill out the report. The actual burden to firearms dealers will actually be much greater. Firearms dealers will be required to review their dispositions daily, reviewing a rolling 5 day period to determine if multiple sales of certain rifles have been conducted. This burden to FFLs is substantial and not addressed in the BATFE methodology.
7. It is substantial for the following reasons:
A. Actual 4473s must be reviewed, as the requirement timeline for multiple rifle sales is shorter than the bound book entry requirement.
B. The multiple handgun reporting requirement is already a significant burden upon FFLs. It is consistently one of the top 10 violations that ATF Industry inspections finds when conducting annual inspections of FFLs. It is a constant difficulty because there is not a simple electronic review capability. The review must be done by hand, examining all paper 4473s for the previous 5 days. A similar hand sorting of 4473s will be required for multiple rifle sales.
C. The multiple rifle sales will require the FFL to collect and retain information that is not on the 4473, nor recorded in the bound book.
(1) Detachable magazines. There is no recording on the 4473 of whether a firearm can accept a detachable magazine. Many firearms can have either attached magazines or detached magazines. An example is the SKS rifle, which comes with an attached magazine, but which is often converted to accept detached magazines.
(2) Curio and Relic FFLs. Curio and Relic FFLs can only use their C&R license to obtain curio and relic firearms, however the reporting requirement is quite clear that multiple sales to licensees are not required. Therefore Dealers must annotate the curio and relic licensee for all rifle sales. Note that there are many curio and relic firearms that must be reported under the proposed demand letter. This requirement cannot be dismissed as C&R FFLs could, and often do, obtain combinations of new and C&R firearms, particularly at gunshows.
8. Conclusion:
The methodology and assumptions used by BATFE are invalid. The methodology and assumption does not include substantial burden that the daily review that dealers will have to conduct. It does not consider the additional data that dealers will have to collect.
9. Recommendation:
A. OMB should reject the BATFE Multiple Rifle Sale Collection Proposal as the method and assumptions are used grossly underestimate the actual burden to FFL Dealers.
B. If the BATFE later submits a valid method and makes reasonable assumptions to estimate the burden, then the public should be afforded the appropriate 90 day comment period for the new/amended proposal.
30 May, 2011
xxxx xxxxxx
xxxxx xxxxxx
xxxxx
SUBJECT: OMB Control Number 1140-NEW Comments
1. This correspondence is comment on The Department of Justice 30 Day notice published in the Federal Register / Vol 76, No83, Friday April 29, 2011 page 24058.
2. It is listed in the Federal Register as:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
[OMB Number 1140–NEW]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection Comments Requested: Report of
Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles
3. I have previously provided comment about the burden that the proposed action has upon FFLs, but BATE has, for whatever reason, failed to take the comments into account in their summary of previous comments, and repeats the same assumption and methodology errors in paragraph 5 of their summary of comments as of 25 February 2011
4. I repeat the comments here to ensure that there is no confusion.
5. The accuracy of the BATFE’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection is grossly understated due to faulty assumptions underpinning the methodology used by the BATFE.
6. The methodology used is invalid. The methodology assumes that the entire burden is only the time it takes to fill out the report. The actual burden to firearms dealers will actually be much greater. Firearms dealers will be required to review their dispositions daily, reviewing a rolling 5 day period to determine if multiple sales of certain rifles have been conducted. This burden to FFLs is substantial and not addressed in the BATFE methodology.
7. It is substantial for the following reasons:
A. Actual 4473s must be reviewed, as the requirement timeline for multiple rifle sales is shorter than the bound book entry requirement.
B. The multiple handgun reporting requirement is already a significant burden upon FFLs. It is consistently one of the top 10 violations that ATF Industry inspections finds when conducting annual inspections of FFLs. It is a constant difficulty because there is not a simple electronic review capability. The review must be done by hand, examining all paper 4473s for the previous 5 days. A similar hand sorting of 4473s will be required for multiple rifle sales.
C. The multiple rifle sales will require the FFL to collect and retain information that is not on the 4473, nor recorded in the bound book.
(1) Detachable magazines. There is no recording on the 4473 of whether a firearm can accept a detachable magazine. Many firearms can have either attached magazines or detached magazines. An example is the SKS rifle, which comes with an attached magazine, but which is often converted to accept detached magazines.
(2) Curio and Relic FFLs. Curio and Relic FFLs can only use their C&R license to obtain curio and relic firearms, however the reporting requirement is quite clear that multiple sales to licensees are not required. Therefore Dealers must annotate the curio and relic licensee for all rifle sales. Note that there are many curio and relic firearms that must be reported under the proposed demand letter. This requirement cannot be dismissed as C&R FFLs could, and often do, obtain combinations of new and C&R firearms, particularly at gunshows.
8. Conclusion:
The methodology and assumptions used by BATFE are invalid. The methodology and assumption does not include substantial burden that the daily review that dealers will have to conduct. It does not consider the additional data that dealers will have to collect.
9. Recommendation:
A. OMB should reject the BATFE Multiple Rifle Sale Collection Proposal as the method and assumptions are used grossly underestimate the actual burden to FFL Dealers.
B. If the BATFE later submits a valid method and makes reasonable assumptions to estimate the burden, then the public should be afforded the appropriate 90 day comment period for the new/amended proposal.
Thundar
Regular Member
My Second Comment, also sent
30 May, 2011
XXXXX XXXXXX
XXXXX, XXXXX
XXXXX
SUBJECT: OMB Control Number 1140-NEW Comments
1. This correspondence is comment on The Department of Justice 30 Day notice published in the Federal Register / Vol 76, No83, Friday April 29, 2011 page 24058.
2. It is listed in the Federal Register as:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
[OMB Number 1140–NEW]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection Comments Requested: Report of
Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles
3. The proposed letter exceeds the authority granted the Attorney General under the Gun Control Act of 1968. There is no detachable magazine data collection requirement for FFLs under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
4. A demand letter cannot require a licensee to submit information that is not “part of a record required to be kept by this chapter, or such lesser record information as the Attorney General in such letter may specify.” 923(g)(5)(A)
5. Because detachable magazines are not part of the record required to be kept by the Gun Control Act of 1968, detachable magazines cannot be used to narrow the information that the Attorney General wishes to collect.
6. If the Attorney General wishes to collect information on all multiple rifle sales, then that is his prerogative, but he does not have the authority to have gun dealers do his work for him, keeping separate records and reporting that information that is not part of a required record or information under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
7. The detachable magazine requirement matters. Many firearms can have either attached magazines or detached magazines. An example is the SKS rifle, which comes with an attached magazine, but which is often converted to accept detached magazines.
8. Conclusion:
The Attorney general exceeds his authority, trying to force FFLs to collect and report based upon information that is not required under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
9. Recommendation:
OMB should reject the BATFE Multiple Rifle Sale Collection Proposal as the collection relies upon FFLs supplying to the Attorney General information that they are not required to collect under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
30 May, 2011
XXXXX XXXXXX
XXXXX, XXXXX
XXXXX
SUBJECT: OMB Control Number 1140-NEW Comments
1. This correspondence is comment on The Department of Justice 30 Day notice published in the Federal Register / Vol 76, No83, Friday April 29, 2011 page 24058.
2. It is listed in the Federal Register as:
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
[OMB Number 1140–NEW]
Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed Collection Comments Requested: Report of
Multiple Sale or Other Disposition of Certain Rifles
3. The proposed letter exceeds the authority granted the Attorney General under the Gun Control Act of 1968. There is no detachable magazine data collection requirement for FFLs under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
4. A demand letter cannot require a licensee to submit information that is not “part of a record required to be kept by this chapter, or such lesser record information as the Attorney General in such letter may specify.” 923(g)(5)(A)
5. Because detachable magazines are not part of the record required to be kept by the Gun Control Act of 1968, detachable magazines cannot be used to narrow the information that the Attorney General wishes to collect.
6. If the Attorney General wishes to collect information on all multiple rifle sales, then that is his prerogative, but he does not have the authority to have gun dealers do his work for him, keeping separate records and reporting that information that is not part of a required record or information under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
7. The detachable magazine requirement matters. Many firearms can have either attached magazines or detached magazines. An example is the SKS rifle, which comes with an attached magazine, but which is often converted to accept detached magazines.
8. Conclusion:
The Attorney general exceeds his authority, trying to force FFLs to collect and report based upon information that is not required under the Gun Control Act of 1968.
9. Recommendation:
OMB should reject the BATFE Multiple Rifle Sale Collection Proposal as the collection relies upon FFLs supplying to the Attorney General information that they are not required to collect under the Gun Control Act of 1968.