Another 41P Pushback? Good News for NFA Enthusiasts.
According to yesterday’s NSSF Bullet Points newsletter, it looks like a final ruling on 41P – the rule change that would modify the process of transferring or making NFA firearms for legal entities – may get pushed back again.
The newsletter, under the heading “No Implementation Yet Seen for Notice 41P as Final Rule” reads: “NSSF has confirmed with ATF that the bureau is unlikely to publish Notice 41P (NFA Trusts) as a Final Rule for quite some time. This is in part because EPS resources are being diverted to help process the 310,000 public comments received in response to the armor piercing ammunition framework proposal. In addition, it seems ATF has not prepared to revise the NFA database so that it can track “responsible persons” for NFA trusts. The proposed rule would require the responsible person(s) on an NFA Trust be fingerprinted.”
As we previously reported, the BATFE received over 9000 comments on Notice 41P and is required to address each issue raised in those comments. With resources diverted to processing the gargantuan number of ammo ban comments, processing 41P comments – perhaps seen as a back-burner issue – may have stalled.
Short of flat-out discarding the entire 41P proposal, this lack of movement on the issue and further delay of a final ruling (if it ever even happens, instead of just quietly disappearing) is some of the better news that could come on the subject. Further delay of a ruling gives those wishing to own NFA-regulated items, such as supressors and short-barreled rifles, using a trust (which you can even get online) more time to establish that trust and get their required paperwork filed.
ATF Pulls Proposed M855 Ammo Ban
Directly from the ATF:
NOTICE TO THOSE COMMENTING ON THE ARMOR PIERCING AMMUNITION EXEMPTION FRAMEWORK
Thank you for your interest in ATF’s proposed framework for determining whether certain projectiles are “primarily intended for sporting purposes” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 921(a)(17)(C). The informal comment period will close on Monday, March 16, 2015. ATF has already received more than 80,000 comments, which will be made publicly available as soon as practicable.
Although ATF endeavored to create a proposal that reflected a good faith interpretation of the law and balanced the interests of law enforcement, industry, and sportsmen, the vast majority of the comments received to date are critical of the framework, and include issues that deserve further study. Accordingly, ATF will not at this time seek to issue a final framework. After the close of the comment period, ATF will process the comments received, further evaluate the issues raised therein, and provide additional open and transparent process (for example, through additional proposals and opportunities for comment) before proceeding with any framework.
You spoke, we listened. @ATFHQ plans more study on the proposed AP Ammo exemption framework. See more http://t.co/SmRKMYvw7J
— ATF HQ (@ATFHQ) March 10, 2015
NRA-ILA: Stop ATF’s Ammo Ban
Urge Your U.S. Representative to Sign Congressional Letter to ATF on Proposed Ammo Ban
As NRA has been reporting since the night the news broke, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) is moving to infringe upon the rights of law-abiding gun owners with a drastic reinterpretation of a nearly 30-year-old law regulating so-called “armor piercing” ammunition. So draconian is BATFE’s new “Framework” that it would prohibit the manufacturing, importation, and sale of M855 ball ammunition, one of the most popular cartridges for the most popular rifle in America, the AR-15. Not coincidentally, the AR-15 is among the firearms the Obama Administration has unsuccessfully sought to outlaw. If they can’t ban the pie, so the thinking apparently goes, they might at least get the apples.
In an effort to thwart BATFE’s attempted action, NRA has worked with U.S. Representative Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, to draft a letter to BATFE expressing the lawmakers’ opposition to the proposed Framework. To read a copy of the letter, please click this link.
According to the letter, “The idea that Congress intended [the ‘armor piercing’ ammunition law] to ban one of the preeminent rifle cartridges in use by Americans for legitimate purposes is preposterous.” It goes on to state that the law “should be construed in accordance with the Continue reading
ATF Receives Nearly 9,500 Comments on Proposed NFA Trust Rule Change 41P
Responses include 100+ pages from David M Goldman, 17 from NRA-ILA
The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (BATFE) received 9,479 comments filed regarding docket ATF-2013-0001: Machine Guns, Destructive Devices and Certain Other Firearms: Background Checks for Responsible Persons of a Corporation, Trust or Other Legal Entity with Respect to Making or Transferring a Firearm.
The proposed rule change is summarized on its regulations.gov site as: “The Department of Justice is planning to finalize a proposed rule to amend the regulations of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) regarding the making or transferring of a firearm under the National Firearms Act. As proposed, the rule would (1) add a definition for the term “responsible person”; (2) require each responsible person of a corporation, trust or legal entity to complete a specified form, and to submit photographs and fingerprints; and (3) modify the requirements regarding the certificate of the chief law enforcement officer (CLEO).”
In layman’s terms, what 41P does is require anyone obtaining an NFA firearm as a legal entity (e.g. an NFA Trust, LLC, or Corporation) to submit fingerprints, photographs, and proof of US citizenship along with their local Chief Law Enforcement Officer’s (CLEO) approval for each purchase or transfer. In many jurisdictions, this results in de facto ban on NFA firearms where the CLEO refuses to approve NFA transfers either because they are ignorant of NFA items or are outright anti-gun.
Among the comments received is a 17 page document filed by Chris Cox on behalf of the National Rifle Association’s Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA). In his comments, Cox references a number of other comments, including those filed by NFA Gun Trust Lawyer Blog’s David M. Goldman in his 55 page submission accompanied by another 88 pages of supporting exhibits. Cox goes on to point out their three main objections to the change:
First, its requirements are not authorized by the NFA and are therefore illegal for the Bureau of
Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to impose. Second, the requirements could effectively block even those who are lawfully entitled to receive and possess NFA firearms from doing so under the very regime Congress created, and most states recognize, for this purpose. On the other hand, ATF has articulated no reason why the current regime has proven unworkable or how imposing these additional burdens on responsible, law-abiding persons would enhance public safety.
The comments appear to be overwhelmingly in opposition to the changes in 41P and articulate many reasons why the proposal should not be implemented. The BATFE must now review all of the submitted comments and replies before making a decision – which is expected to come in early 2015.
Bill Akins’s Open Letter on BATFE Akins Accelerator Ruling
The Akins Accelerator is back! This time with no continually biased springs to rile up the BATFE. To commemorate its phoenix-like rise from the bureaucratic ashes, let’s take a look back at a part of the device’s history. What follows is an open letter from William Akins, inventor of the Akins Accelerator. This letter was originally published on now-defunct Blogspot blog Red’s Trading Post in December 2007.
My fellow Americans.
Let me draw your attention to a process known as bump firing which is exactly what my stock allows you to do except my stock stays stationary whereas in bump firing the entire firearm including the stock moves.
Bumpfiring uses no devices of any kind. It is a skill or knack as it were, that the shooter learns. Before I go into it, I would like to mention that if you read the illegal BATFE 2006-02 ruling that bans my accelerator device, that same ruling actually bans the process of bump firing and therefore any semi automatic capable of bump firing. Read the 2006-02 ruling at the BATFE website, then come back here and look at what I am about to show you.
To bump fire, you hold the weapon very loosely with your right hand and put your finger against the trigger without actually pulling it yet. Then you pull forward with your left hand concentrating on keeping forward tension on your left hand. By doing so you pull forward on the weapon and push the trigger against the right hands trigger finger which fires the gun, which recoils allowing your finger to actually stay in contact with the trigger but allows the trigger to come back forward and reset, but remember, you are keeping forward pressure with your left hand on the fore end of the stock again pushing the trigger into your trigger finger. Actually according to the BATFE ruling, the hellfire and tac trigger should be more illegal than my device since both those devices have your finger RIDING the trigger back and forth and never releasing from it, whereas my device causes your finger to completely disengage from the trigger for each shot. So why are two rapid fire devices that clearly fall within the new BATFE ruling allowed but mine is banned? Politics. Here’s a few links to videos showing bump firing without any kind of device at all.
This is the exact same thing my device does except the firearm does it within a stationary stock whereas in bump firing the whole firearm and stock assembly moves. However it is the same under Federal law as my device, and SHOULD be the same under the illegal BATFE ruling as my device, i.e. banned equally as my device has been banned. But the BATFE selectively enforces their new illegal ruling. Why? Because if they equally enforced their bogus ruling against the technique of bump firing, they would have to ban all semi automatic weapons, which is actually what their new 2006-02 ruling does. It bans my device, the hellfire device, the tac trigger and the process of bump firing with no device. Continue reading
