Joshua Prince and Tom Odom have put together over 400 pages of comments and exhibits. Below are the broad topics that their extensive comment covers. If you enjoy reading about the Second Amendment, you will enjoy the extensive research and history that is included in this document. Joshua said they were able to shave off 40 or 50 pages by incorporating my comments by reference. I have included their conclusion below for you to read.
- PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES HAVE DENIED INTERESTED PERSONS A MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY TO COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED RULEMAKING
- ATF’S PROPOSED RULE RAISES IMPORTANT CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES
- ATF’S PROPOSAL EXCEEDS ITS STATUTORY AUTHORITY
- POLICY CONSIDERATIONS DO NOT SUPPORT ATF’S PROPOSED RULE
- LESS BURDENSOME ALTERNATIVES TO ATF’S PROPOSED RULE
Below is a reprint of the conclusion to their Comment on 41p. Remember this comprehensive comment was submitted with over 400 pages of exhibits.
ATF has made a mockery of this proceeding, engaging in numerous tactics designed to deny meaningful public participation. As a result, ATF cannot promulgate any final rule that hopes to survive judicial review without starting fresh. In doing so, ATF should consult with a broad cross-section of interests familiar with the laws governing trusts, estates, and business entities rather than a select few. Independent of such problems, moreover, there is ample reason to question whether the ATF regulation of certain firearms under the NFA is consistent with the Second Amendment and federalism concerns. ATF’s proposal stretches far beyond any statutory authority. If ATF were to overcome those problems, the fact remains that its proposal is built upon statistically invalid assumptions and false premises. ATF failed to quantify any benefit from the proposed rule and substantially under counted the cost it would impose, including a failure to consider at all some of the largest costs. The proposed rule is demonstrably unworkable and much less-burdensome alternatives exist to address any legitimate concerns.
Even the one portion of the proposal that heads in the right direction — dealing with decedent’s estates — fails to define terms with sufficient specificity as to permit meaningful comment. If that section is intended to codify existing ATF practices, it fails in several key respects. Alternatively, if that section is intended to depart from the ATF’s established practices, there is no stated justification for doing so and the result is a proposal that is internally inconsistent with the manner in which it treats fiduciaries.
To download their full comment, please visit our 41P Comment page at https://www.guntrustlawyer.com/41p.html.