FN Herstal Firearms banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,521 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Hey guys, as many of you know or are just learning, including myself-- seems that dec 9 rule changes, may really be in a position to hurt us. Those that have ever wanted to own a suppressor/silencer, or a sbr. I received this email from them as I'm a customer of theirs, asking for me to voice myself prior to the rule change. I submit thus to you my fn brothers- to do the same. It won't take but less than 60 seconds. Below is the copy of their email/ letter, and a link. If you post something- anything, please drop a quick line do as to encourage others and keep the thread alive. Thanks again


We have never sent out a mass email before, but this issue is critically important to all suppressor owners.


We’ve heard a lot of comments from customers who think ATF 41P is going to happen regardless of what they do. As a result, it seems like many people aren’t taking the time to submit comments.


Remember the beginning of this year when everybody assumed that there would be a new assault weapon ban and there was nothing that could be done? Nothing came of that; and, with your help, there’s a good chance nothing will come of this either.


Even though this new rule change is a result of executive action, that doesn’t mean it’s going to automatically go through. In many ways, a rule change like this would be just as bad for the NFA Branch as it would be for customers and the industry.


Keeping that in mind, PLEASE take just a few minutes to submit a short comment on this rule change. If we could get thousands of comments – that would be a huge help in keeping this from going into effect.


Check out this page for details on submitting a comment; and, once again, please take a few minutes to help us stop this rule change by submitting a comment of your own.


If you have any additional questions please feel free to contact us.


Silencer Shop
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,238 Posts
Submitted my comment this week. Everyone else who gives a sh*t about owning an NFA item in the future via trust/corp. should do the same.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
66 Posts
I posted mine several weeks ago
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Just posted my comment.

If you aren't sure of some of the wording, you can get some "help" by reading any of the other previous comments. I really like the sheriff's deputy who mentioned that his own sheriff wouldn't sign off. Classic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,583 Posts
I submitted one back when they first opened comments. What I don't get is, why they would change this if they just started allowing E-forms to be filled for trusts. Heck they even have been fast tracking E-forms and they have been taking 3-4 months, not 7-9 months. If they're worried about individuals paying $$$ for a trust to then circumvent them from owning firearms, it seems very far fetched. Just make all individuals in the trust submit to NCIS. If a non approved person is on a trust, deny them, and investigate why they are on it..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,238 Posts
I submitted one back when they first opened comments. What I don't get is, why they would change this if they just started allowing E-forms to be filled for trusts. Heck they even have been fast tracking E-forms and they have been taking 3-4 months, not 7-9 months. If they're worried about individuals paying $$$ for a trust to then circumvent them from owning firearms, it seems very far fetched. Just make all individuals in the trust submit to NCIS. If a non approved person is on a trust, deny them, and investigate why they are on it..

That's exactly what I put in my comment regarding NICS background checks for "responsible persons." There's no reason a CLEO in this day and age needs to certify that there is no reason to believe that the person having control over the NFA item will use the item for unlawful purposes. A NICS check should be sufficient and my CLEO's in my jurisdiction have no idea who I am.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,896 Posts
That's exactly what I put in my comment regarding NICS background checks for "responsible persons." There's no reason a CLEO in this day and age needs to certify that there is no reason to believe that the person having control over the NFA item will use the item for unlawful purposes. A NICS check should be sufficient and my CLEO's in my jurisdiction have no idea who I am.

I read where the rule change will delete that CLEO assertion.

" modifying the information required in a law enforcement certificate, so that the certificate no longer requires a statement from the certifying official that he or she has no information indicating that the maker or transferee of the NFA firearm will use the firearm for other than lawful purposes"

The way I read the proposal the CLEO will basically acknowledge that the photo and the prints submitted are those of the actual person submitting.


" While courts have upheld the CLEO certificate requirement, ATF proposes to amend the language of the regulations and the corresponding forms to address this concern. Sections 479.63 and 479.85 will no longer require the certificate to contain a statement regarding information about the use of the firearm for other than lawful purposes. ATF requests comments on the specific language proposed, and whether this change will address the concerns raised by some CLEOs."

"The certificate must state that the official is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph accompanying the application are those of the responsible person and that the certifying official has no informationindicating that possession of the firearm by the responsible person would be in violation of state or local law."


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,238 Posts
I read where the rule change will delete that CLEO assertion.

" modifying the information required in a law enforcement certificate, so that the certificate no longer requires a statement from the certifying official that he or she has no information indicating that the maker or transferee of the NFA firearm will use the firearm for other than lawful purposes"

The way I read the proposal the CLEO will basically acknowledge that the photo and the prints submitted are those of the actual person submitting.


" While courts have upheld the CLEO certificate requirement, ATF proposes to amend the language of the regulations and the corresponding forms to address this concern. Sections 479.63 and 479.85 will no longer require the certificate to contain a statement regarding information about the use of the firearm for other than lawful purposes. ATF requests comments on the specific language proposed, and whether this change will address the concerns raised by some CLEOs."

"The certificate must state that the official is satisfied that the fingerprints and photograph accompanying the application are those of the responsible person and that the certifying official has no informationindicating that possession of the firearm by the responsible person would be in violation of state or local law."


Yea the proposal states that the language of the CLEO certification that will be expanded to trusts/corp.'s will be different. No one knows what the final language will be. However, the ridiculous part about it is that for too many CLEO's, the language could require them to certify that the sky is blue and they still wouldn't sign the Forms.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
421 Posts
From the FWIW department......both of the class III's I have been working with are of the opinion that the proposed rule change will happen BUT it will take BATFE at least 90 to 120 days to implement. They are assuming that it will be business as usual until BATFE can make the back office changes needed to address rule change. Time will tell.

Mailed off my last form 4 yesterday.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Troublesx10

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,024 Posts
What I don't get is, why they would change this if they just started allowing E-forms to be filled for trusts. Heck they even have been fast tracking E-forms and they have been taking 3-4 months, not 7-9 months. If they're worried about individuals paying $$$ for a trust to then circumvent them from owning firearms, it seems very far fetched. Just make all individuals in the trust submit to NCIS. If a non approved person is on a trust, deny them, and investigate why they are on it..
This has nothing, NOTHING, to do with preventing criminals from obtaining NFA items. The original language stated they were going to do away with CLEO signature. After Newtown and Dorner it was changed to expand it. During this time, what do you think the Democrats/Bloomberg/Giffords/Organizing for Action/ and a dozen other groups have been doing? They've been contacting every possible person that can do a CLEO signoff and informing them that they can prevent the spread of these SUPER deadly weapons with a simple refusal to sign.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,114 Posts
The CLEO's in my and surrounding counties have not been willing to sign off on NFA items for as long as I can remember ... rumor has it that this is due to direct order from the state capitol and that wouldn't surprise me a bit. Trust is our only option at current until I move out of this godforsaken county and reside in one that is in Free America! I submitted these and other comments(besides the Free America sarcasm) as soon as the comment period started for 41P. I also processed 4 more Form 4's since then, just to be sure!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,583 Posts
From the FWIW department......both of the class III's I have been working with are of the opinion that the proposed rule change will happen BUT it will take BATFE at least 90 to 120 days to implement. They are assuming that it will be business as usual until BATFE can make the back office changes needed to address rule cage. Time will tell.

Mailed off my last form 4 yesterday.
Then what will they do with the E-forms? Currently only trusts are allowed to do e-forms because you can't submit pictures or fingerprints with them.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top