While we're talking about the 4473
I found an OMB report from 1997 that reported they'd found ATF was in violation of the Paperwork Reduction Act for a period of time, with its revised 4473:
Paperwork Reduction Act Violations Top of Page
Department of Treasury/Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF)
Title: Firearms Transaction Record, Part I, Over-the-Counter, and Firearms Transaction Record, Part II, Non-Over-the-Counter (ATF F 4473, Parts I and II (5300.9))
Violation: Unauthorized Collection
How Discovered by OMB: In February 1997, the public notified OMB that ATF had revised Form 4473, Part I, without OMB approval.
OMB Action: ATF's submission of the revised forms to OMB, requesting an extension without change. were designated by OMB as improperly submitted.
Agency Response: ATF resubmitted the forms to obtain OMB approval of the revisions. Treasury has assured OMB that ATF will reexamine its internal procedures to ensure future compliance with the PRA.
The PRA requires an agency, before it issues a form asking info from the public, to get approval from OMB and to publish that at the bottom of the form. Every so many years, OMB reviews the forms to see if there is any way the time spent filling them out could be shortened.
Back in the Reagan years I urged NRA and GOA to raise the question when the 4473 came up, and a long list of suggested deletions went to OMB. They did nothing back then (the guy in charge kept saying his wife had been robbed with a gun, as a hint that they were spinning their wheels with him), but there's surely someone else in there today. I just haven't found when the form comes up for renewal, yet.
The BATFE uses it's 4473 depository in Falling Water, WV, as a backdoor registry ... and is probably in violation of the Volker-McClure amendmant to the GCA of '68.
Don't expect the BATFE to give up the 4473 without a fight.
Posted by: Kristopher at July 7, 2006 03:42 PM
Again, we are in debt to you for your knowledge of admin law.
Actually Kristopher, the big enchilada isnt the 4473s but the bound books.
Posted by: beerslurpy at July 7, 2006 07:12 PM
...and don't expect that the change of administration these last 5 years has gotten down to the level of that bureaucrat, either.
GW Bush's administration has had a sorry record of changing personnel in the Federal Civil Service. It seems that the top two levels of management in most departments were changed, and that is about as far as it got.
The best example of this is in Interior and Agriculture, where the USFS and BLM, respectively, are still churning out regulation and enforcement as if Clinton were still in authority. Out here in the Pacific Northwest, were the vast majority of the land is Federally-owned, not held privately, what the rules and regs are is very important to both individuals and the local economies. Clinton pushed a lock-up-the-land policy, and it's still in effect some 5 1/2 years into a conservative presidency. That's absurd.
It does no good to change out the top 2 levels of management, if the lower ones, the ones that actually dispense administrative edicts that affect citizens, are left intact from the previous administration.
I've always thought that incoming conservative administrations have needed a hatchet man and staff to accomplish these changes as far down the chain of authority as needed, but neither Reagan or Bush43 had one.
However, it seems that when the (D)onks gain the White House, they have little difficulty going down the admin ladders to to put their people and policies in charge.
This is a losing game for conservatives. Putting conservative judges on the Federal benches is a start, but failing to weed out adverse bureaucrats more than makes up for that, making this administration a losing proposition.
Posted by: Rivrdog at July 8, 2006 02:45 PM