Brady Stuffing Comment Box on ATF Background Check Rule

[hps1]

ATF Universal Background Check Rule Receives Thousands of Identical Supporting Comments​

Mr. Scoggin and AmmoLand News investigated the comments to see why the statistics are so lopsided in favor of the new rule. The discovery shows that the vast majority of the comments favoring the ATF proposed rule were identical.​

The comment period is still open and Ammoland has provided a LINK to the Federal Register comment section as well as the prepared reply below, which you may cut and paste or write your own comments. Still some time to offset the Brady attempt to stuff the ballot box. Please click on link above and file your comments, it takes less than a minute to do so, I just did.

I strongly oppose the proposed rule that redefines who is “engaged in the business” of selling firearms. The new rule will burden American gun owners by creating a grey area where they can inadvertently break the law.


The new requirement circumvents Congress by creating a de facto universal background check rule. Congress has chosen to leave background check laws for private gun sales to the state governments. This rule will override the authority of the states with overburdensome federal regulations and strip state’s rights.

The regulation will not make us any safer. The vast majority of guns used in crimes are stolen. States that have enacted universal background checks did not see any reduction of crimes committed with firearms. I strongly encourage the government to work on real solutions to solve the epidemic of violent crime and stop using firearms as a scapegoat for failed policies.

Regards,
hps

 

[hutch51]

Posted a note to Federal Register. Thanks for the link.

No effective way to monitor private sales.

Criminalizing firearms will not fix the crime problem. You might consider using existing laws to prosecute and jail criminals. That works.

 

[JohnKSa]

1. Comments are not votes.
2. Two identical comments don't carry the same weight as two unique comments. The BATF generally tries to address constructive comments in one way or another. Obviously addressing a ton of identical comments is just as easy as addressing only one.
3. Pro-gunners do the same thing. During the comment period for the final bump stock rule, over 40,000 identical comments were submitted using an NAGR generated form.

Here are some thoughts on how to make constructive comments.

ATF Comments and Form Letters/Emails.

Did anyone read through the ATF Bump Stock Final Rule document? https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2018-12-26/pdf/2018-27763.pdf There was some important information in there in terms of how effective activism is done.Of the 119,264 comments received in support of the rule, 14,618 used one...

www.thehighroad.org

 

[LocoGringo]

Do public comments actually factor into their decision making? I'm guessing as anti-2A as the ATF is, probably not, but that's just a guess.

 

[JohnKSa]

The comments become part of the public record. From past experience, we can see that they do expend effort addressing constructive and coherent comments. That means someone reads them and tries to rebut any points raised. It's hard to know exactly how much weight they carry.

By coherent/constructive, I mean that it's necessary that the comments can be read and understood and that they have useful content. Examples of NON-constructive comments:

• "This rule violates the 2nd amendment." (Instead, explain why/how. Provide cites if possible.)
• "The BATF is a bunch of jackbooted thugs!" (This is not the time/place to show off your flaming skills.)
• "This is an attack on law-abiding gun owners." (How so? Be specific and concise.)
• "I'm against this rule." (Instead point out problems with the rule. Your personal opinion of the rule is not especially relevant--it's not something they will have to address in the final rule. It's not a popularity contest or an election.)

Read the rule.
When you find part of it that is problematic, think of a way to explain briefly and clearly how/why it is problematic. If you can give real world examples or cite laws then do that.

 

[AlexanderA]

Cut-and-pasted comments are generally disregarded. At least try to make your comment somewhat original.

 

[MEHavey]

For both Alexander & John (serious question):

Do you believe comment from by the general public
has any effect upon the resultant actions by these
agencies?

.

 

[JohnKSa]

Do you believe comment from by the general public has any effect upon the resultant actions by these agencies?

They spend the time to address the issues raised, so that qualifies as "any effect". Could something cause them to actually change their mind? I suppose if a comment brought up an obvious legal issue that was likely to invalidate part of the rule, that could result in a change in the final outcome.

The point is that if you are going to put in the time to comment, don't just use a form. It doesn't cost them any more time and effort to respond to 10,000 identical comments than it does to respond to 1. And don't treat it like an election or a contest where the side with the most comments wins. If anything is going to have an effect, it will be the content of the comments, not their raw numbers.

They clearly don't even consider the Constiution when making their "rules" so to think they care what you think is absurd.

If they make a rule that is unconstitutional*, it will be struck down. They will likely try to stay within the boundaries of constitutionality, as they perceive them, to avoid wasted effort.

*Unconstitutional means that the Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional, it doesn't mean that someone's personal opinion/personal interpretation of the constitution is that it is unconstitutional. If someone can raise an issue of constitutionality about all or part of the rule based on Supreme Court rulings, that would be something very useful to include in a comment.

 

[Elkins45]

For both Alexander & John (serious question):

Do you believe comment from by the general public
has any effect upon the resultant actions by these
agencies?

.

It got LEO sign-off changed to notification for NFA items under 41F.

 

[DoubleMag]

For both Alexander & John (serious question):

Do you believe comment from by the general public
has any effect upon the resultant actions by these
agencies?

.

well the opposition side uses it to good effect, so, wait for it... YES

squeky wheel gets the grease



calls
letters/emails
marches

 

[MEHavey]

For both Alexander & John (serious question):

Do you believe comment from by the general public
has any counter effect upon the resultant actions by
these agencies?

Note my edit -- notwithstanding the op cit "opposition side uses it to good effect" observation.
I generally believe public comment periods are used to simply comply with legal procedure . . .
and the decision has already been made.

I would sleep better if/when folks could show me to be in true error -- other than changes at minor edges.

 

[JohnKSa]

I would sleep better if/when folks could show me to be in true error -- other than changes at minor edges.

It's quite easy to find examples where the final rule was changed from the originally proposed form based on comments. They very first one I pulled up showed this to be true--stating explicitly the changes made to the final rule and citing comments as the reason.

Federal Register :: Request Access

​

"In light of the comments received, this final rule revises..."​

"In response to comments, the final rule permits licensed manufacturers..."​

"Based on further review and the comments received in response to the ANPRM, ATF incorporated a proposed definition..."​

"The Department agrees with commenters that ... The final rule incorporates that addition."​

"The Department agrees that the phrase ... the phrase ... has been removed from the definition ... in the final rule..."​

"Because the final rule ... based on the recommendations of commenters, ... it has not been adopted in the final rule."​

I stopped at that point even though there were many more examples from the rule that could have been cited.

Of course, should one be so inclined, it would be easy to dismiss the stated changes as "changes at the minor edges" since that's a pretty nebulous classification. Although there may be one, I don't know of an example where a rule was discarded as a result of comments, and that seems to be what would be required to ensure that a change couldn't be qualified as a "change at the minor edge".

So, again, YES, it is clear that comments can have a counter effect upon the resultant actions. Are they likely to completely eliminate the rule? Of course not--there's a tremendous amount of wiggle room to modify a rule without just completely throwing in the towel.

What's the takeaway?

1. They have to take comments.
2. They have to go through all the comments.
3. They have to respond to each comment.
4. It can easily be shown that they do make changes in responses to the comments.
5. The impact of comments is primarily based on the content of the comments, not on the volume.
6. If you want to have a chance of positively impacting the rule, this provides a real chance to do that. If you do nothing, it's guaranteed to have no effect.

 

[hps1]

Just for the record, I sleep better knowing that I did anything/everything in my power/ability to influence pending legislation/rules such as this before enacted. Being proven wrong from time to time is just a fact of life and has no effect on my night's sleep. Think I'll have a nap now, have a good day.

 

[hoardingthemanual]

I commented against this foolish new "rule". I glanced at the other comments and the amount of BUSYBODY Socialist gun-grabbers in this country is high. i need to stop thinking about it for my health.

 

[wayneinFL]

Let's just hope they don't get this active on legislation.

 

[Elkins45]

My comment:

I oppose any change to the definition of being “engaged in the business” that adds more ambiguity to an already nebulous definition. Hobbyists who buy, sell and trade firearms for their personal enjoyment risk unintentional and inadvertent violations of rules that do not set clear limits and/or parameters. ATF themselves admit this in their FAQ when they state there is no “bright line” number of private sales that defines engaging in the business, and that potentially even one transaction can make someone a felon. Any change to the rule needs to either establish a firm number of yearly allowable transactions or establish a single, clear set of conditions that must all be met to be considered engaging in the business. To do otherwise is to set a trap for ordinary citizens enjoying a legal hobby.