L1A1Rocker
10-29-2013, 03:41 PM
I dropped off a constituent complaint letter to my congressman this morning.
Xxxxxxx x xxxxxx
Xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx TX xxxxx
xxx-xxx-xxxx
The Honorable Lamar Smith
Congressman 21st District of Texas
Date: October 28, 2013
Re: Assistance with processing applications submitted to the National Firearm Act branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, firearms, and Explosives.
On February 6, 2013 I sent three (3) applications to the National Firearm Act branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, firearms, and Explosives (NFA) to obtain approval for the home manufacture of Title II firearms. These included two (2) silencers serial numbers xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx; and an application for a Short Barreled Rifle serial number xxxxxxx. These applications were submitted under a trust in the name of “XXX XXX Trust”.
On or about July 23, 2013 I received two of the applications back for minor correction. They were corrected and posted back the following day.
On Monday September 30, 2013 I called NFA to check the status of those three (3) applications. I was told that they were “awaiting approval” as of August 6th. This is sometimes referred to as “second approval” or “final approval”. What it means, my paperwork was in a stack awaiting signature, envelope, and stamp.
I should also note at this time, that ATF on or about the end of August, has proposed a rules and documentation change with regard to the processing of applications under a Trust. These new rules would require that all “responsible persons” be required to submit photos, fingerprints, and obtain local law enforcement sign-off on the application for each “responsible person”. Please note that ATF fails to define a “responsible person” on a trust, nor does it have the authority to compel local law enforcement to sign the form. This affectively gives one person (the head of the local law enforcement agency) the dictatorial power to veto a citizens’ application for a Title II firearm by simply refusing to sign the document. The ATF has acknowledged that there has NEVER been an incident of an prohibited person obtaining access to a firearm through a trust (as such would be illegal under current law) but are asking for this rules change without regard to current laws that make such actions illegal. It is clearly an attempt making lawful gun ownership as difficult as possible with no benefit to safety or security. It is strictly a solution to a non-existent problem. Please do not allow the ATF to unilaterally, without congressional oversight, change what has stood since 1934 without any problems. In response to the proposed rules change; on September 3, 2013 I sent in three (3) more NFA applications hoping to get in “under the wire”, as it were. Those applications were for two (2) silencers serial numbers, xxxxxxx and xxxxxx and one Short barreled rifle serial number xxxxxxx.
This morning October 28, 2013 I logged onto a web site that tracks NFA application. It does this by having folks awaiting their forms volunteer their information to the web site. (You can find it at http://www.nfatracker.com/) The web site lists the various states of process as they travel through the NFA approval process. (Things such as date sent, received at NFA, check cashed, pending, 2nd pending, and approval are tracked) There I noticed that my applications submitted in February should have been received by now. This prompted me to call NFA to check the status of my applications.
I spoke to a lady named Vicky. She informed be that the “new system” only tracks from the date the application was received and that the NFA no longer logs any other dates, such as pending or approved dates. As such she could not tell me a date to expect my forms back. She could only tell me that current estimates are 15 months from date of receipt. She blamed it on "revenue not being appropriated". I asked for clarification. She said it was due to the government furlough. I asked, "A 3 week furlough means a 5 month delay in processing?" “Well, it's because we kept receiving applications during that 3 weeks.” Was her answer. I know that the mail was running and that the NFA did continue to receive applications, but that explanation just doesn’t pass the “smell test” to me. I’ll say again, that I have three (3) applications that have been waiting since the beginning of August for only a signature, envelope and stamp. It makes me wonder if the NFA is intentionally delaying applications so as to apply the new rules (mentioned above) to them and cut the amount of approvals that citizens should rightfully receive.
Congressman, in years past you helped me with a similar situation where the NFA appeared to be intentionally slow walking my application. I’m sorry, but I must ask for your help again.
What I’m asking assistance for:
1) Insure that the paperwork for serial number items xxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx, and xxxxxx that were sent in in February, be processed in a timeframe more appropriate to a continues workload interrupted by a three (3) week shut down, and not with an arbitrary 5 months tacked on. Wholly unacceptable.
2) That the NFA go back to the old “system” of tracking paperwork through its various processes to better gauge when citizens may expect their approvals. The “new system” seems designed to hide intentional delays.
3) Do what ever is within the Congressman’s authority to speed up the processing of NFA applications. In particular, my applications serial numbers xxxxx, xxxxxxx, and xxxxxx. In today’s electronic world this process should be a matter of weeks, not months, and most defiantly not more than a year.
4) Do not allow the NFA to unilaterally change, without congressional oversight, the way applications under a trust are processed.
5) Ensure that any changes to documentation required to process NFA trust applications are only applied to NEW applications; and that any applications already received by NFA are not further delayed by implementing new regulations on them. (That they are in affect “Grandfathered” under the old requirements)
Thank you,
The above letter has a few typos in it that were corrected. Ya'll get the idea.
Xxxxxxx x xxxxxx
Xxxx xxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxx TX xxxxx
xxx-xxx-xxxx
The Honorable Lamar Smith
Congressman 21st District of Texas
Date: October 28, 2013
Re: Assistance with processing applications submitted to the National Firearm Act branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, firearms, and Explosives.
On February 6, 2013 I sent three (3) applications to the National Firearm Act branch of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, firearms, and Explosives (NFA) to obtain approval for the home manufacture of Title II firearms. These included two (2) silencers serial numbers xxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx; and an application for a Short Barreled Rifle serial number xxxxxxx. These applications were submitted under a trust in the name of “XXX XXX Trust”.
On or about July 23, 2013 I received two of the applications back for minor correction. They were corrected and posted back the following day.
On Monday September 30, 2013 I called NFA to check the status of those three (3) applications. I was told that they were “awaiting approval” as of August 6th. This is sometimes referred to as “second approval” or “final approval”. What it means, my paperwork was in a stack awaiting signature, envelope, and stamp.
I should also note at this time, that ATF on or about the end of August, has proposed a rules and documentation change with regard to the processing of applications under a Trust. These new rules would require that all “responsible persons” be required to submit photos, fingerprints, and obtain local law enforcement sign-off on the application for each “responsible person”. Please note that ATF fails to define a “responsible person” on a trust, nor does it have the authority to compel local law enforcement to sign the form. This affectively gives one person (the head of the local law enforcement agency) the dictatorial power to veto a citizens’ application for a Title II firearm by simply refusing to sign the document. The ATF has acknowledged that there has NEVER been an incident of an prohibited person obtaining access to a firearm through a trust (as such would be illegal under current law) but are asking for this rules change without regard to current laws that make such actions illegal. It is clearly an attempt making lawful gun ownership as difficult as possible with no benefit to safety or security. It is strictly a solution to a non-existent problem. Please do not allow the ATF to unilaterally, without congressional oversight, change what has stood since 1934 without any problems. In response to the proposed rules change; on September 3, 2013 I sent in three (3) more NFA applications hoping to get in “under the wire”, as it were. Those applications were for two (2) silencers serial numbers, xxxxxxx and xxxxxx and one Short barreled rifle serial number xxxxxxx.
This morning October 28, 2013 I logged onto a web site that tracks NFA application. It does this by having folks awaiting their forms volunteer their information to the web site. (You can find it at http://www.nfatracker.com/) The web site lists the various states of process as they travel through the NFA approval process. (Things such as date sent, received at NFA, check cashed, pending, 2nd pending, and approval are tracked) There I noticed that my applications submitted in February should have been received by now. This prompted me to call NFA to check the status of my applications.
I spoke to a lady named Vicky. She informed be that the “new system” only tracks from the date the application was received and that the NFA no longer logs any other dates, such as pending or approved dates. As such she could not tell me a date to expect my forms back. She could only tell me that current estimates are 15 months from date of receipt. She blamed it on "revenue not being appropriated". I asked for clarification. She said it was due to the government furlough. I asked, "A 3 week furlough means a 5 month delay in processing?" “Well, it's because we kept receiving applications during that 3 weeks.” Was her answer. I know that the mail was running and that the NFA did continue to receive applications, but that explanation just doesn’t pass the “smell test” to me. I’ll say again, that I have three (3) applications that have been waiting since the beginning of August for only a signature, envelope and stamp. It makes me wonder if the NFA is intentionally delaying applications so as to apply the new rules (mentioned above) to them and cut the amount of approvals that citizens should rightfully receive.
Congressman, in years past you helped me with a similar situation where the NFA appeared to be intentionally slow walking my application. I’m sorry, but I must ask for your help again.
What I’m asking assistance for:
1) Insure that the paperwork for serial number items xxxxxxx, xxxxxxxx, and xxxxxx that were sent in in February, be processed in a timeframe more appropriate to a continues workload interrupted by a three (3) week shut down, and not with an arbitrary 5 months tacked on. Wholly unacceptable.
2) That the NFA go back to the old “system” of tracking paperwork through its various processes to better gauge when citizens may expect their approvals. The “new system” seems designed to hide intentional delays.
3) Do what ever is within the Congressman’s authority to speed up the processing of NFA applications. In particular, my applications serial numbers xxxxx, xxxxxxx, and xxxxxx. In today’s electronic world this process should be a matter of weeks, not months, and most defiantly not more than a year.
4) Do not allow the NFA to unilaterally change, without congressional oversight, the way applications under a trust are processed.
5) Ensure that any changes to documentation required to process NFA trust applications are only applied to NEW applications; and that any applications already received by NFA are not further delayed by implementing new regulations on them. (That they are in affect “Grandfathered” under the old requirements)
Thank you,
The above letter has a few typos in it that were corrected. Ya'll get the idea.