SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Suppressed Weapons    Could the President direct the ATF to improve its efficiency?
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Could the President direct the ATF to improve its efficiency? Login/Join 
Member
Picture of RichardC
posted
I know repealing the NFA is Congress' duty, but could the Chief Executive officer direct the agency to hire more workers, streamline the process, and get the wait times down to a month?

Isn't it just a question of organizational inefficiency?


_____________________


 
Posts: 9149 | Location: Florida | Registered: June 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Could he, probably. Alas I suspect that's somewhere in between "fixing rush hour traffic" and "keeping potato chips from breaking in a bag" on his list of stuff to do. Other words, not a chance of it happening Wink
 
Posts: 2062 | Location: The Low Country | Registered: October 21, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of CandyMan.45
posted Hide Post
Definitely has better things to do then that, and what happens when the bottle neck clears up ? Mass firings ?! We'll be back down to about 45 days or shorter... shortly. Also there is on the books about how much BATFE is allowed to computerized... Not much!
 
Posts: 984 | Location: The Edge of Nowhere... | Registered: April 05, 2013Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Administrator
posted Hide Post
Technically yes, the President is the Chief Executive and BATFE is within the executive branch, so he can issue such an order.

It gets more complicated from there. More performance usually = more resources = more money.

"More money" can come from two places, internal to the agency, which means redoing the budget; or external to the agency, which usually means getting more money from Congress.

If POTUS doesn't go to Congress for more more money, that means something that's already in the budget will get cut. It's definitely not a deal breaker, but it can be a pain in the ass. Bureaucracies have lots of mice, but only one block of cheese and everyone wants their piece. What program at BATFE would get cut so that more employees could be allocated to the NFA branch?
 
Posts: 17213 | Registered: August 12, 2000Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of dusty3030
posted Hide Post
Not trying to be tin foil hat guy but if there was ever to be a branch to enforce a more rigid gun control set of laws it would be the BATFE. Do we want it bigger and better staffed in the big picture or do we want it small and cumbersome?
The problem is the asinine law itself and not the bureaucracy in place to enforce it.


Straight shootin!
dusty
 
Posts: 3187 | Location: Memphis, mf'n, TN | Registered: August 13, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
Picture of TRshootem
posted Hide Post
Maybe the first step should be over the counter purchase like a firearm, 4473 filled out, call made to the wonks in DC. Carry permit to allow the no call feature, take your new muffler home. This is the only way I see this ever happening, too many GDC's in DC.
 
Posts: 975 | Location: Montana | Registered: October 20, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by TRshootem:
Maybe the first step should be over the counter purchase like a firearm, 4473 filled out, call made to the wonks in DC. Carry permit to allow the no call feature, take your new muffler home. This is the only way I see this ever happening, too many GDC's in DC.


+1! Even if they had a short wait time for prints if you didn’t have a CCW, but they already have CCW holders fingerprints so this should be an over the counter transaction.... but it would be awesome if they functioned just like a firearm and everyone could just get them over the counter with a simple 4473.
 
Posts: 565 | Location: Arizona | Registered: January 31, 2014Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Kskelton:
quote:
Originally posted by TRshootem:
Maybe the first step should be over the counter purchase like a firearm, 4473 filled out, call made to the wonks in DC. Carry permit to allow the no call feature, take your new muffler home. This is the only way I see this ever happening, too many GDC's in DC.


+1! Even if they had a short wait time for prints if you didn’t have a CCW, but they already have CCW holders fingerprints so this should be an over the counter transaction.... but it would be awesome if they functioned just like a firearm and everyone could just get them over the counter with a simple 4473.


Except that the finger prints for CCW/CPL holders is in a state database/system. Now your asking for a state and federal system to communicate and be productive...................................... I think we all know the outcome of that endeavor.
 
Posts: 325 | Location: Detroit | Registered: September 21, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
I Am The Walrus
posted Hide Post
With the $200 fee, are they (government) actually making money off these?


_____________

Edmond
 
Posts: 8720 | Location: Central Florida | Registered: March 12, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Edmond:
With the $200 fee, are they (government) actually making money off these?

When the NFA was initiated in 1934, that $200 fee likely provided some amount of profit per transaction. Fast forward 84 years -- not so much.
 
Posts: 5162 | Location: Colorado | Registered: January 26, 2008Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by fritz:
quote:
Originally posted by Edmond:
With the $200 fee, are they (government) actually making money off these?

When the NFA was initiated in 1934, that $200 fee likely provided some amount of profit per transaction. Fast forward 84 years -- not so much.


A clerk spends 5 minutes reviewing the form for any reason to reject it. Otherwise it gets a stamp and gets mailed to you or your FFL. $200 for that?
 
Posts: 1762 | Registered: April 20, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Music's over turn
out the lights
Picture of David W
posted Hide Post
I am sure they were hoping the $200 tax stamp would keep people from wanting NFA items in 1934. A quick inflation calculator shows that would be $3600 in todays world. How many of us could afford that tax stamp?

This message has been edited. Last edited by: David W,


David W.

Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud. -Sophocles
 
Posts: 2871 | Location: Winston-Salem, N.C. | Registered: May 30, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
A man of few words
posted Hide Post
I posted the following on another board a couple of years ago when a similar thread was going there. I think it would solve all of the problems associated with buying in to the NFA world. The government gives up no money (we all know that they never will anyway), and we get the benefits of no wait and more R&D/better products coming out with increased revenue/sales.

quote:
Originally posted by bryanZ06:
As stated above the government isn't going to give up the money, but if dealers could issue the stamp and sell a suppressor/MG/SBR the same as any other gun it would be a win for everyone.

The government would get increased revenue from the new buyers who want an NFA item, but aren't willing to jump through the hoops and wait. The retailers would enjoy increased sales from the influx of new buyers and those of us who currently own NFA items, but might make an "impulse buy" from time to time. The manufacturers would benefit from the increased sales with more revenue that would allow for expanding the business and their workforce.

That would be a no-brainer if someone in charge was competent enough to put it in place.
 
Posts: 840 | Location: Georgia | Registered: September 09, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Graniteguy:
quote:
Originally posted by fritz:
quote:
Originally posted by Edmond:
With the $200 fee, are they (government) actually making money off these?

When the NFA was initiated in 1934, that $200 fee likely provided some amount of profit per transaction. Fast forward 84 years -- not so much.


A clerk spends 5 minutes reviewing the form for any reason to reject it. Otherwise it gets a stamp and gets mailed to you or your FFL. $200 for that?


Do you have any data that says that's how long it takes?
 
Posts: 2161 | Location: Iowa | Registered: February 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I wish they would handle it like a C&R FFL. Make a person apply every few years and transfer at will while licensed. Hell, charge me the $200...I don't care that much. Then, instead of having tens of thousands of checks to run constantly, you process new and renewal licenses only. The benefit to ATF for those of us that buy a bunch of NFA stuff would be immediate and obvious.
 
Posts: 2161 | Location: Iowa | Registered: February 24, 2011Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata  
 

SIGforum.com    Main Page  Hop To Forum Categories  Suppressed Weapons    Could the President direct the ATF to improve its efficiency?

© SIGforum 2018