Suppressor wait times

[5811]

What would be the benefit of artificially lowering for a few weeks? Also, it’s not enough to “look” at the data. What’s the historical mean? Whats the macro-trends look like? What’s the standard deviation?

I think the whole process is dumb, annoying, and costly — 100% I hate it. I’m on our side in this issue. But I just don’t see the artificial manipulation.

I dont know what the gain would be. Maybe some Congressman got his tail chewed and demanded results before the May wait time update. Maybe some lobbyists pushed on the right buttons to make times look like they are going down to boost sales for the quarter. Im not in the industry, I have no idea.

I dont think you are going to get absolute proof if thats what you are after. I just stated that it appeared to be a valid idea based on the trends. If I was to demand proof they weren't trying to lower wait times for a short term target, for whatever reason, would you use that data as evidence otherwise?

Theres a couple of sayings I stick to when analyzing data:

1- Nothing is everything, but everything is something
2- The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

 

[Curmudgeon]

They only seem to batch what's easiest to batch. Single Shot trusts (which all of mine are for a couple of personal reasons) don't meet that criteria. ATF doesn't care about fair--they're doing other batch approvals for some individuals and multiple items on a single trust, and are processing out of order.

Got another approval. Different examiner.

View attachment 550339

Congratulations!! I have serious suppressor envy.

 

[4090Sharps]

I dont know what the gain would be. Maybe some Congressman got his tail chewed and demanded results before the May wait time update. Maybe some lobbyists pushed on the right buttons to make times look like they are going down to boost sales for the quarter. Im not in the industry, I have no idea.

I dont think you are going to get absolute proof if thats what you are after. I just stated that it appeared to be a valid idea based on the trends. If I was to demand proof they weren't trying to lower wait times for a short term target, for whatever reason, would you use that data as evidence otherwise?

Theres a couple of sayings I stick to when analyzing data:

1- Nothing is everything, but everything is something
2- The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

The suspicious part of me wonders if the median approval time will drift lower toward the end of the month to bring the average returned approval time down again.

It's almost impossible to know what's really going on, but I'll reiterate that I don't think it's anything nefarious or some grand conspiracy, just some managers trying to make numbers look better to relieve pressure they're under to deliver improved results.

 

[atmat]

I dont think you are going to get absolute proof if thats what you are after.

I’m not looking for absolute proof. But folks are making claims and then saying “I dunno why they would do this, but maybe they are.” There has to be some kind of hypothesis.

I just stated that it appeared to be a valid idea based on the trends.

It may be a valid idea. But there’s more to data/trend analysis than just looking at the data. That’s why I asked about various statistical analyses in my last comment.

I was to demand proof they weren't trying to lower wait times for a short term target, for whatever reason, would you use that data as evidence otherwise?

Sorry, I’m not sure I understand this question. But I’m totally open to having my mind changed.

1- Nothing is everything, but everything is something
2- The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

These philosophical phrases are all well and good, and sound really meaningful. But they don’t do anything for investigation/RCA or data trending. By the same logic, any number of millions of explanations can be fathomed regardless of how unlikely they are to occur.

Thanks for engaging openly in conversation!

 

[atmat]

but I'll reiterate that I don't think it's anything nefarious or some grand conspiracy, just some managers trying to make numbers look better to relieve pressure they're under to deliver improved results.

The issue with this is it doesn’t actually improve their numbers long term and is unsustainable. Eventually they’d have to process the old applications; then, boom: the reported wait times would skyrocket.

 

[5811]

The issue with this is it doesn’t actually improve their numbers long term and is unsustainable. Eventually they’d have to process the old applications; then, boom: the reported wait times would skyrocket.

This is what I was insinuating that the data showed. I based my theory on your original assertion that this would be the case, actually. And with the ATF updated wait times on May 1 dropping significantly, its just too much evidence to ignore.

 

[4090Sharps]

The issue with this is it doesn’t actually improve their numbers long term and is unsustainable. Eventually they’d have to process the old applications; then, boom: the reported wait times would skyrocket.

It's unsustainable long term, but that's never stood in the way of the federal government before.

IF approval times are being selected to deliver favorable averages, the scheme could be carried out for some time while still showing slowly improving numbers. There is an unending supply of new forms to process. All you have to do is process the forms biased toward the newest ones and you can perpetually skew your averaged approved numbers lower.

And the ATF is slated to grow more in FY2024 and still has FY2023 positions to fill. They could be projecting more resources to process forms in the future, or using more existing resources to process forms post brace-rule Form 1 surge. This might be a reason to go with an approach that otherwise appears unsustainable.

 

[WildGooseChase]

Submitted 7/21/22
Approved 5/8/23

 

[Lunchbox37]

Second one released today, Certified on 7/20/22.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Been looking on Reddit and I just don't get it. Batch approval of five on 5/1/23 with wait times of 276-63 days. Batch approval of eight on 5/8/23 with wait times of 144-64 days. The common denominator is the examiner Trish Bartles. Is she like some boss with more power? Obviously I need to request more funds from the CFO of my household and get multiple suppressors in jail in order to get the attention of Trish.

 

[sacklunch]

Got one out today, certified 8/5/22.

For those that don't believe in coincidences, this came 1 day after I emailed the NFA division asking for a reference to their Reg that dictates how e-form 4's should be processed and to please explain why they are not being processed on a 1st come 1st served basis. I noted that info requested would be forwarded to my Congressman.

 

[Curmudgeon]

Examiner Trish Bartles seems to be the Batch Meister of the ATF. How about a conspiracy theory that her job is to batch suppressors where appropriate to help bring down wait times.

Ok I agree, it's really far fetched. Up too early with no caffeine yet and this is what happens to the mind

 

[sacklunch]

Examiner Trish Bartles seems to be the Batch Meister of the ATF. How about a conspiracy theory that her job is to batch suppressors where appropriate to help bring down wait times.

Ok I agree, it's really far fetched. Up too early with no caffeine yet and this is what happens to the mind

Why should they batch them...as if the gov't cares about saving the taxpayers money (that'll be someone excuse). Should be processed by earliest remaining submission date, period. If they ever actually reply to my request, which I'm sure they won't, I'll post the answer I get.

 

[atmat]

Why should they batch them...as if the gov't cares about saving the taxpayers money (that'll be someone excuse). Should be processed by earliest remaining submission date, period. If they ever actually reply to my request, which I'm sure they won't, I'll post the answer I get.

Yeah, I get your point. But if batching them saves time by way of decreased number of background checks, then ultimately that’s good for all of us.

 

[sacklunch]

It's gaming the system. So once it gets out that's the trick, everyone buys two (3, 4, 5) then you're back to square one.

 

[atmat]

It's gaming the system. So once it gets out that's the trick, everyone buys two (3, 4, 5) then you're back to square one.

But they’d still be waiting for their oldest suppressor to get to the front of the line before they get batched. Is “everyone” really going to buy another $800-$4000 worth of suppressors just to “game the system” and get the newest ones through faster?

I think it’d be helpful to know exactly what parts of the process take the most time on approvals. If the background check is 80% of the time, then batching will only benefit the system. If it’s 5% of the time, then it does seem deeply unfair to people waiting.

 

[sacklunch]

But they’d still be waiting for their oldest suppressor to get to the front of the line before they get batched. Is “everyone” really going to buy another $800-$4000 worth of suppressors just to “game the system” and get the newest ones through faster?

I think it’d be helpful to know exactly what parts of the process take the most time on approvals. If the background check is 80% of the time, then batching will only benefit the system. If it’s 5% of the time, then it does seem deeply unfair to people waiting.

Come on now...stop making excuses for them...even hand jamming the data, a NICS check takes 5 mins, max. They're cutting corners, for some reason. And I suspect it's a grey area in the regs. Like I said, I'll post it if they ever respond.

 

[atmat]

Come on now...stop making excuses for them...even hand jamming the data, a NICS check takes 5 mins.

Haha my man, I’m not making excuses. The process is terrible and slow/inefficient and should be done away with.

I honestly assumed they used some other kind of check other than NICS, but it sounds like they don’t based on what you’re saying.

 

[sacklunch]

Haha my man, I’m not making excuses. The process is terrible and slow/inefficient and should be done away with.

I honestly assumed they used some other kind of check other than NICS, but it sounds like they don’t based on what you’re saying.

I dont know if they use NICS for dure, but I'd assume so, as none of the data required for more in depth checks is required on the form 4. I asked for the data, will see if they comply.

Maybe making excuses for the is the wrong wording, apologies. But if folks dont hold them accohntable at a minimum to explain procedures, they can continue to potentially fly under the radar and do as they like. I'm assuming there is a process laid out, and maybe they are following it, but that begs the question, outside of batches, why are some form-4 trusts assigned to an examiner at an earlier date than other like form-4 trusts.

 

[ssgjpd]

my efile from 7/29/2022 was just approved. I was hoping I could get a batch approval for the other two.