Jump to content

ATF requesting comments on proposed Form 4 revisions


Tiz
 Share

Recommended Posts

Action: 60-day Notice of Information Collection Under Review: Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm

ATF Form 4 (5320.4)

 

Agency Information Collection Activities; Proposed eCollection eComments Requested; Revision of a Currently Approved Collection; Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm—ATF Form 4 (5320.4)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, Department of Justice.
ACTION: 60-Day notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice (DOJ), Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), will submit the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and approval in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. The proposed collection OMB 1140– 0014 (Application for Tax Paid Transfer and Registration of Firearm—ATF Form 4 (5320.4)), is being revised to accommodate additional questions, include definition of new terminology, and changes to the instructions.

DATES: Comments are encouraged and will be accepted for 60 days until June 24, 2019.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If you have additional comments, regarding the estimated public burden or associated response time, suggestions, or need a copy of the proposed information collection instrument with instructions, or additional information, please contact: James Chancey, National Firearms Act Division either by mail at 244 Needy Road, Martinsburg, WV 25405, by email at nfaombcomments@atf.gov, or by telephone at 304–616–4594.SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Written comments and suggestions from the public and affected agencies concerning the proposed collection of information are encouraged. Your comments should address one or more of the following four points:

—Evaluate whether the proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information will have practical utility;

—Evaluate the accuracy of the agency’s estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

—Evaluate whether and if so how the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected can be enhanced; and

—Minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g.,permitting electronic submission of responses.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah do all transfers on everything and approve in 30 days......

Since they get their paychecks even faster.Ron

Roger that Ron.

I posted it because I thought some of RKI members might be interested in submitting comments especially in the area concerning e-file.

It is incredible in this day and age that form 4 processing should take up to a year. Ever think of working overtime to clear the backlog?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

with many people buying multiple items over the course of 1-5 years i dont see why you cant get a 5 year approval...my sheriff gave me a law letter giving me approval for life...

 

i know someone could become a felon in that 5 year window, but they could have a way to amend it if something happened.....

 

i have sent in form 4's twice in a day....there is no reason they cannot combine them to speed things up...the batch approval theory is a simple thing they could do..

 

removing silencers is the #1 step they should take.....but congress wont approve it(even under republican rule)

 

remove silencers and approvals are 30 days or less tomorrow

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not necessarily gun related, but relates to that thought process that even though technology improves efficiency does not. The average time of getting around in London has not changed from when they had to walk and use horses to now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Removing suppressors from NFA, as they should be, would be a great start. Even in very gun restrictive European countries suppressors are an over the counter item. They are not a firearm or destructive device, they are an accessory and certainly should not be subject to the same approval process as a machine gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree something needs to be done. Europe recognizes them as hearing protection. The US recognizes them from assassin movies

 

I do think some distribution control is necessary. We have too many school and public tragedies and lessening the sound could delay the response.

Maybe regulate under FDA? or NIH. They could do tons of testing and establish QC standards and dBA parameters

Just my two cents,

Keith

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would never want to substitute one Federal Bureaucracy for another.

Just classify suppressors as standard firearms.

 

Any murderer who can change the batteries on a flashlight could build a suppressor right now, if they wanted one.

Plenty of advice and parts on the internet.

 

I would much prefer a legally protected capability to shoot back, in places where it's now prohibited.

-You know, the places where the mass murders always seem to happen.

Edited by mnshooter
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Removing suppressors from NFA, as they should be, would be a great start. Even in very gun restrictive European countries suppressors are an over the counter item. They are not a firearm or destructive device, they are an accessory and certainly should not be subject to the same approval process as a machine gun.

I dont like the NFA at alo but also SBRs have no reason to be there

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a joke. These people could care less about any input we might have. They have decided what they are going to do long before posting any notice requesting input from our side. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995? Duh? Form 4's we have gone from one page to what looks like a small book. Same for 4473's. The objective is more gun control and more government bureaucracy. Nothing less. I am getting forms kicked back for the most ridiculous reasons. One was kicked back because I typed out the word "Company" instead of using "Co." which was on my license. On my last audit, I had to prove that I legally owned about 30 NFA weapons because they were not on the computer print out that he had in hand. They still had weapons in my name that I sold back in the early 90's. Had to prove that as well. At least it wasn't as bad as one audit before where I had to prove legal ownership of 59 NFA weapons. If you use E-forms, you will probably find that about half of your inventory is not there either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Would never want to substitute one Federal Bureaucracy for another.

Just classify suppressors as standard firearms.

 

Any murderer who can change the batteries on a flashlight could build a suppressor right now, if they wanted one.

Plenty of advice and parts on the internet.

 

I would much prefer a legally protected capability to shoot back, in places where it's now prohibited.

-You know, the places where the mass murders always seem to happen.

My point was to to make it a safety and health issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you guys looked at the proposed forms? THey are asking for information similar to what is requested on a 4473, including the social security number (not optional however). THe problem I have is providing all of this information to a seller who may not be an FFL. Do people really want to provide that information to third parties?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you guys looked at the proposed forms? THey are asking for information similar to what is requested on a 4473, including the social security number (not optional however). THe problem I have is providing all of this information to a seller who may not be an FFL. Do people really want to provide that information to third parties?

 

Where can I see the proposed form? SSN is not acceptable to just hand out to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Have you guys looked at the proposed forms? THey are asking for information similar to what is requested on a 4473, including the social security number (not optional however). THe problem I have is providing all of this information to a seller who may not be an FFL. Do people really want to provide that information to third parties?

 

Where can I see the proposed form? SSN is not acceptable to just hand out to everyone.

I found it on FaceBook. I will look and see if I can locate the link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Have you guys looked at the proposed forms? THey are asking for information similar to what is requested on a 4473, including the social security number (not optional however). THe problem I have is providing all of this information to a seller who may not be an FFL. Do people really want to provide that information to third parties?

 

Where can I see the proposed form? SSN is not acceptable to just hand out to everyone.

 

What a beautiful scam. Pretend to sell a discount suppressor and get all of someone's personal information. Plus, what does keeping a copy of that stuff do for an FFL's record keeping requirements with respect to the safeguarding of personal information?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I saw a comment in one of the articles written about the recent Virginia mass shooting that the police had a hard time telling where the shooting was coming from in the building due to a silencer. This comment doesnt give me an over the counter feel for future ATF consideration.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a joke. These people could care less about any input we might have. They have decided what they are going to do long before posting any notice requesting input from our side. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995? Duh? Form 4's we have gone from one page to what looks like a small book. Same for 4473's. The objective is more gun control and more government bureaucracy. Nothing less. I am getting forms kicked back for the most ridiculous reasons. One was kicked back because I typed out the word "Company" instead of using "Co." which was on my license. On my last audit, I had to prove that I legally owned about 30 NFA weapons because they were not on the computer print out that he had in hand. They still had weapons in my name that I sold back in the early 90's. Had to prove that as well. At least it wasn't as bad as one audit before where I had to prove legal ownership of 59 NFA weapons. If you use E-forms, you will probably find that about half of your inventory is not there either.

Agree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  1. Social Security and UPIN. The Social Security number and UPIN are not required. However, this information assists with the efficient completion of the NICS background check. Please be aware that refusal to provide this informatin may result in a delay in the NICS backgrund check process.

 

https://www.atf.gov/n/sites/default/files/media/2019/04/f_5320._4_revision_march_27_2019_with_watermark.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...