Suppressors ATF to hire more examiners

#5
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RotARy15</div><div class="ubbcode-body">9 more? So that makes for a total of what? 10? </div></div>

^^^^^^^^^^^^ HaHaHa
laugh.gif
 
#6
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

CAN_zpsc3d68d35.jpg


You solve this problem by issueing a SUPPRESSOR LICENSE. Hiring more people in a world of growing Trust abuse is not the answer.

That is why I cannot give one red dime to any suppressor advocacy group that does not clearly understand and appropriately communicate the failure of the current structure and applied solution sets. IMO, the most efficient, effective solution for all parties is as follows:

WITH-LICENSE_zps575772d4.jpg


number-three_zps377ded4f.jpg
 
#13
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

If that is true, good news. I can see the long wait for the first time, never understood the long waits after it.

However, I have had a examiner help me out once and I'm thankful for that.
 
#14
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

those info graphics look really nice, but i don't see how the BATFE would have a vested interest in changing their process. They aren't a business, so they don't have a vested interest in increasing products. I would also find it hard to believe they would want to increase the number of items they need to keep track of.

That said, i would be first in line to get a license!


I also wanted to know if they have the ability to change the process by themselves, or if lawmakers would have to get involved.
 
#15
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

so wait... you want people to have to have a license to pay a $200 tax?...


somehow that makes more sense to you than what all the "suppressor advocacy groups", that I know of advocate, which is that suppressors either be removed from the NFA control (since they are not in fact firearms) or remain under the NFA, but be sold much like any other firearm, except w/ the $200 tax...

yeah, makes sense to me.... NOT!!!!
 
#16
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body">so wait... you want people to have to have a license to pay a $200 tax?...


somehow that makes more sense to you than what all the "suppressor advocacy groups", that I know of advocate, which is that suppressors either be removed from the NFA control (since they are not in fact firearms) or remain under the NFA, but be sold much like any other firearm, except w/ the $200 tax...

yeah, makes sense to me.... NOT!!!!
</div></div>

I think Thunder's idea was to get a license to bypass the lengthy scrutiny and simply pay the transfer stamp, show license and leave the store.

It will never happen but its fun to dream.
 
#18
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

FM, Cans will remain controlled, the issue is to fix the current system for all involved. Fee outside of this issue, although I would have no problem paying the $200 for 45 day turns, you can pick whatever number makes you happy. What Rhino said (thanks.) If you think 10 more contract workers are going to fix it, I have a budget I would like you to look at.

On the subject of Trusts, its a control nightmare, especially in the absence of a license to carry. 20 years ago, Trusts were 1 out of 500. Today 1 out of 40. The issue is to make transfer to processed individuals as efficient as possible. The intent of this exercise is to provide clarity, security, accountability and speed to all engaged. Trusts have faceless parties that can change, be under age with representatives, become infirmed, etc. In order to service those not engaging in the process of running around their local police chief, we have to address Trusts differently. Trusts remain, but they are processed the "old way", letting the declared individual, prior approved and in good standing get their next can as fast as possible.

Remember, this is a process change suggestion.
 
#19
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FM, Cans will remain controlled. Fee outside of this issue, although I would have no problem paying the $200 for 45 day turns, you can pick whatever number makes you happy. What Rhino said (thanks.)

On the subject of Trusts, its a control nightmare, especially in the absence of a license to carry. 20 years ago, Trusts were 1 out of 500. Today 1 out of 40.

The issue is to make transfer to individuals as efficient as possible. The intent of this exercise is to provide clarity, security, accountability and speed to all engaged. Trusts have faceless parties that can change, be under age with representatives, become infirmed, etc. In order to service those not engaging int the process of running around their local sherrif, we have to address Trusts differently. </div></div>

so again... you want a license... rather than what most advocacy groups want... what they all really want is for NFA items ( suppressors and SBRs specifically) to have the same buying process as any other firearm... IE: you pay for it, fill out a 4473 (and a form 4), the dealer runs the NICS check, receives a "proceed" (theoretically), and you walk out with your purchase... the $200 tax would be added to the price and sales tax, the form 4 would be mailed in to the BATF and entered into the NFA registry...

because it simply makes no real sense to have parts and ACCESSORIES regulated like they are... you can walk out w/ a pistol, but have to wait 6+ months for a muffler for it... you have to wait 6+ months on a 14.5" barreled rifle, but a 16", walks right out... as if a suppressed or short barreled firearm is more dangerous... PLEASE!!!

and now your answer is a license... way to give up
 
#20
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

and honestly.. the CLEO signature is retarded... it may have had merit in the 1930s, before NICS, but now your average CLEO doesn't know which inmates are in his jail w/o a computer, and then it's questionable... a NICS check makes the CLEO signature pointless (assuming any CLEOs really had a clue anyway)
 
#21
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

Ok, so lets try this again. I'll believe that you are interested in understanding my position, if you stop extrapolating what I want incorrectly. Ok?

You think the BATFE are going to give up controlling the ownership of suppressors. Fine, that is your expectation and hope. Not mine, I don't think it will happen any time soon. Suppressors have a unique characteristic that seperates them for almost all other "devices" or accessories as you call them. Before we address that, lets get some of the static out of your system.

SBRs
SBR laws confuse the fact that a 9mm rifle with a 10" barrel is somehow more dangerous than a Glock with a 4" barrel. It makes no sense. You and I both agree with that. BUT.... As long as the law separates rifles from pistols, as long as pistols require carry permits, as long as concealed carry is in the statues of many States, SBRs will remain a registered item. THAT is the issue driving SBRs, concealed carry.

Suppressors
Now you and I would like to think that anybody that truly understood the ability of suppressors to alleviate hearing loss would do everything within their power to insure their wide distribution right? In fact, if firearms were ANY OTHER PRODUCT, they would not be able to be sold without one for health reasons. But....that is not the issue here. What is holding back suppressors being freely available, what makes registration a Federal requirement has nothing to do with addressing hearing loss, it has to do with the belief, long held, that suppressors make criminal acts more difficult to detect. It is about suppressing the sound of a firearm used in an illegitamate engagement. And THAT is why they are regulated. And why, I believe, suppressors will continue to be regulated especially in the current political climate. The idea that the solution being advocated is that suppressors and short barreled rifles should be just sent home after a check is written is a certainly an interesting read on the politics of today.

So, from my perspective (not yours, I got that) the issue is "How does a process more effectively address the question "who is this person and should they have a can" in manner that makes mnore sense than adding more bodies. It starts with creating a system that REMEMBERS who has been through this system, making sure that is the SAME person, and approving them as fast as possible. We start the process with the individual (as TRUSTs have other "blind" issues) and managing the process with a license so that the current process does not just repeat itself over and over again.

P.S. If you have something that you think captures another formal position from an advocacy group, please do post it. Ive seen one video and that video documents everything that appears to require direct intervention from somebody from the 21st century, on BOTH sides of the table.


 
#22
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

RollingThunder...

what I don't think you understand is that I, and advocacy groups, don't really mind the BATF (NFA Branch) having "control" or a registry, nor do we really mind the tax...

what we have a HUGE problem with is the archaic system of "approval", just like you do...

what you and I disagree on specifically is a license or permit being the answer, first of all, it's unconstitutional (which is why we have a tax now, instead of a license)... and second, anyone who can legally purchase a pistol, can legally purchase a NFA item... so why don't we make purchasing said NFA item just like purchasing said pistol, simply add the tax like sales tax, and fill out the form 4 (since a national registry is also required by law, and the BATF will need the information for that registry)...

people seem to think that the 6+ month wait is the BATF doing some huge background check, basically it's your packet working to the top of the stack, so that they can semi manually do what a NICS check does in a couple of minutes... once it makes it to the top, it's done pretty quickly, if you ever get an error letter and resubmit whatever (including fingerprints or something the "need" to identify you) and watch it come back in a week, then spend another week in the mail room and USPS back to your dealer, you might understand that.

our position is that it's a tax, not a license, or even permission to own the item...

an FFL who chooses to pay the SOT and become a class 3 dealer, simply fills out the form and sends it in... the second they do that they are a class 3 dealer, the BATF will even tell them what is used as their ID # and that they can submit form 3s for approval (even though most other dealers will want a copy of the actual SOT, that takes around 3-4 weeks to arrive)...

so why should a personal item be any different, you're still just paying a tax... NICS has already given the dealer a "proceed" to sell you a firearm, fill out the form 4, send it off w/ $200... within say 24hrs "just like I have to on a multiple pistol purchase", and you've already got your item...

why do we ask that they be removed from the NFA then? the same reason a PD asks for $2,000,000 a year to run their department, they know they probably won't get what they ask for, so they ask for more, if they happen to get what they ask for...BONUS... same reason when people are selling stuff, they say "price "can always go down"
 
#23
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

I get all that.

"anyone who can legally purchase a pistol, can legally purchase a NFA item... so why don't we make purchasing said NFA item just like purchasing said pistol, simply add the tax like sales tax, and fill out the form 4 (since a national registry is also required by law, and the BATF will need the information for that registry)"

That is not true in any sense of the thought. There are plenty of States where that is not the case and THAT is the issue. Those "persons" ARE different in every single meaningful way under the law as it relates to END USE.

Sending in Manfacturers and Dealers to solve this issue is like sending in Ford and Delphi to work on registration problems at your local MVD.

I want a carry permit for every state I go to.

I want a Class III permit for PROCESSING my BATFE items faster.

Everything else? All the dealer related efficiencies do nothing for the citizen front end and THAT is where the system is broken and THAT is the where the health of the industry is determined.

Lets give it a rest.

 
#24
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

Lets look at who has licenses for any firearm relate purchases....places like....New Jersey.

not sue about you guys but I'd rather not.

Most people who I talk to that know next to nothing about guns give the "your kidding right?" look when I tell them you have to wait 6 months for a suppressor and that the paperwork is the same as a machine gun.

Most people don't fear silencers and in most of the rest of the "non-free" world they can be bought/made without any registration.

Yeah I'll pay the tax (although it's BS) but the wait is nothing but back door legislation to keep the masses of gun owners from buying them!

Ef another "permission slip" and work toward real fixes!

I'm with FM on this one!
 
#25
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

I am about to finally send in the paperwork for my .338 can. I REALLY hope that this is true and it expedites my approval time. I have already waited long enough for this can to get to my dealer!
 
#26
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: badshot338</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I am about to finally send in the paperwork for my .338 can. I REALLY hope that this is true and it expedites my approval time. I have already waited long enough for this can to get to my dealer! </div></div>

It is true but will be awhile until there is a noticeable decrease in time.
 
#30
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

BATF is a component of the shoe factory. DC is a shoe factory because the place is full of loafers... That's what my first PSG told me in the early 70s. Sadly it's still true.
 
#33
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Force_Multiplier</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: RollingThunder51</div><div class="ubbcode-body">FM, Cans will remain controlled. Fee outside of this issue, although I would have no problem paying the $200 for 45 day turns, you can pick whatever number makes you happy. What Rhino said (thanks.)

On the subject of Trusts, its a control nightmare, especially in the absence of a license to carry. 20 years ago, Trusts were 1 out of 500. Today 1 out of 40.

The issue is to make transfer to individuals as efficient as possible. The intent of this exercise is to provide clarity, security, accountability and speed to all engaged. Trusts have faceless parties that can change, be under age with representatives, become infirmed, etc. In order to service those not engaging int the process of running around their local sherrif, we have to address Trusts differently. </div></div>

so again... you want a license... rather than what most advocacy groups want... what they all really want is for NFA items ( suppressors and SBRs specifically) to have the same buying process as any other firearm... IE: you pay for it, fill out a 4473 (and a form 4), the dealer runs the NICS check, receives a "proceed" (theoretically), and you walk out with your purchase... the $200 tax would be added to the price and sales tax, the form 4 would be mailed in to the BATF and entered into the NFA registry...

because it simply makes no real sense to have parts and ACCESSORIES regulated like they are... you can walk out w/ a pistol, but have to wait 6+ months for a muffler for it... you have to wait 6+ months on a 14.5" barreled rifle, but a 16", walks right out... as if a suppressed or short barreled firearm is more dangerous... PLEASE!!!

and now your answer is a license... way to give up </div></div>

That has to be the most senseless way to look at something that I have ever seen. What the "license" would do for suppressors is exactly what a carry permit does for guns in NC - serves to replace the need for a NICS check. You do the check ONCE, get a license - tantamount to certification - and go about your merry way ne'er to be concerned with the NICS check again unless your license or "certification" is revoked. What's so hard to understand here? The effect would be that suppressors WOULD be treated as any other firearm purchase. The "license" is in lieu of an on-the-spot NICS check, just as the carry permit does for a gun purchase in states who's carry requirements are deemed sufficient to be used as such.

DUH!
 
#37
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Captain Moroni</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Hopefully they are better than the assistants they hired, what a bunch of mindless jackasses. </div></div>

isn't that the point...
 
#38
Re: ATF to hire more examiners

Gotta chime in on behalf of the front line ATF folks. I think they might be taking a bit more heat than is due to them and just maybe deserve the benefit of the doubt...

On most days of the year I am working with some of the worlds largest corporations and government entities to improve their financial processes. Most of this work involves new software, but also new workflow processes. The short version is that staff level workers are, more often than not, expected to perform miracles of finance and accounting with what amounts to a rusty abacus. I am working on a project right now (as in, I'm taking a break from writing calc scripts to write this note) with a firm that has systems so outdated we had to hire some Russian and Chinese programmers to understand their current system (because this particular system is so old only 55 to 65 year old communist bloc programmers use it much anymore). And this firm has one VERY high tech public image, generated from its VERY expensive PR department. When we walked through the door the VP level folks talked about how their people needed training, maybe half of them needed to be replaced, and some were just plain unwilling to put in the effort. BULLSHIT. They needed to give their people a workable 21st century system and a bit of support. Now I try to imagine some Federal employees sitting in some remote outpost with stacks of paper to sift through, and taking shit from every side. I haven't worked with these particular folks on a professional level, (they are very nice on the phone when I call to bug them about the status of my MK13-SD), but they are the easy target. The SYSTEM is the culprit, I strongly suspect. And if there is ever a slick, hassle free, light speed system for NFA approvals, some slick politician will move at light speed to take all the credit and those front line workers will continue to take shit from all sides... I see way too much shit rolling downhill (quite unfairly) every day. If we want change we need to write well thought out letters to our congressional representatives. In the mean time I will continue to be quite polite to those folks on the other end of the phone when asking about that Surefire FA556-212 I hope to have by June.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lowlight
When and Why Group Buys
Replies
53
Views
4K
Quasarrasauq
Q
A
Target Post Reinforcement?
Replies
27
Views
740
vinconco
vinconco
E
URSA 3000 Yard Challenge (2025) - Announcement
Replies
0
Views
102
ELR researcher
E
BigJimFish
2024 BigJimFish Review / Article blog: PurePrecision, Precision Straight-Walled Cartridge Rifle, Proof, XTPS trigger, Levels
Replies
24
Views
3K
BigJimFish
BigJimFish
lash
Evolution May Be Purposeful And It’s Freaking Scientists Out
Replies
152
Views
4K
lash
lash
Top Bottom
Back
Home
Forums
Merch
Alerts