>Actually, there is a relatively new group -- the NFATC -- supposedly working closely between the industry and the BATF. <
NFATCA was put together in 2005 as an industry and collector interest group. I have attended many of their meetings and know all of the people who make up the "management". For several prior to that, years Ken Hutchins showed exceptional ability and motivation to make some changes at ATF/NFA, and along with the move from DC to WV, he instituted many reforms. His willingness, along with several other management personnel, to come to Knob Creek and talk with MG owners and people in the business created an opening for organization of a group to try to maintain a dialogue with various personnel in ATF. NFATCA grew out of this period and continues to try to influence ATF. While I believe that most efforts to communicate with regulatory personnel at all levels is basically a good idea, I have yeat to see that NFATCA has had any influence with ATF in regard to altering policies that are in ATF's self-interest. Although the organization has been involved with various informational schemes as well as some legal policy changes, these changes were either completely in the interest of ATF or acceptable to AFT lawyers to reduce ATF legal liability, and not because NFATCA initiated them or designed them. Policy at ATF/NFA is dictated by DOJ lawyers, period. An example is the recent change in the policy regarding bluing and parkerizing of NFA controlled items. For many, many years, these processes could be done by any FFL on an NFA weapon. ATF changed the policy to require that all NFA weapons undergoing these processes must be handled by a licensed manufacturer and newly designated them as "manufacturing processes". No comprehensible reason was given, nor were there any legal problems within the industry from the process being done by regular FFLs. DOJ lwayers had discovered that in the fifties or sixties some letters describing the processes as "manufacturing processes", and so they decided that they should require them to be done only by licensed manufacturers. NFATCA had absolutely no effect on the effort to reverse the change in policy despite several meetings of industry people and collectors with ATF personnel in DC to discuss the ramifications of the needless change. At this meeting, a major NFA industry player offered to have the DOJ lawyers present who were behind the change, visit his facility at his expense to show them how the processes worked and their role in the firearms industry. None ever even responded to his invitation. The silence was deafening and the policy change stands despite being a major distupriion of the industry. This is typical. ATF is never going to 'cooperate" with the NFA community or industry in any meanigful manner.
At present ATF wants to designate any ammunition over .50 cal US as a controlled explosive, requiring an exlposives FFL for any person possessing such ammunition. This is the perfect challenge to NFATCA, but so far, from what I've been able to find out, they have nothing to report about any ability to affect this major change in policy and law. I am not optimistic. there are other policy changes that NFATCA has had an opportunity to affect but have done nothing or been iineffective.
The are excellent at promoting the organization and caliiming all sorts of successes, but as a seriously interested, as well as invested, party and fulltime CII with quite a few personal attempts to make some changes in policy at ATF through other channels, I am not especially impressed with any claims of influence with ATF by anyone outside of the agency.
Unfortunately, comments from various personnel that I know within the agency, making changes and reforms by internal means and mechanisms are just not in the books for even the most sensible of reforms. May it is too soon to tell with NFATCA, and in the long run there is alwyas hope, but there are major issues that ATF is contemplating that will have serious and detrimental consequences for the hobby and industry, so NFATCA has some big chances to prove itself.
I would add that the most influential and effective efforts to institute reforms, either voluntarily or by force, have been accomplished by individuals, and not organizations. In my opinion, unfortunately, that is what the record indicates.
Bob Naess
